NJ and Ohio

[lagilman]

Anyone want a reason why not to live in Ohio? Apparently, State Rep. Tom Brinkman has advanced a bill that would ban ALL abortions -- even when needed to save the mother's life.

Once you become pregnant in Ohio, it would seem you are no longer a citizen with rights, but an incubator whose sole purpose is to kick out babies -- no matter the risk to mother or baby.

I have yet to hear that they're making birth control available to anyone who doesn't want to become a parent.



Meanwhile, in my former home state, the NJ Senate will vote on Monday on S1195, legislation that establishes a pharmacy's duty to fill prescriptions for in-stock drugs or devices without delay, notwithstanding sincerely-held moral, philosophical, or religious beliefs of a pharmacist.

*fingers crossed that S1195 passes*

Comments

[chaoticgoodnik.livejournal.com]

Having lived there for 9 years, there are many things I love about Columbus. But Ohio, in general, is politically backward in many ways. Alas.

[ex-fashioni.livejournal.com]

Gods, that's depressing. I lived in Ohio for ten years (Cleveland area) and loved it. Never had a problem obtaining birth control or decent health care or dealt with any religious wingnuts over why I was homeschooling without a religious agenda. Then again, I was living in an actively Democratic area.

Which is why, I can still say I miss it, because right now, I'm living in a seriously red area of Florida and it chafes like bad polyester shorts.

[thecityofdis.livejournal.com]

notwithstanding sincerely-held moral, philosophical, or religious beliefs of a pharmacist

I'm a little fuzzy on this - do I take it to mean that a pharamacist still won't have to fulfill a prescription they don't "morally" agree with?

[lagilman]

No, 'notwithsanding' means that no matter their personal opinions/beliefs, the law of the state says they must fill all legally-filed prescriptions.

[thecityofdis.livejournal.com]

Aha! Excellent!

I miss New Jersey.

[kradical.livejournal.com]

Well, it's not like I'd ever want to live in Ohio anyhow. I've been there twice, and it filled me with a deep-seated desire to never set foot in the miserable place again. This just gives me another reason.

[horrorofitall.livejournal.com]

The Ohio bill is actually more of a ruse to get it to the courts so it can be pushed up to the SCOTUS hoping that the new appointees would affirm the new law rather than strike it down.

[purpledusk.livejournal.com]

That Bill has been in the works for years. It will never go through, they just bring it up whenever there's a political need. "Well...so what if we cut education spending AGAIN...look at all the BAAAAAABIES being MUUUURRRDERED!" It doesn't really even work here anymore. Though it has been very effective in the past.

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

[sigh] Pro choice, or no choice.

[neutronjockey.livejournal.com]

If you're saying that the trend is to force the Supreme Court to pass federal laws vice each state governing under it's own jurisdiction--- I'd have to agree. I 'm seeing a disturbing trend in which our rights are being dictated by a central government that is gaining power and control daily.
*fear*

-=Jeff=-

[lagilman]

you say this as though it being 'a ruse' makes it somehow okay, or less of a threat to a woman's right to choose if she will be a parent or not? Because it's still as anti-woman-as-adult-with-rights bit of proposed legislation as I've ever seen and the mind that supports it scares the hell out of me...

[lagilman]

see above comment about that not making it any more 'okay.'

[purpledusk.livejournal.com]

While I totally understand your feelings on it...it's been here for years, literally. We've gotten upset, written our reps, written judges...you can't stop people from introducing legislature (and I guess that's a good thing). Those of us who are pro-choice in OH cannot afford to be upset about that Bill all the time because it's not going away. It's not going to pass, but it's not going away. This is not a new thing in OH, that's not to say that it's OK, however it has had no lasting effect on women's lives here or abortion access. I hate it for what it is, but I'm not going to get upset about what it isn't (it isn't viable and won't pass). It's not even a constitutional Bill (one state cannot make conditions on laws in another state).

I focus more on the things in OH that need fixing and are things I can fix. If that makes sense...which is debatable. From the outsider's prespective I've seen this Bill be controversial countless times, but always from people outside OH for whom it is new and fresh and revolting. For those of us dealing with the climate in OH all the time and working for change, it's gotten down to a dull roar. We're more focused on access to Plan B in every hospital, especially for victims of sexual assault. We can't waste our energies on a Bill that has yet to come for a vote, and isn't going to pass while there are far more pressing and real matters at hand. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, if we have to, but that's entirely unlikely.

[lagilman]

Okay, gods know I understand the picking and choosing of battles. But:

one state cannot make conditions on laws in another state

A) try telling that to couples married in MA who are being told that their union is not legal in other states

and B) again, why does that somehow make it better, that there is a portion of the population in Ohio (obviously, if he's playing to that constituency)that thinks this legislation is something that should be introduced? My point still stands: not having a happy about Ohio as a place to be.

[horrorofitall.livejournal.com]

No I never said it was OK. I was just noting that the reason the Ohio bill is so strict is to force the hand of pro-choice advocates to file suit in order for it to track it's way through the courts and up to SCOTUS where pro-life advocates hope that the Roberts Court would overturn Roe v. Wade.

There aer already laws on the book sof several States that limit abortion and most have passed judicial review at the lower court level. However a full ban, no matter the conditions, of abortion would surely make it's way to teh state courts. At the State level it would be deemed unconstitutional and appealed. THe only thing keeping it form reachign SCOTUS would be not being granted cert by the Justices.

I suspect a law as absolute as this would more than likely be ruled unconstitutional in the State courts and SCOTUS would probably not grant cert since there is plenty of precedence that a law as absolute as this never passes muster.

[horrorofitall.livejournal.com]

SCOTUS doesn't pass laws. It intreprets them. So yes you may start seeing trends to push the limits of what the right wing may thing they may get overturned now with more of a majority on the court.

[purpledusk.livejournal.com]

A) Which is exactly how that works. One state cannot force another state to follow their laws. You can't make Inidiana follow Ohio's abortion laws, and you can't force PA to follow MA's marriage laws.

B) It doesn't make it better or "OK" though I doubt it's possible to find a state that either does not or has not had such legislation. There are very few states that support the rights of women because this country refuses to relinquish patriarchal control. I just mean, not that it's OK, but that OH is neither more or less happy than other places. I guess I look at it from the perspective of an Ohioan. We've gotten rid of laws forcing teachers to "disclaim" evolution before teaching it. We've made progress on marital rape laws (though not enough) we've gotten Plan B awareness and sexual assault prevention education in to some local schools. I'm defensive about my state...ewww, never thought I'd say this, but I actually like it here *gets scared* Don't tell anyone.

[greeneyedkzin.livejournal.com]

I left Ohio when I was 18 but have ties back there, good and bad (the bad including Kent State), and I've lived in New York for almost 30 years. It seems to me that Ohio, like New York State, is purple -- or maybe split between red and blue, downstate and the West and upstate and the Northeast (which was where I was from), rural and Rust Belt.

There's a lot of strange stuff coming out of the woodwork, always has been. At the same time, there are some places that are strongly and strangely Democrat.

I have no doubt that this state rep has come out of the woodwork, but there's something else to consider: it's 2006, and Ohio is a swing state in presidential elections. This guy will get rewarded if he can help deliver it to the Republicans again. And who knows? If he's a young guy with the stereotypical family of Kute Kidz and non-working or part-timing yesdear, he may have ambitions.

There are always undertones. As well as Ohioans who decide they don't APPROVE of such things, they're just not right, and take quiet and effective action.

Please watch the generalizations

[johnwrt1.livejournal.com]

I grew up on Long Island, went to school in "Upsate NY" and later moved to Ohio for over 20 years now. In spite of all the press the state gets, it actually represents a cross section of the country. That means it includes people who don't agree with you (no matter who you are). Southern ohio is very much a "bible belt" region, while north east Ohio was actually once part of Connecticut (and it shows). I think most people in Ohio think most of the politicians are ... well I shouldn't use those words in public :-) The state is actually a purple state and most of us would actually like to see moderate politicians who can actually think and debate things based on the relative long term trade-offs for people and society. We don't often see that. So instead what you see is a balance of greedy idiots on both sides. Have to run..

Re: Please watch the generalizations

[johnwrt1.livejournal.com]

Ok so my frustration with politicians shows a little. The point is that Ohio actually has a very broad spectrum of viewpoints in it. That is good. It also means that no matter what your opinion, there are some people here that will have a very different view. So there will be some that will try your patience. My unscientific observation is that the majority here didn’t think either candidate in the last election had their heads screwed on straight. Forced to choose … Being a Democrat myself, I was more upset that the party couldn’t come up with someone and some approach that would win a very important election. My humble opinion is that they gave it away. For all of Clinton’s faults, he understood where the majority of Americans stood on issues. The party continues to drift further and further from this understanding. You may hate Bush folks, but he did better in the second election than he did the first time. You had better ask yourselves why if you don’t want the next person to be worse. Don’t take any comfort in his low poll numbers. They are unimportant since he isn’t running next time. The person who will win is the one who can put together a platform that makes sense to the majority of people in the middle. That is much harder than coming up with a platform that appeals to those at one extreme or the other. The Democrats lost because unfortunately, the Republicans did a better job of this. Ohio wound up being a swing state because it reflects the broad spectrum of opinions in America, not because it only has crazy people in it.

Don’t take any comfort in the news reports either; the last election demonstrated just how poorly the news media understood what is going on.

As long as I am making a fool of myself, let’s talk about the actual issue. Mentioning “pro-choice” to someone who thinks you are killing babies won’t get you anywhere. You need to debate the issue on their ground. When does life begin? It doesn’t - it is a continuum and every egg or sperm that doesn’t result in a baby is a life that has died. Does that imply that as soon as a woman is capable of having babies, she should be kept constantly pregnant even if she isn’t married? I don’t think any on the right would say that is the proper approach. What about all that male sperm? There aren’t enough women to go around to solve that problem are there? And what did Christ say about abortion? Not a thing really. It was considered a male roman husband’s right to decide if a baby was to be killed AFTER birth (talk about crude abortion). No where does he talk about this, because in his time it was accepted. Christ was not a conservative and would be shocked at what people say in his name. Well perhaps he would expect it since he upset people by hanging around prostitutes and the poor. Ask people on the right about the correlation between more access to abortion and birth control and the significant drop in the crime rate. Don’t argue with them about free-choice no matter how much you believe in it. You have to discuss it in their terms if you want any chance of affecting their opinion.

<Climbs off his soap box. My apologies to you Laura for putting this on your blog. I hope you don't mind too much. John

[merlinpole.livejournal.com]

I remember thinking that I seemed to be allergic to Ohio where I was there on business some years back...