(National Review) A pair of new ads from a pro-life group in Ohio warns of the potential dangers of a ballot measure that would effectively outlaw any restrictions on abortion and other procedures that involve reproduction, including gender-transition surgeries, and would remove parental-consent and notification requirements for minors who receive the procedures.

Protect Women Ohio’s ad “911” features audio from a 911 call made from an abortion clinic in Kettering, Ohio, just last week when a woman suffered bleeding due to complications during an abortion procedure. The clinic is owned by Martin Haskell, an abortionist who invented the partial-birth abortion technique in Ohio. He was previously ordered to close another abortion clinic after he failed to obtain a valid hospital transfer agreement.

The caller says, “It was a complicated procedure… So they said bleeding from a difficult procedure, yes.”

A voiceover then adds, “Issue 1 strikes down health protections, even allows people that are not doctors to perform abortions. Women’s lives are at risk. If issue 1 passes, get ready.”

A second ad released by the group, “Coach,” centers on a case from 2004 in which an Ohio soccer coach forced his 14-year-old rape victim to have an abortion. The coach circumvented the state’s parental consent laws by pretending to be the girl’s father. While the coach was ultimately prosecuted for his crimes, PWO argues the passage of Issue 1 would mean the coach “would not even need to pretend to be the girl’s father – he could take his victim to have an abortion without her parents ever knowing.”

“Parental consent will be abolished,” the ad says. “Your daughter’s coach could take her to get an abortion. While you, her parent, are left in the dark.”

The amendment includes vague language about prohibiting any law that “directly or indirectly” would “burden” or “interfere” with “reproductive decisions.” Opponents of the measure argue it would also outlaw nearly any restrictions on abortion or other reproduction-related procedures, removing requirements for parental-consent and parental notification, as well as protections for people who undergo the procedures, including requirements that a qualified physician perform them.

Opponents warn the overly-broad use of the phrase “reproductive decisions” would mean the measure would very likely extend to gender-transition treatment. The proposal does not distinguish between minors and adults, either.

The amendment was written by the ACLU, which has spent years fighting to remove parental involvement from abortion and gender-transition procedures. The group says on its website that parental consent and notification laws restrict “teenagers’ access to abortion.” In 2016, the ACLU sided with Planned Parenthood in an Alaska lawsuit that aimed to overturn parental notification laws in the state. One year later, the ACLU argued that parental consent laws in Indiana created an “unconstitutional undue burden.” The group is currently campaigning for a constitutional amendment in Oregon that would allow children to get an abortion without parental knowledge.

ACLU of Ohio attorney Jessie Hill was straightforward with reporters about the Ohio proposal’s intent, saying it would “mean that laws that conflict with it cannot be enforced, should not be enforced,” including existing laws on parental consent.

Protect Women Ohio has been perhaps the most vocal opponent of the would-be ballot measure. The group has undertaken a multimillion-dollar campaign to defeat the proposed amendment.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement that the amendment is “dangerous for the women and children of Ohio.”

“It removes parents from some of their minor children’s most important health decisions such as parental notification before an abortion,” she added. “It would eliminate basic health and safety standards for women. And it would permit late term abortion after the baby can feel pain and even right up until birth.”

Editor’s Note: This article was published at National Review and is reprinted here with permission.

(National Review) A pair of new ads from a pro-life group in Ohio warns of the potential dangers of a ballot measure that would effectively outlaw any restrictions on abortion and other procedures that involve reproduction, including gender-transition surgeries, and would remove parental-consent and notification requirements for minors who receive the procedures.

Protect Women Ohio’s ad “911” features audio from a 911 call made from an abortion clinic in Kettering, Ohio, just last week when a woman suffered bleeding due to complications during an abortion procedure. The clinic is owned by Martin Haskell, an abortionist who invented the partial-birth abortion technique in Ohio. He was previously ordered to close another abortion clinic after he failed to obtain a valid hospital transfer agreement.

The caller says, “It was a complicated procedure… So they said bleeding from a difficult procedure, yes.”

A voiceover then adds, “Issue 1 strikes down health protections, even allows people that are not doctors to perform abortions. Women’s lives are at risk. If issue 1 passes, get ready.”

A second ad released by the group, “Coach,” centers on a case from 2004 in which an Ohio soccer coach forced his 14-year-old rape victim to have an abortion. The coach circumvented the state’s parental consent laws by pretending to be the girl’s father. While the coach was ultimately prosecuted for his crimes, PWO argues the passage of Issue 1 would mean the coach “would not even need to pretend to be the girl’s father – he could take his victim to have an abortion without her parents ever knowing.”

“Parental consent will be abolished,” the ad says. “Your daughter’s coach could take her to get an abortion. While you, her parent, are left in the dark.”

The amendment includes vague language about prohibiting any law that “directly or indirectly” would “burden” or “interfere” with “reproductive decisions.” Opponents of the measure argue it would also outlaw nearly any restrictions on abortion or other reproduction-related procedures, removing requirements for parental-consent and parental notification, as well as protections for people who undergo the procedures, including requirements that a qualified physician perform them.

Opponents warn the overly-broad use of the phrase “reproductive decisions” would mean the measure would very likely extend to gender-transition treatment. The proposal does not distinguish between minors and adults, either.

The amendment was written by the ACLU, which has spent years fighting to remove parental involvement from abortion and gender-transition procedures. The group says on its website that parental consent and notification laws restrict “teenagers’ access to abortion.” In 2016, the ACLU sided with Planned Parenthood in an Alaska lawsuit that aimed to overturn parental notification laws in the state. One year later, the ACLU argued that parental consent laws in Indiana created an “unconstitutional undue burden.” The group is currently campaigning for a constitutional amendment in Oregon that would allow children to get an abortion without parental knowledge.

ACLU of Ohio attorney Jessie Hill was straightforward with reporters about the Ohio proposal’s intent, saying it would “mean that laws that conflict with it cannot be enforced, should not be enforced,” including existing laws on parental consent.

Protect Women Ohio has been perhaps the most vocal opponent of the would-be ballot measure. The group has undertaken a multimillion-dollar campaign to defeat the proposed amendment.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement that the amendment is “dangerous for the women and children of Ohio.”

“It removes parents from some of their minor children’s most important health decisions such as parental notification before an abortion,” she added. “It would eliminate basic health and safety standards for women. And it would permit late term abortion after the baby can feel pain and even right up until birth.”

Editor’s Note: This article was published at National Review and is reprinted here with permission.