Ohio's Issue #1 and Abortion Politics: Are we learning anything?

[Ken]

If the abortion referendum passes in the fall there will be legal avenues for abortion and those who don't follow them will be breaking the law.

If the abortion referendum doesn't pass in the fall there will be legal avenues for abortion (with more limits on the timing) and those who don't follow them will be breaking the law.

Josh cited immigration as an area where Americans favor restrictive laws. When in point of fact, the US has the most liberal immigration policy of any country on earth. Over 50 million Americans are first generation immigrants. No country is even a close second.

That is most certainly not the case when it comes to abortion. Especially in red states like Ohio.

We shall see how this all plays out. I don't live in Ohio and won't vote there one way or the other. But I suspect that Ohio politicians have miscalculated how much Americans despise being told what to do and how much they despise having their freedom and privacy invaded, especially when it comes to medical issues. They should have learned something about that during COVID but apparently not.

[Josh]

And I don't think it is even an issue of persuasion. It is an issue of alternatives. The Ohio Republicans who pushed the current abortion ban into place in Ohio did nothing to provide other alternatives. Alternatives to reduce unwanted pregnancy in the first place through better education and access to contraceptives.

Untrue.

Which we know works. And alternatives for young single mothers such that becoming pregnant and giving birth to a child isn't a sentence of poverty.

Untrue.

Ohio doesn't even require paid sick leave so a young woman can take time off work to give birth.

Someone who takes time off to give birth is eligible for significant amounts of state aid, including unemployment if their employer fires them or lays them off due to needing time off for a new baby. Childcare is also provided for women who choose to go back to work.

Much less do anything meaningful like provide subsidized child care so that she can go back to work after giving birth as is the case in many other industrialized countries.

Untrue.

Ohio has significant subsidised child care. (I frequently get letters in the mail asking me if I want to enroll, since I have two small children.)

So no, I don't think anything has been learned. People who cite personal freedom, privacy, and medical autonomy as reason to oppose vaccines and pandemic restrictions should not be surprised when similar arguments are persuasively made in support of reproductive rights and abortion.

The right not to inject myself with experimental substances is very different than asserting a "right" to murder a helpless baby.

[Josh]

Josh cited immigration as an area where Americans favor restrictive laws. When in point of fact, the US has the most liberal immigration policy of any country on earth. Over 50 million Americans are first generation immigrants. No country is even a close second.

My point was that when polled, Americans would support stricter immigration policy and stricter enforcement of existing immigration laws.

The fact the laws are very loose and the laws aren't enforced very much either is exactly my point. The majority doesn't want this.

[Ken]

And I don't think it is even an issue of persuasion. It is an issue of alternatives. The Ohio Republicans who pushed the current abortion ban into place in Ohio did nothing to provide other alternatives. Alternatives to reduce unwanted pregnancy in the first place through better education and access to contraceptives.

Untrue.

Which we know works. And alternatives for young single mothers such that becoming pregnant and giving birth to a child isn't a sentence of poverty.

Untrue.

Ohio doesn't even require paid sick leave so a young woman can take time off work to give birth.

Someone who takes time off to give birth is eligible for significant amounts of state aid, including unemployment if their employer fires them or lays them off due to needing time off for a new baby. Childcare is also provided for women who choose to go back to work.

Much less do anything meaningful like provide subsidized child care so that she can go back to work after giving birth as is the case in many other industrialized countries.

Untrue.

Ohio has significant subsidised child care. (I frequently get letters in the mail asking me if I want to enroll, since I have two small children.)

In point of fact, Ohio ranks DEAD LAST of all 50 states in subsidizing child care. This is from a couple of weeks ago: https://www.cleveland.com/data/2023/07/ ... -care.html

Ohio ranks dead last nationally for subsidizing child care up to age 5: Rethinking Child Care

By Zachary Smith, cleveland.com
CLEVELAND, Ohio - Despite the recent boost in the Ohio budget to raise the state’s threshold for receiving child care subsidies from 142% to 145% of the federal poverty level, Ohio still ranks at or near the bottom nationally.

Only North Carolina has a lower threshold at 133% - or $33,063 for a family of three. But even in North Carolina, the state is more generous when it comes to caring for younger children, with the threshold at double the poverty level for children ages 0 to 5.

Child care affordability and access are becoming an ever-growing problem both in Ohio and nationwide. With deep pushes from advocates, parents and leaders in the government, the meager gain raised eligibility for lower-income Ohioans to receive government-funded childcare to $36,047 annually for a three-person family.

The threshold is an important cutoff. In Ohio, for example, a parent below the threshold can apply for help to pay for their child care by contacting the county department of Job and Family Services, which will cover a portion of their child care costs depending on the parent’s income. Above that amount, however, there is no help under the program.

Ohio is not alone in raising its poverty threshold in the last year, and when it all shakes out, Ohio stands where it stood before the increase of 3 percentage points - in the bottom five states helping subsidize childcare.

Under the change, the income cutoffs in Ohio are $28,594 for a two-person household, $43,500 for a four-person household, $50,963 for a five-person housing, and increasing above that for larger families.

Using 2023 federal poverty numbers, Ohio and North Carolina are the only states that have income eligibility lower than $40,000 annually for a family of three in order to qualify for assistance toward child care expenses.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, eight states offer subsidies for those making triple the poverty level or more, with the highest cutoff being in New Mexico. There, incomes up to 400% of the poverty level - or $99,435 a year for a family of three - qualify for subsidies.

The other states are Vermont (350%), California (339%), Alaska (311%), North Dakota (307%), Hawaii (306%), New York (300%) and South Carolina (300%).

Gov. Mike DeWine initially called for expanding eligibility to 160% of the poverty line. Such a bump would have paid for 15,000 more Ohio children to attend daycare, according to Legislative Service Commission estimates. But the governor’s plan was significantly pared back as lawmakers worked on a budget that contained significant income tax cuts for higher-income people.

But even if a 160% threshold passed the budget, Ohio would have ranked Ohio 43rd out of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, tied with Iowa and only pushing the state ahead of Idaho (158%) and Florida, Missouri, Virginia, and West Virginia (150%).

While 160% was called “lofty” by critics, it doesn’t come close to how high it used to be. Will Petrik, a project director at Policy Matters Ohio, in an earlier story recounted that eligibility was up to 185% at the beginning of the 2000s.

So tax cut for the rich are more important than abortion alternatives in Ohio. Exactly what I am talking about. This is where the "are we learning anything" part comes in. Apparently *we* (or at least Ohio Republicans) are not. And this is the sort of thing (among many other examples) that you can point to if the abortion rights referendum passes this November.

And as for paid leave to give birth for young single mothers to be? Forget about that, especially in Ohio: https://innovationohio.org/io_hub/paid-leave/

Paid family and medical leave is guaranteed time off work without losing your job or paycheck for families who are welcoming a new child, providing care for a loved one with a long-term medical situation, or to get care and time to recover for a personal medical situation.

The US is the only industrialized nation that has no federal paid leave policy. That means 1 in 4 women go back to work less than 2 weeks after giving birth. Here in Ohio, a staggering 62 percent of working people cannot even qualify for unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to take care of their families. Moreover, the cost and responsibility of supporting families fall disproportionately on those who can least afford it: women, people of color, and low-wage working people.

Carrots and sticks.

[Josh]

In point of fact, Ohio ranks DEAD LAST of all 50 states in subsidizing child care. This is from a couple of weeks ago: https://www.cleveland.com/data/2023/07/ ... -care.html

I don't really care about some link you found says. My personal experience with Ohio's daycare subsidies is that they are very generous.

It is true that wealthy families with big incomes are not eligible. I don't think they need to be getting government handouts. Do you?

A family with 4 kids can make up to $58,000 and still get subsidies. I think that's plenty.

So tax cut for the rich are more important than abortion alternatives in Ohio. Exactly what I am talking about. This is where the "are we learning anything" part comes in. Apparently *we* (or at least Ohio Republicans) are not. And this is the sort of thing (among many other examples) that you can point to if the abortion rights referendum passes this November.

Ken, with respect, you don't have any idea what state aid or subsidies in Ohio are like. I do. (If my wife decided to go work full time, we would be eligible for completely paid daycare. We could even use the subsidy to pay a relative like my parents, etc. to watch the kids.) Unless, of course, we started pulling in big bucks. Then we wouldn't be eligible... and we wouldn't need it, either.

And as for paid leave to give birth for young single mothers to be? Forget about that, especially in Ohio: https://innovationohio.org/io_hub/paid-leave/

Paid family and medical leave is guaranteed time off work without losing your job or paycheck for families who are welcoming a new child, providing care for a loved one with a long-term medical situation, or to get care and time to recover for a personal medical situation.

First of all, firing someone for taking leave for childbirth is illegal. If someone has paid sick time or paid vacaation (which most jobs do) that can be used to cover time off to have a baby.

In the event someone did lose their job for it they would be immediately eligible for unemployment, or if temporarily disabled they would be eligible for other state aid for new moms including cash assistance (depending on family income and assets, of course).

The fact that my state doesn't have whatever pet welfare programs you think are important doesn't mean that plenty of support isn't provided to mothers and children. My experience has been that the social safety net is actually quite good. It's just not universal - subsidies aren't offered to wealthy people with big incomes.

In any case, most employers here are busy trying to find people to work, not finding excuses to fire people. Employers that get a reputation for firing people for something like having a baby aren't going to have a very easy time getting new hires. And full time jobs have to comply with FMLA anyway.

The idea that it should be OK to murder a helpless baby because an employer isn't giving someone extra vacation days is absurd.

[Ken]

In point of fact, Ohio ranks DEAD LAST of all 50 states in subsidizing child care. This is from a couple of weeks ago: https://www.cleveland.com/data/2023/07/ ... -care.html

I don't really care about some link you found says. My personal experience with Ohio's daycare subsidies is that they are very generous.

It is true that wealthy families with big incomes are not eligible. I don't think they need to be getting government handouts. Do you?

A family with 4 kids can make up to $58,000 and still get subsidies. I think that's plenty.

So tax cut for the rich are more important than abortion alternatives in Ohio. Exactly what I am talking about. This is where the "are we learning anything" part comes in. Apparently *we* (or at least Ohio Republicans) are not. And this is the sort of thing (among many other examples) that you can point to if the abortion rights referendum passes this November.

Ken, with respect, you don't have any idea what state aid or subsidies in Ohio are like. I do. (If my wife decided to go work full time, we would be eligible for completely paid daycare. We could even use the subsidy to pay a relative like my parents, etc. to watch the kids.) Unless, of course, we started pulling in big bucks. Then we wouldn't be eligible... and we wouldn't need it, either.

And as for paid leave to give birth for young single mothers to be? Forget about that, especially in Ohio: https://innovationohio.org/io_hub/paid-leave/

Paid family and medical leave is guaranteed time off work without losing your job or paycheck for families who are welcoming a new child, providing care for a loved one with a long-term medical situation, or to get care and time to recover for a personal medical situation.

First of all, firing someone for taking leave for childbirth is illegal. If someone has paid sick time or paid vacaation (which most jobs do) that can be used to cover time off to have a baby.

In the event someone did lose their job for it they would be immediately eligible for unemployment, or if temporarily disabled they would be eligible for other state aid for new moms including cash assistance (depending on family income and assets, of course).

The fact that my state doesn't have whatever pet welfare programs you think are important doesn't mean that plenty of support isn't provided to mothers and children. My experience has been that the social safety net is actually quite good. It's just not universal - subsidies aren't offered to wealthy people with big incomes.

In any case, most employers here are busy trying to find people to work, not finding excuses to fire people. Employers that get a reputation for firing people for something like having a baby aren't going to have a very easy time getting new hires. And full time jobs have to comply with FMLA anyway.

The idea that it should be OK to murder a helpless baby because an employer isn't giving someone extra vacation days is absurd.

Defend Ohio's "generous" social welfare system for unwed mothers and poor families all you want.

The point is that the women who are likely to vote to restore abortion rights in Ohio in November don't see it that way. And if the ballot measure passes it will be, in part, because the state and the pro-life movement has done a horrible job of communicating that they care about reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place and supporting young unwed mothers, as opposed to simply criminalizing abortion and being done with it. I'm not the one you need to convince. I'm not an Ohio voter.

And if the measure passes it will once again mean "no, we haven't learned anything" Americans like carrots, they don't like sticks.

[Josh]

Defend Ohio's "generous" social welfare system for unwed mothers and poor families all you want.

The point is that the women who are likely to vote to restore abortion rights in Ohio in November don't see it that way.

Most of the exit polling against Issue 1 was from wealthy, liberal upper-middle-class sort of people.

And if the ballot measure passes it will be, in part, because the state and the pro-life movement has done a horrible job of communicating that they care about reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place and supporting young unwed mothers, as opposed to simply criminalizing abortion and being done with it. I'm not the one you need to convince. I'm not an Ohio voter.

Ken, you sit here and tell me how terrible Ohio is for "not supporting unwed mothers" when in fact I see a great deal of support (in fact, a bit too much - I think it's a bad idea to incentivise unwed mothers; I think having children in wedlock should be encouraged, and fornication and single parenthhood should be discouraged. But that's a discussion for another day.)

I think murder should be "criminalised" and I make zero apologies for saying that. Theft is illegal too. We don't say "Well, we have to first fix all poverty problems before we can make theft illegal." Sometimes something can actually be illegal, and people can engage in personal responsibility to avoid doing something illegal or harmful.

Nobody has to get pregnant. You can choose to not have sex, or you can choose to use birth control. You can choose to make sure you only have a baby once married. These are simple, obvious choices.

We need fewer "young unwed mothers", not more. We don't need more people raising litters of children who grow up to be criminals.

[Ken]

Defend Ohio's "generous" social welfare system for unwed mothers and poor families all you want.

The point is that the women who are likely to vote to restore abortion rights in Ohio in November don't see it that way.

Most of the exit polling against Issue 1 was from wealthy, liberal upper-middle-class sort of people.

And if the ballot measure passes it will be, in part, because the state and the pro-life movement has done a horrible job of communicating that they care about reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place and supporting young unwed mothers, as opposed to simply criminalizing abortion and being done with it. I'm not the one you need to convince. I'm not an Ohio voter.

Ken, you sit here and tell me how terrible Ohio is for "not supporting unwed mothers" when in fact I see a great deal of support (in fact, a bit too much - I think it's a bad idea to incentivise unwed mothers; I think having children in wedlock should be encouraged, and fornication and single parenthhood should be discouraged. But that's a discussion for another day.)

I think murder should be "criminalised" and I make zero apologies for saying that. Theft is illegal too. We don't say "Well, we have to first fix all poverty problems before we can make theft illegal." Sometimes something can actually be illegal, and people can engage in personal responsibility to avoid doing something illegal or harmful.

Nobody has to get pregnant. You can choose to not have sex, or you can choose to use birth control. You can choose to make sure you only have a baby once married. These are simple, obvious choices.

We need fewer "young unwed mothers", not more. We don't need more people raising litters of children who grow up to be criminals.

What I am actually telling you is that NO MATTER WHAT THE ISSUE, American's don't like seeing their medical autonomy, freedom, and privacy being taken away. If we learned anything from the public melt downs over COVID policy it should be that. Abortion is absolutely no different. In fact, forced pregnancy is a MUCH bigger violation of personal freedom and medical autonomy than being asked to get a shot or wear a mask in Wal-Mart.

And I am also telling you that if you want to implement sustainable long-term policies to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions in this country the more effective approach is always going to be to focus on carrots rather than sticks. That's just my opinion of course but it is supported by plenty of evidence.

Ohio has chosen to go in a different direction and we will see how it turns out. I suspect I will be proven right. And if the abortion rights referendum passes it won't be just "wealthy, liberal upper-middle-class sort of people." casting the yes votes as you put it. There aren't nearly enough of them in Ohio to represent anything close to a majority. It will be a broad majority of Ohioans making the decision. If abortion rights were upheld with broad majorities in Kansas I suspect they will also win in Ohio. Next up after that would be Missouri and Arizona. We shall see I guess.

[Valerie]

Our local paper had an article stating Ohio is pretty unani.ous against the abortion on the ballot in November- I didn't get to read the article, just headline. Hope & pray that's true.

[GaryK]

Defend Ohio's "generous" social welfare system for unwed mothers and poor families all you want.

The point is that the women who are likely to vote to restore abortion rights in Ohio in November don't see it that way.

Most of the exit polling against Issue 1 was from wealthy, liberal upper-middle-class sort of people.

And if the ballot measure passes it will be, in part, because the state and the pro-life movement has done a horrible job of communicating that they care about reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place and supporting young unwed mothers, as opposed to simply criminalizing abortion and being done with it. I'm not the one you need to convince. I'm not an Ohio voter.

Ken, you sit here and tell me how terrible Ohio is for "not supporting unwed mothers" when in fact I see a great deal of support (in fact, a bit too much - I think it's a bad idea to incentivise unwed mothers; I think having children in wedlock should be encouraged, and fornication and single parenthhood should be discouraged. But that's a discussion for another day.)

I think murder should be "criminalised" and I make zero apologies for saying that. Theft is illegal too. We don't say "Well, we have to first fix all poverty problems before we can make theft illegal." Sometimes something can actually be illegal, and people can engage in personal responsibility to avoid doing something illegal or harmful.

Nobody has to get pregnant. You can choose to not have sex, or you can choose to use birth control. You can choose to make sure you only have a baby once married. These are simple, obvious choices.

We need fewer "young unwed mothers", not more. We don't need more people raising litters of children who grow up to be criminals.

What I am actually telling you is that NO MATTER WHAT THE ISSUE, American's don't like seeing their medical autonomy, freedom, and privacy being taken away. If we learned anything from the public melt downs over COVID policy it should be that. Abortion is absolutely no different. In fact, forced pregnancy is a MUCH bigger violation of personal freedom and medical autonomy than being asked to get a shot or wear a mask in Wal-Mart.

And I am also telling you that if you want to implement sustainable long-term policies to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions in this country the more effective approach is always going to be to focus on carrots rather than sticks. That's just my opinion of course but it is supported by plenty of evidence.

Ohio has chosen to go in a different direction and we will see how it turns out. I suspect I will be proven right. And if the abortion rights referendum passes it won't be just "wealthy, liberal upper-middle-class sort of people." casting the yes votes as you put it. There aren't nearly enough of them in Ohio to represent anything close to a majority. It will be a broad majority of Ohioans making the decision. If abortion rights were upheld with broad majorities in Kansas I suspect they will also win in Ohio. Next up after that would be Missouri and Arizona. We shall see I guess.

Forced pregnancy??? If 2 people have consensual sex and the woman gets pregnant, how is it a "forced pregnancy"?