¶ LaRose On Abortion
¶ LaRose Voted For Anti-Choice Bills
¶ LaRose Voted Twice To Ban Abortions After 20-Weeks If The Fetus Was Viable With No Exceptions Besides For The Health Of The Pregnant Individual
2011: Frank LaRose Voted To Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks Of Gestation If The Fetus Were To Be Determined As Viable, With Exceptions For Medical Emergencies. In April 2011, according to the Ohio General Assembly Archives, Frank LaRose voted for Senate Bill 72, which would “revise the criminal laws governing post-viability abortions.” The vote was on passage. The Ohio Senate passed the bill by a vote of 24 to 8, thus the bill was sent to the House for their consideration. The House did not take action on S.B. 72, but instead the Ohio General Assembly passed the House-version of the bill, H.B. 78. [Ohio Senate Journal, 4/6/11; Ohio General Assembly Archives – Votes, 4/6/11; Ohio General Assembly Archives – S.B. 72, Accessed on 3/23/23]
- S.B. 72 Sought To Require Viability Testing After The 20th Week Of Pregnancy And Prohibit Abortions After Viability, With Exceptions For The Risk Of Death Or Impairment By The Pregnant Individual. According to ACLU - Ohio, “SB 72 and its companion bill HB 78 aim to change Ohio law to require viability testing beginning at the 20th week of pregnancy and to ban all abortions once viability is confirmed, except in the case of a medical emergency, which are only situations in which there is risk of death or ‘a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function’ to the woman.”[ACLU - Ohio, Accessed on 3/23/23]
- S.B. 72 Sought To Require Doctors To Determine The Fetal Viability Of Pregnancies And Seek A Second Opinion Over The Viability, And Abortions Would Be Restricted For Vital Fetuses, Except For The Woman’s Risk Of Death Or Irreversible Impairment. According to Jurist, “The Ohio Senate [official website] on Wednesday approved a bill [SB 72 text, PDF] that would limit the availability of abortions [JURIST news archive] after 20 weeks. The act, which was approved 24-8 by the Republican-dominated assembly, requires doctors to determine the viability of the fetus and seek a second opinion as to whether the child is capable of surviving outside of the womb. In the event that the fetus is viable, an abortion would only be made available if the woman faced ‘death or a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.’” [Jurist, 4/7/11]
- S.B. 72 Was Part Of State Legislatures’ Attempts To Restrict Abortions After Disputes Over Medical Evidence That Suggested Fetuses Experience Pain After 20 Weeks Of Gestation. According to Jurist, “Ohio’s Senate bill is part of a wave of acts passed by state legislatures since the November elections aimed at restricting abortions in the wake of disputed medical evidence that suggests that fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks [Reuters report].” [Jurist, 4/7/11]
- S.B. 72 Would Have Directed The Medical Board To Revoke The Medical Licensure Of Physicians Who Perform Post-Viability Abortions And Imposed Civil Liability On Doctors Who Perform Or Attempt To Perform Such Abortions. According to the S.B. 72 Bill Analysis from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, “Requires the Medical Board to revoke a physician's license to practice medicine if the physician violates the provisions governing post-viability abortions. Imposes civil liability on a physician who performs or induces or attempts to perform or induce a post-viability abortion, conditioned on the physician having actual knowledge that the applicable affirmative defenses are not applicable or with heedless indifference as to whether the defenses are applicable and permits courts in such actions to award injunctive or other appropriate equitable relief.” [Ohio Legislative Service Commission – S.B. 72, Accessed on 3/23/23]
- S.B. 72 Would Have Prohibited Abortions After 20 Weeks Of Gestation, With Exceptions For Medical Emergencies Or If The Physician Were To Determine The Fetus Was Unviable. According to the S.B. 72 Bill Analysis from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, “Prohibits, except in a medical emergency, an abortion after the 20th week of gestation unless the physician determines, in the physician's good faith medical judgment, that the unborn child is not viable after performing required tests to determine the unborn child's viability.” [Ohio Legislative Service Commission – S.B. 72, Accessed on 3/23/23]
- S.B. 72 Would Have Established Reporting Requirements For Doctors Who Perform Or Attempt To Perform Abortions. According to the S.B. 72 Bill Analysis from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, “Requires a physician who performs or induces or attempts to perform or induce an abortion to submit a report with certain specified information to the Department of Health within 15 days after the woman is discharged and provides for certain penalties if the physician fails to submit a report within a certain period of time or in accordance with a court order. Provides that if a physician fails to comply with the reporting requirements described in the previous dot point the physician is subject to disciplinary action by the State Medical Board. Prohibits a person from falsifying any required report and provides that whoever violates this prohibition is guilty of abortion report falsification, a misdemeanor of the first degree.” [Ohio Legislative Service Commission – S.B. 72, Accessed on 3/23/23]
2011: Frank LaRose Voted To Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks Of Gestation If The Fetus Were To Be Determined As Viable, With Exceptions For The Protection Of The Health Of The Pregnant Individual. In July 2011, according to the Ohio General Assembly Archives, Frank LaRose voted for House Bill 78, which would “revise the criminal laws governing post-viability abortions.” The vote was on passage. The Ohio Senate passed the bill by a vote of 22 to 7, thus the bill was sent to Governor John Kasich and it ultimately became law. [Ohio Senate Journal, 7/13/11; Ohio General Assembly Archives – Votes, 7/13/11; Ohio General Assembly Archives – H.B. 78, Accessed on 4/4/23]
- H.B. 78 Banned Late-Term Abortion At 20 Weeks After Gestation Unless A Physician Were To Determine The Fetus Was Unviable. According to The Plain Dealer via Cleveland.com, “Republican Gov. John Kasich on Wednesday signed into law a late-term abortion ban that supporters say protects life and critics call dangerous and a violation of women's rights. House Bill 78 bans abortions when a pregnancy is 20 weeks along unless a doctor determines a fetus cannot live outside the womb -- a condition known as viability.” [The Plain Dealer via Cleveland.com, 7/20/11]
- NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Argued H.B. 78’s Exception To The Abortion Ban Was Too Narrow And Did Not Included Instances Of Rape Or Incest. According to The Plain Dealer via Cleveland.com, “NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio condemned the ban. Although there is an exception to the ban if a pregnant woman's life is at risk, the abortion-rights group said the ban's health exception is too narrow and does not include cases of rape or incest.” [The Plain Dealer via Cleveland.com, 7/20/11]
- H.B. 78 Banned Abortions If A Doctor Were To Determine Viability Of A Fetus, Which Is Typically Determined At 23 To 24 Weeks Of Pregnancy. According to The Plain Dealer via Nexis, “The Ohio Senate on Wednesday passed a late-term abortion ban, the latest of several abortion-related bills the GOP-controlled legislature has approved this year over the consistent objections of Democrats and abortion-rights groups. The ban would prohibit abortions when a doctor determines a fetus can live outside the womb - a condition known as viability, which is typically when a pregnancy is 23 to 24 weeks along.” [The Plain Dealer via Nexis, 7/14/11]
- H.B. 78 Required Doctors To Test For Viability When A Pregnant Individual Is Over 20 Weeks Pregnant. According to The Plain Dealer via Nexis, “Doctors would be required to test for viability when a woman is 20 weeks' pregnant or more.” [The Plain Dealer via Nexis, 7/14/11]
- H.B. 78 Banned Abortions For Viable Pregnancies, Unless The Pregnant Mother’s Life Were In Danger. According to the Daily Record (Wooster, Ohio) via Nexis, “HB 78 will block abortions in cases where an unborn child could survive outside of the womb, except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.” [Daily Record (Wooster, Ohio) via Nexis, 7/25/11]
- H.B. 78 Required The Ohio State Medical Board To Revoke The License To Practice Medicine If A Physician Were To Perform A Post-Viability Abortion. According to the H.B. 78 Final Analysis from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, “Requires the State Medical Board to revoke a physician's license to practice medicine if the physician violates the provisions governing post-viability abortions.” [Ohio Legislative Service Commission – H.B. 78 Final Analysis, Accessed on 4/4/13]
- H.B. 78 Imposed A Civil Liability On Physicians Who Perform Or Attempt To Perform A Post-Viability Abortion. According to the H.B. 78 Final Analysis from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, “Imposes civil liability on a physician who performs or induces or attempts to perform or induce a post-viability abortion, conditioned on the physician having actual knowledge that the applicable affirmative defenses are not applicable or with heedless indifference as to whether the defenses are applicable, and permits courts in such actions to award injunctive or other appropriate equitable relief.” [Ohio Legislative Service Commission – H.B. 78 Final Analysis, Accessed on 4/4/13]
- H.B. 78 Instructed The Ohio Medical Board To Suspend The License To Practice For At Least 6 Months Of Physicians Who Fail To Conduct Viability Testing To Pregnant Individuals Seeking Abortions After The 20th Week Of Gestation. According to the H.B. 78 Final Analysis from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, “Requires the State Medical Board to suspend for a period of not less than six months a physician's license to practice medicine if the physician violates the provisions governing viability testing.” [Ohio Legislative Service Commission – H.B. 78 Final Analysis, Accessed on 4/4/13]
- H.B. 78 Established Reporting Requirements For Doctors Who Perform Or Attempt To Perform Abortions. Requires a physician who performs or induces or attempts to perform or induce an abortion to submit a report with specified information to the Department of Health within 15 days after the woman is discharged and provides for certain penalties if the physician fails to submit a report within a certain period of time or in accordance with a court order. According to the H.B. 78 Final Analysis from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, “Provides that if a physician fails to comply with the reporting requirements, the physician is subject to disciplinary action by the State Medical Board. Prohibits a person from falsifying any required report and provides that whoever violates this prohibition is guilty of abortion report falsification, a misdemeanor of the first degree.” [Ohio Legislative Service Commission – H.B. 78 Final Analysis, Accessed on 4/4/13]
¶ LaRose Voted Twice For And Was A Co-Sponsor Of A Ban Of “Dilation –And-Evacuation” Abortions With No Exceptions Beside For The Health Of The Pregenant Person
2017: Frank LaRose Voted To Ban Dilation-And-Evacuation Abortions, Also Known As “Dismemberment Abortions,” With An Exemption For The Health Of The Mother, And Impose Penalties On Physicians Who Perform Such Abortions. In June 2017, according to the Ohio Senate, Frank LaRose voted for Senate Bill 145, which would, “criminalize and create a civil action for dismemberment abortions.” The vote was on passage. The Ohio Senate passed the bill by a vote of 24 to 9, thus the bill was sent to the House for their consideration. [Ohio Senate Journal, 6/28/17; Ohio Senate – Votes, 6/28/17; Ohio Senate – S.B. 145, Accessed on 5/11/23]
- 2017-2018: Frank LaRose Co-Sponsored Senate Bill 145. [Ohio Senate – S.B. 145, Accessed on 5/11/23]
- S.B. 145 Banned The Most Common Abortion Procedure For Pregnant Individuals In Their Second Trimester. According to The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, “In a move that prompted an outcry in the legislative chamber, the Ohio Senate approved a measure Wednesday that would ban the most commonly used abortion procedure for women in the second trimester of pregnancy. The legislation passed by a vote of 24-9, with all Democrats opposing it. It now heads to the House. Opponents in the chamber shouted ‘shame’ after the final vote count was announced.” [The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, 6/29/17]
- S.B. 145 Prohibited Dilation-And-Evacuation Abortions, Called Dismemberment By Anti-Abortion Activists, With Exceptions For The Mother’s Health But No Exceptions For Rape Or Incest. According to The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, “Senate Bill 145 would institute prohibitions on dilation-and-evacuation abortions, a process dubbed ‘dismemberment’ by abortion opponents. The bill includes an exception when the mother's health is in danger, but it has no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.” [The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, 6/29/17]
- S.B. 145 Charged Physicians Who Perform Dilation-And-Evacuation Abortions With “Dismemberment Feticide,” A Fourth Degree Felony. According to The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, “Additionally, it would institute criminal penalties against doctors who perform the procedure -- the crime would be ‘dismemberment feticide,’ a fourth-degree felony -- with protections for the pregnant women involved.” [The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, 6/29/17]
- Opponents Argued S.B. 145 Would Ban An Abortion Procedure That Was Considered Safe And Preferred By Doctors And Would Be Costly Due To Legal Challenges. According to The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, “Opponents also said the legislation would bar an abortion procedure that is deemed safe and preferred by physicians, and it would lead to millions of dollars in legal challenge costs.” [The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, 6/29/17]
- Dilation And Evacuation Abortions Typically Take Place 13-15 Weeks Into A Pregnancy, In The Second Trimester. According to the Toledo Blade via Nexis, “The Ohio Senate voted Wednesday to ban the most common method of second-trimester abortion. The bill, sponsored by Sens. Matt Huffman (R., Lima) and Steve Wilson (R., Maineville), would ban dilation and evacuation, an abortion procedure that typically takes place 13-15 weeks into a pregnancy. The Senate passed the bill 24-9. It will next go before the House.” [Toledo Blade via Nexis, 6/29/17]
- Dilation And Evacuation Abortions Sometimes Are Performed After Miscarriages. According to the Toledo Blade via Nexis, “The surgical procedure, which is sometimes also performed following miscarriages, involves dilating the cervix and removing fetal tissue from the uterus.” [Toledo Blade via Nexis, 6/29/17]
- S.B. 145 Would Reduce Options For Pregnant Individuals Seeking Second Trimester Abortions. According to the Toledo Blade via Nexis, “If enacted, Senate Bill 145 will leave few options for women seeking second trimester abortions. Induction, a less popular second-trimester method that involves medically inducing labor, was performed fewer than 10 times in Ohio in 2015.” [Toledo Blade via Nexis, 6/29/17]
¶ S.B. 145 Was Effectively A 13-Week Ban On Abortions
- NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Argued That S.B. 145 Was Effectively Imposing A 13-Week Abortion Ban. According to the Toledo Blade via Nexis, “‘We are pretty much looking at a 13-week abortion ban,’ said Jaime Miracle, deputy director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio.” [Toledo Blade via Nexis, 6/29/17]
- Pro-Abortion Advocates Warned That S.B. 145 Would Prompt Some Pregnant Individuals To Go To Michigan For Second Trimester Abortions. According to the Toledo Blade via Nexis, “Some pro-abortion advocates say that Senate Bill 145, if enacted, will force many Lucas County women to travel to Michigan to receive second trimester abortions.” [Toledo Blade via Nexis, 6/29/17]
¶ LaRose Voted To Concur With The House Amendments On S.B. 145
2018: Frank LaRose Voted To Ban Dilation-And-Evacuation Abortions, Also Known As “Dismemberment Abortions,” With An Exemption For The Health Of The Mother, And Impose Penalties On Physicians Who Perform Such Abortions. In December 2018, according to the Ohio Senate, Frank LaRose voted to concur with the House on Senate Bill 145, which would, “criminalize and create a civil action for dismemberment abortions.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The Ohio Senate concurred with the House by a vote of 23 to 9, thus the bill was sent to Governor John Kasich and it ultimately became law. [Ohio Senate Journal, 12/13/18; Ohio Senate – Votes, 12/13/18; Ohio Senate – S.B. 145, Accessed on 5/11/23]
- 2017-2018: Frank LaRose Co-Sponsored Senate Bill 145. [Ohio Senate – S.B. 145, Accessed on 5/11/23]
- The Ban On Dilation-And-Evacuation Abortions Was Deemed Essentially A Ban On Second Trimester Abortions By Bill Opponents. According to The Repository (Canton, Ohio) via Nexis, “Kasich has not yet indicated whether he will sign Senate bill 145, the D&E ban, which opponents say would essentially ban abortions in the second trimester, starting at 13 weeks of pregnancy.” [The Repository (Canton, Ohio) via Nexis, 12/15/18]
- S.B. 145 Charged Doctors Who Perform Dilation-And-Evacuation Abortions With A Fourth-Degree Felony And Could Face Up To 18 Months Of Imprisonment, And Provided An Exemption For The Health Of The Mother Or If There Were A Substantial And Irreversible Physical Impairment. According to Cleveland.com, “The D&E method is typically used from 13 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. Under SB 145, physicians who perform D&Es would be charged with a fourth-degree felony and spend up to 18 months behind bars. The bill has exceptions, such as allowing the procedure if the life of the mother is at risk or if there could be a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” [Cleveland.com, 12/13/18]
- The Ohio House Modified The Definition Of “Dismemberment Abortion” To Exclude Procedures Performed After The Death Of A Fetus To Extract The Remaining Parts. According to the S.B. 145 Synopsis Of House Committee Amendments from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, “Modifies the definition of dismemberment abortion to exclude a procedure performed after the death of an unborn child to extract any remaining parts of the unborn child.” [Ohio Legislative Service Commission – S.B. 145 Synopsis Of House Committee Amendments, Accessed on 5/11/23]
¶ LaRose Twice Voted For The “Abortion Budget” Which Would Stripped Funding From Planned Parenthood, Prevented Aborton Clinics From Having Transfer Agreements With Public Hospitals And Require Clinics To Provide ultrasounds Before An Abortion
2013: Frank LaRose Voted For The Senate Version Of The Ohio State Budget For FY 2014 And FY 2015. In June 2013, according to the Ohio General Assembly Archives, Frank LaRose voted for House Bill 59, which would “amend Section 1 of Sub. H.B. 34 of the 130th General Assembly; to amend Sections 205.10, 506.10, and 755.30 of Am. Sub. H.B. 51 of the 130th General Assembly; to amend Section 753.30 of Am. Sub. H.B. 153 of the 129th General Assembly; to amend Section 4 of Am. Sub. H.B. 279 of the 129th General Assembly; to amend Section 11 of Sub. H.B. 303 of the 129th General Assembly; to amend Section 4 of Am. Sub. H.B. 472 of the 129th General Assembly; to amend Sections 201.80, 205.83, and 509.40 of Sub. H.B. 482 of the 129th General Assembly; to amend Sections 301.11, 301.12, and 301.13 of Am. Sub. H.B. 487 of the 129th General Assembly; to amend Section 205.80 of Sub. H.B. 482 of the 129th General Assembly, as subsequently amended; to amend Section 4 of Sub. S.B. 171 of the 129th General Assembly, as subsequently amended; to amend Section 105.05 of Am. Sub. H.B. 2 of the 128th General Assembly; to repeal Section 267.60.31 SENATE JOURNAL, THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 2013 505 of Am. Sub. H.B. 153 of the 129th General Assembly; to repeal Section 125.10 of Am. Sub. H.B. 1 of the 128th General Assembly as subsequently amended; to repeal Section 514.03 of Am. Sub. H.B. 66 of the 126th General Assembly; to repeal Section 153 of Am. Sub. H.B. 117 of the 121st General Assembly as subsequently amended; to amend Sections 203.30.40, 203.30.70, 203.30.80, 203.90.10, 203.90.20, 205.10.20, 205.30.90, 205.50.70, and 207.10.10 of Sub. S.B. 312 of the 129th General Assembly; to amend the versions of sections 109.57, 2151.011, 2923.126, 5104.012, 5104.013, 5104.03, 5104.08, and 5104.32 of the Revised Code that are scheduled to take effect January 1, 2014, to continue the provisions of this act on and after that effective date; to amend the versions of sections 4501.01, 4507.01, and 4507.06 of the Revised Code that are scheduled to take effect January 1, 2017, to continue the provisions of this act on and after that effective date; to amend section 3313.88 of the Revised Code as it results from Section 101.01 of this act for the purpose of adopting new section number 3313.482 on July 1, 2014; to make operating appropriations for the biennium beginning July 1, 2013, and ending June 30, 2015; to provide authorization and conditions for the operation of state programs; to repeal sections 5168.20, 5168.21, 5168.22, 5168.23, 5168.24, 5168.25, 5168.26, 5168.27, and 5168.28 of the Revised Code on October 1, 2015, to terminate the operation of those sections on that date; to repeal sections 5168.01, 5168.02, 5168.03, 5168.04, 5168.05, 5168.06, 5168.07, 5168.08, 5168.09, 5168.10, 5168.11, 5168.12, 5168.13, 5168.99, and 5168.991 of the Revised Code on October 16, 2015, to terminate the operation of those sections on that date; and to repeal section 5124.67 of the Revised Code on July 1, 2018, to terminate the operation of that section on that date” The vote was on passage. The Ohio Senate passed the bill by a vote of 23 to 10, thus the amended bill was sent back to the House for them to consider the Senate changes. [Ohio State Journal, 6/6/13; Ohio General Assembly Archives – Votes, 6/6/13; Ohio General Assembly – H.B. 59, accessed on 3/31/23]
- The Senate Version Of The FY 2014-2015 Budget Stripped Funding From Planned Parenthood And Would Have Prevented Surgical Facilities That Perform Abortions From Having Transfer Agreements With Public Hospitals. According to Cleveland.Com, “The budget would strip funding from Planned Parenthood by changing the current system of divvying public family planning dollars. It also would stop surgical facilities that perform or induce abortions from having transfer agreements with public hospitals. Because surgical facilities are required to have transfer agreements with hospitals, Planned Parenthood said it would be forced to seek agreements with private hospitals, which are often affiliated with religious groups opposed to abortion.” [Cleveland.Com, 6/6/23]
- A Democratic Senator Claimed That The General Assembly Was “Out On A Witch Hunt Vendetta Against Planned Parenthood.” According to Cleveland.Com, “‘Some folks in the General Assembly are out on a witch hunt vendetta against Planned Parenthood,’ said Democratic Sen. Nina Turner. ‘A memo to all the women of the state of Ohio, especially if you are poor: Father knows best. Women know nothing, but father knows best.’” [Cleveland.Com, 6/6/23]
¶ LaRose Voted For The Final Version Of The Ohio State Budget
2013: Frank LaRose Voted For The Final Version Of The Ohio State Budget For FY 2014 And FY 2015. In June 2013, according to the Ohio General Assembly Archives, Frank LaRose voted for the Committee of Conference report to House Bill 59, which would “amend Section 1 of Sub. H.B. 34 of the 130th General Assembly; to amend Sections 205.10, 506.10, and 755.30 of Am. Sub. H.B. 51 of the 130th General Assembly; to amend Section 753.30 of Am. Sub. H.B. 153 of the 129th General Assembly; to amend Section 4 of Am. Sub. H.B. 279 of the 129th General Assembly; to amend Section 11 of Sub. H.B. 303 of the 129th General Assembly; to amend Section 4 of Am. Sub. H.B. 472 of the 129th General Assembly; to amend Sections 201.80, 205.83, and 509.40 of Sub. H.B. 482 of the 129th General Assembly; to amend Sections 301.11, 301.12, and 301.13 of Am. Sub. H.B. 487 of the 129th General Assembly; to amend Section 205.80 of Sub. H.B. 482 of the 129th General Assembly, as subsequently amended; to amend Section 4 of Sub. S.B. 171 of the 129th General Assembly, as subsequently amended; to amend Section 105.05 of Am. Sub. H.B. 2 of the 128th General Assembly; to repeal Section 267.60.31 of Am. Sub. H.B. 153 of the 129th General Assembly; to repeal Section 125.10 of Am. Sub. H.B. 1 of the 128th General Assembly as subsequently amended; to repeal Section 514.03 of Am. Sub. H.B. 66 of the 126th General Assembly; to repeal Section 153 of Am. Sub. H.B. 117 of the 121st General Assembly as subsequently amended; to amend Sections 203.30.40, 203.30.70, 203.30.80, 203.90.10, 203.90.20, 205.10.20, 205.30.90, 205.50.70, and 207.10.10 of Sub. S.B. 312 of the 129th General Assembly; to amend the versions of sections 109.57, 2151.011, 2923.126, 5104.012, 5104.013, 5104.03, 5104.08, and 5104.32 of the Revised Code that are scheduled to take effect January 1, 2014, to continue the provisions of this act on and after that effective date; to amend the versions of sections 4501.01, 4507.01, and 4507.06 of the Revised Code that are scheduled to take effect January 1, 2017, to continue the provisions of this act on and after that effective date; to amend section 3313.88 of the Revised Code as it results from Section 101.01 of this act for the purpose of adopting new section number 3313.482 on July 1, 2014; to make operating appropriations for the biennium beginning July 1, 2013, and ending June 30, 2015; to provide authorization and conditions for the operation of state programs; to repeal sections 5168.20, 5168.21, 5168.22, 5168.23, 5168.24, 5168.25, 5168.26, 5168.27, and 5168.28 of the Revised Code on October 1, 2015, to terminate the operation of those sections on that date; to repeal sections 5168.01, 5168.02, 5168.03, 5168.04, 5168.05, 5168.06, 5168.07, 5168.08, 5168.09, 5168.10, 5168.11, 5168.12, 5168.13, 5168.99, and 5168.991 of the Revised Code on October 16, 2015, to terminate the operation of those sections on that date; and to repeal section 5124.67 of the Revised Code on July 1, 2018, to terminate the operation of that section on that date.” The vote was on the adoption of the conference report. The Ohio Senate adopted the conference report by a vote of 21 to 11. The House agreed to the conference report as well, thus the final version of the budget was sent to Governor John Kasich. Governor John Kasich line-item vetoed a couple of budget items, but signed into law the majority of the budget legislation. [Ohio Senate Journal, 6/27/13; Ohio General Assembly Archives – Votes, 6/27/13; Ohio General Assembly Archives – H.B. 59, Accessed on 4/13/23]
- The FY 14-15 Budget Effectively Stripped Funding From Planned Parenthood, Blocked Public Hospitals From Arranging Transfer Agreements With Abortion Clinics And Required Abortion Providers To Provide An Ultrasound To Women Seeking Abortions. According to Reuters, “Republican Governor John Kasich also left in place a controversial abortion provision added to the proposed budget bill at the last minute. The provision effectively strips funding from Planned Parenthood, blocks public hospitals from arranging transfer agreements with abortion clinics and requires abortion providers to provide ultra sounds on women seeking abortions.” [Reuters, 6/30/13]
- Abortion Rights Advocates Called The FY 14-15 Budget The “Abortion Budget” Since It Included Many Provisions Restricting Abortions. According to the Plain Dealer, “The plan, which many abortion-rights advocates call the ‘abortion budget,’ includes measures that would strip money from Planned Parenthood, ban abortion providers from entering into transfer agreements with public hospitals and require women seeking abortions to undergo ultrasounds.” [Plain Dealer via Nexis, 6/28/13]
- The FY 14-15 Budget Allowed Public Funding For Rape Crisis Clinics To Be Suspended If They Council Victims On Abortion Options. According to Reuters, “It also allows public funding for rape crisis clinics to be suspended if they counsel victims on abortion options.” [Reuters, 6/30/13]
- NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Opposed The Budget. According to Reuters, “‘Today Governor Kasich enacted measures that prescribe medically unnecessary procedures, force doctors to mislead their patients and will force quality medical centers to close,’ said Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio.” [Reuters, 6/30/13]
- Ohio Right To Life Praised The Budget. According to Reuters, “Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, praised Kasich’s decision. ‘Our motivation for pushing the law was so that state tax dollars are not used to fund abortions,’ he said.” [Reuters, 6/30/13]
- Outside The State House Before The Vote, Pro-Choice Advocates Held A Rally Opposing The Budget’s Anti-Abortion Provisions. According to the Plain Dealer, “Just before the chambers convened to vote on HB 59, Sen. Nina Turner held a rally to decry the budget’s abortion provisions. She was joined by about 75 pink- and red-clad abortion-rights advocates, some of her fellow Democrats and Columbus-area doctors who staunchly oppose the measures. ‘We are all better off when women and their doctors, not politicians, are the ones making medical decisions,’ Turner, of Cleveland, said in a speech delivered outside the Statehouse.” [Plain Dealer via Nexis, 6/28/13]
¶ LaRose Effectively Voted Against An Amendment To Remove The Budget Language Restricting Abortions
2013: Frank LaRose Effectively Voted Against A Budget Amendment Which Would Have Removed Language Placed In The Bill That Made It Harder For Abortion Clinics To Get Emergency Agreements With Hospitals And That Would Have Stripped Funding From Planned Parenthood. In June 2013, according to the Ohio Senate Journal, Frank LaRose voted to table an amendment to House Bill 59, which would amend, “In line 723, delete ‘3125.18,’ In line 758, delete ‘3702.30,’ In line 800, delete ‘5101.461,’ In line 804, delete ‘5101.80, 5101.801,’ In line 1069, delete ‘3701.033,’ In line 1070, delete ‘3702.302,’ Delete line 1071 In line 1076, delete ‘5101.101, 5101.804,’ Delete lines 46801 through 46806 In line 69912, delete ‘ Funds from’ Delete lines 69913 through 69949 Delete lines 71431 through 71734 Delete lines 97884 through 97916 In line 98747, reinsert ‘or’; delete ‘ , or (g)’ Delete lines 98868 through 98872 Delete lines 98935 through 98979 Delete lines 99276 through 99531 Delete lines 99566 through 99619 In line 114198, reinsert ‘(f)’; delete ‘ (g)’ In line 146894, delete ‘3125.18,’ In line 146929, delete ‘3702.30,’ In line 146971, delete ‘5101.461,’ In line 146976, delete ‘5101.80, 5101.801,’ In line 78 of the title, delete ‘3125.18,’ In line 126 of the title, delete ‘3702.30,’ In line 183 of the title, delete ‘5101.461,’ In line 189 of the title, delete ‘5101.80, 5101.801,’ In line 532 of the title, delete ‘3701.033,’ In line 533 of the title, delete ‘3702.302,’ Delete line 534 of the title In line 535 of the title, delete ‘3702.308,’ In line 540 of the title, delete ‘5101.101,’ In line 541 of the title, delete ‘5101.804,’” The vote was on a motion to lay on the table. The Ohio Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 23 to 10, effectively killing the amendment. [Ohio State Journal, 6/6/13; Ohio General Assembly Archives – Votes, 6/6/13; Ohio General Assembly – H.B. 59, accessed on 3/31/23]
- Republicans Rejected An Attempt To Remove Language That Made It Harder For Clinics To Obtain Emergency Agreements With Hospitals. According to the Blade, “The 5,371-page House Bill 59 veers often from dollars and cents. Republicans rejected an attempt by Democrats to remove language that would make it tougher for abortion clinics to get emergency agreements with hospitals that the bill says they must have.” [Blade via Nexis, 6/7/13]
- Democrats Unsuccessfully Introduced An Amendment That Would Have Removed Language That Would Have Stripped Planned Parenthood Funding And Prevent Abortion Providers From Transferring Patients To Public Hospitals. According to Cleveland.Com, “Senate Democrats unsuccessfully introduced 23 amendments, including moves to eliminate House-added language that would strip funds from Planned Parenthood and Senate-added language that would ban abortion providers from transferring patients to public hospitals.” [Cleveland.Com, 6/6/13]
¶ LaRose Voted To Restrict Minors From Accessing Abortions Though Judical Bypass And Heightened the Level Of Evidence Needed For Approval Of the Bypass
2011: Frank LaRose Voted To Revise The Judicial Bypass Process In Which Pregnant Minors Can Ask For Court Permission To Seek An Abortion Without Parental Consent By Requiring Minors To Present “Clear And Convincing” Evidence And Requiring The Courts To Ask The Minors If They Understand The Emotional And Physical Repercussions Of Abortions. In September 2011, according to the Ohio Senate Journal, Frank LaRose voted for House Bill 63, which would “revise the procedures governing a hearing by which a court may permit a pregnant minor to consent to an abortion or by which a court may give judicial consent for a pregnant minor to have an abortion and to require a court to make its findings with respect to such a hearing by clear and convincing evidence.” The vote was on passage. The Ohio Senate passed the bill by a vote of 23 to 8, thus the bill was sent to the House for final concurrence. The House concurred with the Senate, sent the bill to Governor John Kasich, and it ultimately became law. [Ohio Senate Journal, 9/27/11; Ohio General Assembly Archives – Votes, 9/27/11; Ohio General Assembly Archives – H.B. 63, Accessed on 4/5/23]
- H.B. 63 Further Restricted Minors From Accessing Abortions Through Judicial Bypasses, Heightened The Level Of Evidence For Approval Of The Bypass, And Required The Courts To Ask About The Pregnant Minor’s Understanding Of The Emotional And Physical Risk Of Abortion. According to the ACLU - Ohio, “HB 63 and SB 8, the companion to HB 63, further restrict minors from having access to abortions through obtaining permission from the court, known as judicial bypass, by adding the following provisions: -Outlining a higher level of evidence for permission to be granted -Requiring courts to specifically ask the extent that a minor had been instructed on giving testimony or answering questions at the hearing -Mandating that the courts ask questions about the minor’s understanding of potential emotional and physical risks of an abortion and the minor’s response to the risks should they occur.” [ACLU - Ohio, Accessed on 4/5/23]
- ACLU - Ohio Argued H.B. 63 Made It More Difficult For Pregnant Minors To Make Their Case In Court And Further Restricted Their Access To Reproductive Choices And Emphasized That Parental Consent And Judicial Bypasses Were Already In Ohio Law. According to the ACLU - Ohio, “Women of all ages deserve control over their reproductive choices, but young women who are still minors are especially vulnerable to being deprived of choice. Ohio law already dictates that minors have parental consent before an abortion, and judicial bypass, or getting permission from a court, is a process to help ensure that these young women have their reproductive rights when circumstances at home would otherwise be a barrier. HB 63 and its companion bill SB 8 take steps to make it harder for minors to make their case in court and further limit minors’ access to reproductive choice.” [ACLU - Ohio, Accessed on 4/5/23]
- H.B. 63 Required Courts To Ask The Pregnant Minor Whether They Understood The Physical And Emotional Risks Of Abortions And Whether They Were Trained On How To Answer The Court’s Questions When Asking For A Judicial Bypass. According to Cleveland.com, “The bill requires a court to ask whether the minor understands the physical and emotional consequences of an abortion and whether the minor has been coached on how to answer the court’s questions when seeking a judicial bypass for parental approval.” [Cleveland.com, 9/27/11]
- H.B. 63 Mandated Pregnant Minors To Receive The Judicial Bypass From The County They Reside In Or A Surrounding County, Which Republicans Argued It Would Prevent Minors From Seeking A “Friendly Court.” According to Cleveland.com, “The Senate’s version of the bill requires a minor to get approval in the county she lives in or in a surrounding county. Republicans said the change will prevent minors from ‘shopping’ for a friendly court.” [Cleveland.com, 9/27/11]
- NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Argued H.B. 63 Made Unnecessary Changes That Made The Judicial Bypass Process “More Intimidating, More Difficult.” According to Cleveland.com, “Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, said the changes are unnecessary and part of an overall agenda the GOP majority has pursued to limit women’s reproductive rights. ‘It’s designed to make the process more intimidating, more difficult,’ Copeland said. ‘This is just legislation for politics. It’s not improving women’s health whatsoever.’” [Cleveland.com, 9/27/11]
¶ LaRose Voted To Bar Ohioans From Purchsing Health insurance Which Included Abortion Coverage
2011: Frank LaRose Effectively Voted Against Prohibiting Qualified Health Plans From Providing Insurance Coverage For Non-Therapeutic Abortions. In December 2011, according to the Ohio General Assembly Archives, Frank LaRose voted against bringing up House Bill 79 for third consideration, which would “prohibit qualified health plans from providing coverage for certain abortions.” The vote was on a motion to bring the bill up for third consideration. The Ohio Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 22 to 11, thus the Ohio Senate subsequently voted on the bill’s passage. [Ohio Senate Journal, 12/14/11; Ohio General Assembly Archives – H.B. 79, Accessed on 4/11/23]
2011: Frank LaRose Voted To Prohibit Qualified Health Plans From Providing Insurance Coverage For Non-Therapeutic Abortions. In December 2011, according to the Ohio General Assembly Archives, Frank LaRose voted for House Bill 79, which would “prohibit qualified health plans from providing coverage for certain abortions.” The vote was on passage. The Ohio Senate passed the bill by a vote of 23 to 10, thus the bill was sent to Governor John Kasich and it ultimately became law. [Ohio Senate Journal, 12/14/11; Ohio General Assembly Archives – Votes, 12/14/11; Ohio General Assembly Archives – H.B. 79, Accessed on 4/11/23]
- H.B. 79 Banned Qualified Health Plans From Providing Insurance Coverage For Non-Therapeutic Abortions. According to the H.B. 79 Final Analysis from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, “Prohibits a qualified health plan from providing coverage for a nontherapeutic abortion.” [Ohio Legislative Service Commission – H.B. 79 Final Analysis, Accessed on 4/11/13]
- H.B. 79 Opted Out Of A Affordable Care Act Provision That Would Have Allowed Qualified Health Plans That Provide Coverage For Non-Therapeutic Abortions To Participate In Ohio’s Health Benefit Exchange. According to the H.B. 79 Final Analysis from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, “Specifies that the act's purpose is to affirmatively opt out of a provision of the federal healthcare reform law that would allow a qualified health plan covering nontherapeutic abortions to participate in Ohio's health benefit exchange.” [Ohio Legislative Service Commission – H.B. 79 Final Analysis, Accessed on 4/11/13]
- H.B. 79 Prevented Ohioans From Purchasing Health Insurance That Included Coverage For Abortions. According to The Plain Dealer via Cleveland.com, “House Bill 79 bars Ohioans from purchasing health insurance which includes abortion coverage.” [The Plain Dealer via Cleveland.com, 12/7/11]
- ACLU - Ohio And NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Argued H.B. 79 Was Unconstitutional Because Ohio Voters Had Approved A Constitutional Amendment That Barred All Governmental Entities From Prohibiting The Sale Or Purchase Of Health Insurance. According to The Plain Dealer via Cleveland.com, “Daniels, joined by Kellie Copeland of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio at a Statehouse news conference, said he believes both bills -- if they became law -- would later be declared unconstitutional. And he argued that the constitutional amendment that will impact implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the federal health care law that opponents call Obamacare, actually makes House Bill 79 illegal. Ohio voters approved the amendment last month. While the bill blocks the purchase of certain health care plans, the health care amendment says ‘no federal, state or local law or rule shall prohibit the purchase or sale’ of health insurance.” [The Plain Dealer via Cleveland.com, 12/7/11]
- The Affordable Care Act Required States To Have A Health Exchange By 2014, So H.B. 79 Prohibited Plans With Certain Abortion Coverage From Participating In A Marketplace That Had Not Existed Yet. According to the Dayton Daily News via Nexis, “House Bill 79, which would prohibit insurance plans participating in a yet-to-be created state health exchange or marketplace from providing abortion coverage, was among 13 bills Kasich signed. They were passed last week during the Legislature's final session days of 2011. The new federal health-care law requires states to have an exchange in place by 2014 to give consumers and small businesses a place to shop and compare policies. Gonidakis said the law allows states to opt out of abortion coverage.” [Dayton Daily News via Nexis, 12/22/11]
- ACLU - Ohio Argued That The Voter-Passed State Issue 3, Which Was An Opposition To Insurance Mandates By The Affordable Care Act, Could Be Used To Block Legislation That Would Restrict Access To Abortion. According to the Dayton Daily News via Nexis, “Ohioans approved state Issue 3 last month with 65.6 percent of the vote, which conservatives said was a strong message in opposition to the mandated insurance provisions of the federal health-care law. But the ACLU of Ohio has said the constitutional amendment also can be used to block measures to restrict abortion access.” [Dayton Daily News via Nexis, 12/22/11]
- H.B. 79 Prevented Ohioans From Purchasing Health Insurance Through Ohio’s Exchange That Provides Abortion Coverage, Even If They Pay For Their Own Health Insurance. According to Reuters, “The law bans Ohio citizens from being able to purchase insurance through the exchange that includes abortion coverage, even if they pay for it with their own money, said Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, who criticized the bill.” [Reuters, 12/21/11]
¶ LaRose Voted To Require Abortion Clinics To Dispose Of Fetal Remains following An Abortion By Cremation Or Burial
2018: Frank LaRose Voted To Require Abortion Clinics To Dispose Of Fetal Remains Following An Abortion By Burial Or Cremation And Impose Penalties If Clinic Operators Fail To Properly Dispose Of The Fetal Tissue. In January 2018, according to the Ohio Senate, Frank LaRose voted for Senate Bill 28, which would “impose requirements on the final disposition of fetal remains from surgical abortions.” The vote was on passage. The Ohio Senate passed the bill by a vote of 24 to 9, thus the bill was sent to the House for their consideration. The House did not take substantive action on the bill. [Ohio Senate Journal, 1/17/18; Ohio Senate – Votes, 1/17/18; Ohio Senate – S.B. 28, Accessed on 5/16/23]
- 2018: As A Part Of The Committee On Government Oversight And Reform, Frank LaRose Supported Senate Bill 28. According to the Ohio Senate Journal, “The standing committee on Government Oversight and Reform, to which was referred S. B. No. 28-Senator Uecker, et al., having had the same under consideration, reports back a substitute bill and recommends its passage. Co-Sponsor: Jordan, Bacon. YES - 8: WILLIAM P. COLEY, II, MATT HUFFMAN, KRIS JORDAN, FRANK LAROSE, JOE UECKER, TROY BALDERSON, KEVIN BACON, BOB PETERSON NO - 3: CHARLETA B. TAVARES, EDNA BROWN, MICHAEL J. SKINDELL.” [Ohio Senate Journal, 1/10/18; Ohio Senate - Votes, 1/10/18]
- 2018: Frank LaRose Was A Co-Sponsor Of Senate Bill 28. [Ohio Senate – S.B. 28, Accessed on 5/16/23]
- S.B. 28 Would Have Required Abortion Clinics To Dispose Of Fetal Remains By Burial Or Cremation. According to The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, “Abortion clinics would be required to dispose of fetal remains by burial or cremation under a bill passed on a 24-9, party-line vote in the Ohio Senate on Wednesday.” [The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, 1/18/18]
- S.B. 28 Would Have Instructed The Clinic Operator To Ensure The Remains Were Properly Disposed If The Woman Failed To Make A Choice And Would Have Penalized The Operator With A First-Degree Misdemeanor And Up To 6 Months In Prison If They Failed To Properly Dispose Of The Remains. According to The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, “If a woman makes no choice, the clinic operator must assure that remains are disposed through burial or cremation, with failure to follow the proposed law a first-degree misdemeanor carrying up to six months in jail.” [The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, 1/18/18]
- S.B. 28 Included New Reporting Requirements For Abortion Providers. According to The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, “The bill, which includes new reporting requirements for abortion providers, now advances to the Republican-controlled Ohio House.” [The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, 1/18/18]
- NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, ACLU Of Ohio And Planned Parenthood Argued S.B. 28 Was An “Unconstitutional Bid” To “Shame Women” And Establish More Hurdles For Abortion Access. According to The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, “Opponents such as NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio and Planned Parenthood derided the bill in committee testimony as an unconstitutional bid to ‘shame women’ and throw more obstacles in the way of obtaining a legal abortion.” [The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, 1/18/18]
- S.B. 28 Would Have Required Abortion Clinics To Pay For The Burial Or Cremation If The Patient Chose From A The Clinic’s Pre-Selected Locations Or Required The Patient To Pay For The Disposal If They Chose A Different Location. According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, “Abortion clinics would pay for the burial or cremation if the woman selects from one of the clinics' pre-established locations. If the woman wants another option, she would pay for it. Abortion clinics worry about the cost and cooperation of local funeral homes.” [Cincinnati Enquirer, 1/19/18]
- Abortion Providers Were Worried About The Cost And Planned Parenthood Advocates Of Ohio Warned That The Costs And Contracts With Funeral Homes Could Force Clinics To Close And Eliminate Abortion Access. According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, “Abortion clinics worry about the cost and cooperation of local funeral homes. ‘Without these contracts (with funeral homes or cremation facilities,) abortion providers could be forced to close, restricting or even eliminating access in the state,’ said Joanna Saul of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio.” [Cincinnati Enquirer, 1/19/18]
¶ LaRose Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Use Of State Funds To Defend Senate Bill 28 In Court
2018: Frank LaRose Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Use Of Public Funds To Defend S.B. 28’s Mandates For Abortion Clinics To Dispose Fetal Remains By Cremation Or Burial. In January 2018, according to the Ohio Senate Journal, Frank LaRose voted to table an amendment to Senate Bill 28, which would, “In line 5 of the title, after ‘3726.16,’ insert ‘3726.18,’ In line 8 of the title, after ‘abortions’ insert ‘and to prohibit the use of public funds to defend the bill in court’ In line 12, after ‘3726.16,’ insert ‘3726.18,’ After line 538, insert: ‘Sec. 3726.18. No public funds shall be allocated, appropriated, or expended to defend S.B. 28 of the 132nd general assembly if it is challenged in court.’” The vote was on a motion to lay on the table. The Ohio Senate adopted the motion by a vote of 24 to 9, effectively killing the amendment. [Ohio Senate Journal, 1/17/18; Ohio Senate – Votes, 1/17/18; Ohio Senate – S.B. 28, Accessed on 5/16/23]
- State Senator Sandra Williams (D) Attempted To Amend S.B. 28 To Restrict The Use Of Taxpayer Funds To Defend The Bill In Court, Highlighting That A Federal Judge In Indiana Struck Down A Similar Law. According to The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, “Sen. Sandra Williams, D-Cleveland, unsuccessfully attempted to amend the bill to prevent the use of state funds in defending the measure in court if it becomes law, saying an Indiana federal judge recently struck down a similar law in that state.” [The Columbus Dispatch via Nexis, 1/18/18]
¶ LaRose Twice Voted To Prohibit Abortions For Pregnant Individuals Because The Fetus Had Or May Had Down Syndrome
2017: Frank LaRose Voted To Prohibit Doctors From Performing Abortions On Pregnant Individuals Who Seek Abortions Because Their Fetus Had Or May Have Had Down Syndrome. In November 2017, according to the Ohio Senate, Frank LaRose voted for Senate Bill 164, which would “prohibit a person from performing, inducing, or attempting to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman who is seeking the abortion because an unborn child has or may have Down Syndrome.” The vote was on passage. The Ohio Senate passed the bill by a vote of 20 to 12, thus the bill was sent to the House for their consideration. The House did not take substantive action on the bill. [Ohio Senate Journal, 11/15/17; Ohio Senate – Votes, 11/15/17; Ohio Senate – S.B. 164, Accessed on 5/12/23]
- 2017: Frank LaRose Was The Primary Sponsor Of Senate Bill 164. [Ohio Senate – S.B. 164, Accessed on 5/12/23]
- S.B. 164 Sought To Ban Abortions After A Down Syndrome Diagnosis, Which 3 Republicans Voted With Democrats Against. According to Cleveland.com, “The Ohio General Assembly took another step Wednesday toward banning abortions after a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome. The Ohio Senate passed Senate Bill 164 in a 20-12 vote. Three Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the bill: Gayle Manning of North Ridgeville, Matt Dolan of Chagrin Falls and Stephanie Kunze of Hilliard.” [Cleveland.com, 11/15/17]
- Frank LaRose Claimed That People Should Not Judge One Life As Being More Valuable Than Another And Claimed S.B. 164 Was A Question Of Medical Ethics And Societal Values. According to Cleveland.com, “‘We should not be making a judgment of one life being more valuable than another,’ bill sponsor Sen. Frank LaRose, a Hudson Republican, said. ‘To me, it's a question of medical ethics as much as what kind of society we want to live in.’” [Cleveland.com, 11/15/17]
- Opponents Argued That S.B. 164 Hindered Patient-Doctor Relationships And Did Not Improve The Lives Of Ohioans With Down Syndrome. According to Cleveland.com, “Opponents say the bill interferes with the patient-doctor relationship and doesn't do anything to improve the lives of Ohioans with Down syndrome.” [Cleveland.com, 11/15/17]
- S.B. 164 Would Penalize Physicians Who Perform Abortion On A Fetus Who Had Or Might Have Had Down Syndrome With A Fourth-Degree Felony And The Doctor Would Lose Their License To Practice In Ohio. According to The Columbus Dispatch, “Senate Bill 164, sponsored by Sen. Frank LaRose, R-Hudson, would prohibit a person from performing or attempting to perform or induce an abortion on a woman whose unborn child has or might have Down syndrome. Violators would face a fourth-degree felony, and the state medical board would be required to take away a convicted physician’s license to practice medicine in Ohio.” [The Columbus Dispatch, 11/14/17]
2017: Frank LaRose Voted To Prohibit Doctors From Performing Abortions On Pregnant Individuals Who Seek Abortions Because Their Fetus Had Or May Have Had Down Syndrome. In December 2017, according to the Ohio Senate, Frank LaRose voted for House Bill 214, which would “prohibit a person from performing, inducing, or attempting to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman who is seeking the abortion because an unborn child has or may have Down Syndrome.” The vote was on passage. The Ohio Senate passed the bill by a vote of 20 to 12, thus the bill was sent to Governor John Kasich and it ultimately became law. [Ohio Senate Journal, 12/13/17; Ohio Senate – Votes, 12/13/17; Ohio Senate – H.B. 214, Accessed on 5/16/23]
- 2017: Frank LaRose Was A Co-Sponsor Of House Bill 214. [Ohio Senate – H.B. 214, Accessed on 5/16/23]
- H.B. 214 Prohibited Abortions After A Down Syndrome Diagnosis. According to CNN, “A bill that could keep women from having abortions after tests reveal that a fetus might have Down syndrome is heading to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s desk.” [CNN, 12/14/17]
- H.B. 214 Banned Abortions After Tests Show Likelihood Of Down Syndrome And Penalized Abortion Providers With A Fourth-Degree Felony And The Loss Of Their Medical License. According to CNN, “The bill prohibits abortions after tests reveal Down syndrome in a fetus or if there’s “any other reason to believe” the fetus has the genetic condition. A person performing an abortion in such a case could face a fourth-degree felony charge, and physicians could lose their licenses. The woman seeking the abortion would not be held accountable, according to the bill.” [CNN, 12/14/17]
- 2018: A Federal Judge Blocked H.B. 214’s Abortion Ban Related To Down Syndrome From Going Into Effect Because It Violated The Right To Choose. According to Reuters, “A federal judge on Wednesday blocked an Ohio law due to take effect later this month that would criminalize abortions based on a Down syndrome diagnosis, ruling that it violates a woman’s right to choose.” [Reuters, 3/14/18]
- 2018: The Federal Judge Ruled H.B. 214 Unconstitutional Because It Prevented Women From Choosing To End Their Pregnancy Before Viability. According to Reuters, “‘Because H.B. 214 prevents women from making the choice to terminate their pregnancy prior to viability, it is unconstitutional on its face,’ Black wrote in his 22-page ruling.” [Reuters, 3/14/18]
- 2021: A Federal Appeals Court Ruled That Ohio Could Enforce H.B. 214, Arguing The Law Did Not Establish Substantial Hurdles For Abortion Access And It Was “Valid In All Conceivable Cases.” According to Reuters, “A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that Ohio can enforce a 2017 law banning abortions when medical tests show that a fetus has Down syndrome. In a 9-7 decision, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said the law did not create a substantial obstacle to obtaining abortions, was reasonably related to Ohio's legitimate interests, and was ‘valid in all conceivable cases.’” [Reuters, 4/13/21]
- H.B. 214 Threatened Physicians With License Revocations And Up To 18 Months Of Imprisonment For Performing Abortions On Pregnant Individuals They Knew They Wanted To Abort Because Their Fetus Had Down Syndrome. According to Reuters, “Ohio's law subjects doctors to license revocations and up to 18 months in prison for performing abortions on women they knew decided to abort at least in part because Down syndrome was in the fetus, or had reason to believe the condition was present.” [Reuters, 4/13/21]
- Opponents Argued That The 2021 Ruling On H.B. 214 Established A “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy Between Abortion Providers And Their Patients. According to Reuters, “The dissenters said the decision turns House Bill 214 into a ‘don't ask, don't tell’ law for doctors and pregnant women.” [Reuters, 4/13/21]
¶ LaRose Opposed An Constituional Amendment To Codify The Right To Choose
¶ LaRose Claimed That He Didn’t Think Abortion Belonged In The Ohio Constitution
LaRose Claimed That He Didn’t Think Abortion Belonged In The Constitution. According to the Tribune Chronicle, “put something in the constitution that doesn’t belong there. Obviously, some folks want to make this all about abortion. I don’t think abortion belongs in the state constitution.” [Tribune Chronicle, 4/27/23]
¶ LaRose Claimed That The August Special Election To Make It Harder To Amend The Constitution Was “100 Percent” About Abortion
¶ When LaRose Originally Unveiled His Plan To Make It Harder To Amend The Ohio Constitution He Claimed It Was Not About Short Term Goals
LaRose Claimed That That The Measure To Raise The Bar On Referendum Was Not To Block Amendments Protecting Abortion Rights Or Gerrymandering. According to the Ohio Capital Journal, “LaRose’s credibility on issues relating to voters was significantly dented late last year. In November, he announced an effort to hustle a measure through the lame duck session that would have made it much harder to pass voter-initiated amendments to the Ohio Constitution. In a press conference, LaRose denied that it was intended to block amendments to protect abortion rights and to end Ohio’s extreme partisan gerrymandering.” [Ohio Capital Journal, 1/5/23]
When LaRose Originally Unveiled His Plan To Make It Harder To Amend The Ohio Constitution He Claimed It Was Not About Short Term Goals. According to the Columbus Dispatch, “When Secretary of State Frank LaRose first unveiled a plan to make it harder to amend Ohio's Constitution, he said it was bigger than any one issue. ‘This is something that’s about good government,’ he said last November. ‘If you’re going to amend the constitution, you need to be thinking about the long term. Anybody that’s thinking about shorter or transient goals in the next year or two or three years, that’s not what this kind of a change should ever be about.’” [Columbus Dispatch, 6/5/23]
¶ Ohio State Leaders Wanted The Measure To Make It Harder To Amend The State Constitution In August To Preempt An Abortion Ballot Measure In November
Senate GOP Leaders Wanted The Question To Be On The August 8th Ballot To Get Ahead Of A Potential November Ballot Question On Abortion Access. According to the Columbus Dispatch, “Senate GOP leaders want voters to make that decision on Aug. 8 to get ahead of a possible November ballot question on abortion access. But the state Legislature, with LaRose's support, passed a new law last year to eliminate most August elections due to low turnout and cost.” [Columbus Dispatch, 3/28/23]
The Ohio Chamber Of Commerce CEO Steve Stivers Claimed That Lawmakers Were Talking To Ohio Right To Life About The Resolution. According to the Columbus Dispatch, “House Republicans are still pushing their version of the resolution, which differs slightly from the Senate proposal. Lawmakers met with several stakeholders, including Ohio Right to Life, to discuss the issue last week, Ohio Chamber of Commerce CEO Steve Stivers said Tuesday.” [Columbus Dispatch, 3/28/23]
¶ LaRose Later Claimed That He August Special Election Was “100 Percent” About Abortion
LaRose Claimed That A Vote For Raising the Amendment Threshold Should Come Before A Vote On Abortion Access And Minimum Wage Increase. According to a Columbus Dispatch op-ed by Frank LaRose, “Already this year, we’re facing a potential effort to amend abortion rights and a minimum wage increase into our state constitution. Before we vote on these issues, we should decide on whether to raise the amendment threshold.” [Frank LaRose Op-Ed – Columbus Dispatch, 4/12/23]
LaRose Claimed That The August Special Election Was “100 Percent” About Abortion. According to the Columbus Dispatch, “Despite his earlier comments, LaRose is now singing the same tune. ‘Some people say this is all about abortion,’ LaRose said during a recent Lincoln Day dinner in northwest Ohio. ‘Well, you know what, I’m pro-life. I think many of you are as well. This is 100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution. The left wants to jam it in there this coming November.’” [Columbus Dispatch, 6/5/23]
¶ Pro-Life Movement
¶ LaRose Claimed that The Pro-Life Movement Was about “Protect[ing] The Innocent”
LaRose Tweeted That The “Pro Life” Movement Was About “Protect[ing] The Innocent.” According to a tweet from Frank LaRose, “The most fundamental reason government exists is to protect the innocent. That’s what the #prolife movement is all about.” [Twitter, @FrankLaRose, 1/23/23]
¶ LaRose Claimed That People Marching At “March For Life” Was “Powerful”
LaRose Called A Video Of People Marching At “March For Life,” Powerful. According to a tweet from Frank LaRose, “Powerful. God bless all my friends out in DC today for the march for life!” [Twitter, @FrankLaRose, 1/20/23]
