Next week, Issue 1 is on the ballot in Ohio. This proposed constitutional amendment would place legal abortion in Ohio’s state constitution. One of the key arguments made by pro-lifers in opposition to Issue 1 is that it would jeopardize many popular pro-life protections currently in place and specifically Ohio’s pro-life parental-involvement law. Indeed, if voters approve Issue 1, pro-lifers argue, judges could strike down Ohio’s parental-consent law and minor girls would be able to obtain abortions without parental permission.
Ohio media outlets that have covered Issue 1 have made a concerted effort to downplay these concerns raised by pro-lifers. In their coverage of Issue 1’s impact on parental rights, Ohio media outlets typically interview various professors at Ohio law schools who say that pro-life concerns about parental rights are overblown. These law professors argue that Ohio’s pro-life parental-involvement law is safe regardless of what happens on Election Day.
However, a look at other states shows that the concerns of Buckeye State pro-lifers are well founded. Indeed, pro-life parental-involvement laws have been struck down in several other states where state constitutions offer far less protection to legal abortion than what Issue 1 is proposing. State supreme courts in both New Jersey and California have both struck down pro-life parental involvement laws. In each decision, the court argued that such laws violated constitutional rights to privacy. Additionally, in 2016, the Alaska supreme court struck down a pro-life parental-involvement law on the ground that it violated constitutional equal-protection provisions.
In particular, Florida’s experience with parental-involvement laws should concern pro-lifers. In 1980, Florida voters approved a legislative referendum, Amendment 2, that placed privacy rights in the state constitution. Most of the discussion over the amendment dealt with government surveillance, including warrantless wiretaps. Abortion was simply not a salient issue during legislative debate or the campaign. However, in 1989 and then 2003, the Florida supreme court struck down pro-life parental-involvement laws, specifically citing the 1980 privacy amendment. As a result, Florida pro-lifers had to amend the state constitution by direct democracy in 2004 in order give the legislature the ability to pass a parental-involvement law
During the Issue 1 campaign, Ohio pro-lifers have shrewdly emphasized the importance of the state’s parental involvement law, which took effect in 1990. Parental-involvement laws are popular. Prior to Dobbs they were in effect in over 30 states and they almost always command majority support in various public-opinion polls. Given that, it is unsurprising that supporters of legal abortion and their allies in academia and the mainstream media have made a concerted effort to downplay pro-life concerns about Issue 1’s impact on parental rights. However, on numerous occasions, state courts have struck down parental-involvement laws. This has happened even in states where abortion was not explicitly protected by the state constitution. This shows that the concerns of Ohio pro-lifers are well founded.