We legalized marijuana too!
I don’t smoke weed and I don’t have a uterus, but I voted to protect both and I’m glad we won!
I like the use of “guy” as unisex. Like the word “dude”
He’s a dude, she’s a dude, they’re all dudes
I use “guys” plural to refer to any group of people, including all women/girl groups. I know saying “that guy” still means “that man/boy” but I’m hoping people will adopt it as completely unisex
A guy can dream (I’m a cis woman btw)
I don’t smoke weed and I don’t have a uterus
Same and I’m personally anti-abortion, but that’s my personal stance and I have no right to try to force that on others.
I’ve always said that the best way to reduce abortion would be to treat the reasons behind why women get abortions.
Suppose some women get abortions as a form of birth control (as the right likes to claim). You might be able to reduce this with better sex education and better access to birth control. If abortion happens due to rape or incest, figure out programs to reduce the incidence of these. (I’ll admit that I’m not knowledgeable enough to come up with specific proposals, but I’m sure people who know more than I do could come up with something.)
Nothing is going to be 100% effective, though. Abortion would need to be available for the cases that slip through. This would reduce how many abortions are performed by supporting women more instead of by banning them and putting women’s lives in danger.
Issue 1 covers so much more than just Abortion.
From the ballot:
- Establish in the Constitution of the State of Ohio an individual right to one’s own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion.
- Create legal protections for any person or entity that assists a person with receiving reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion.
- Prohibit the State from directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing, or prohibiting abortion before an unborn child is determined to be viable, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means.
- Grant a pregnant woman’s treating physician the authority to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether an unborn child is viable.
- Only allow the State to prohibit an abortion after an unborn child is determined by a pregnant woman’s treating physician to be viable and only if the physician does not consider the abortion necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.
- Always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.
This is a Freedom of Speech type amendment that centers around a person’s reproductive rights. In that this amendment prohibits the Ohio State government from passing any law that restricts a person’s reproductive rights except in special cases under strict scrutiny. So this goes way pass just abortion. Additionally, it grants doctors benefit of the doubt protections that would have strict scrutiny bars for the State to overcome, an incredibly high evidentiary bar for the State to overcome.
To just say this protects abortion is really missing the forest for the tree. Yeah, it protects abortion but additionally it protects everything related to reproductive rights (contraception, IVF, etc) and sets a massive barrier for the State to later meddle. This is a massive win for not those seeking abortion but for everyone who cheers reproductive protection and Government non-intervention in such matters.
This is a Freedom of Speech type amendment that centers around a person’s reproductive rights
Watch the Supreme Court challenge reproductive rights as free speech.
It would be hard for the current Supreme Court to actually rule the protection of abortion rights since they leave it up to the states. Interestingly, Alito basically wrote in a slant that was very pro-state’s rights to ban abortions specifically but it also does heavily imply to the point of being just shy of explicitly allowing the opposite but it must be what they meant or it doesn’t make actual sense.
It would take a lot of logical gymnastics to essentially unwind and rewrite an opinion otherwise that doesn’t go against their own majority opinion. Saying that, they did perform some Olympian gymnastics on not only Roe v. Wade but also Planned Parenthood v. Casey or in some instances, outright just say that they were plainly wrong.
They would essentially have to all but support a fundamentalist christo-fascist government (probably under the guise of what is in the best interest of the people, even against their own will) over even the Constitution itself and specifically the 10th Amendment and have a serious risk of impeachment unless he would opine that that it is the Congress’ business to supersede that (Article VI), because that would also run counter to his written opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (that it is the state’s prerogative to regulate abortion and not the federal government’s), unless it was specific that he meant it all narrowed specifically to the 14 Amendment and further would run counter to his own weaker federal government stance.
It would be far more likely for the SC to find that a state and its people have the right to regulate abortion as they see fit if they were even to decide to hear such a case.
TLDR; it’d be extremely risky and difficult to essentially give the state’s the right to regulate abortion but take away unless those laws are only to ban them.
I could actually cry right now, what a fucking relief
It’s also by a pretty decent margin so far:
With 59% reporting:
55.9% For
44.1% Against
Edit:
56.6% For
43.4% against
I don’t live in Ohio, but I’m right on the state border. So many “vote no on issue 1” signs around here. I was worried that it would fail. Glad to see otherwise.
It’s been polling consistently strong. Those signs you were seeing on the border are not representative of where the majority of Ohioans live.
What people need to take away from this is that the majority very often want things that are denied to them by a minority of voters who have been given disproportionate control.
What were seeing is direct democracy in action. No gerrymandered districts, just the people voting for what they fuck they want, and majority rules.
If we had more of that (not full direct democracy 24/7 but more than we have now) you’d see a lot more popular things actually get done.
There’s danger there, populism is a double edged sword, but the opposite extreme is what we have now: a majority of people consistently and perpetually having their will undermined by a minority entirely because of their zip code, while the Republicans the minority gives power to continue to make this even worse.
When you actually look at national polling, the majority of people want a lot of things that have no hope of ever making it through Congress any time in the near future because of obstruction from red states that get disproportionate power entirely because of geography. This is untenable.
My polling place is right next to a sizeable Catholic church, and the amount of “vote no on issue 1” signs I saw in front of it was almost comical
I drive primarily in the country and it’s been interesting to see how deep the divide is between rural and urban areas.
Maga flags above American flags everywhere. No on issue 1 signs everywhere. A couple handmade signs who’s message is summed up with “keep potheads out of Ohio”.
Four houses in particular amuse me when I pass. Two had one sign out from each, then the NO sign multiplied into 3,spaced along the road. So YES put up 3 more signs for 4 total. NO put out a few more scattered around the yard, and in response YES put up what looks like 30 or so randomly scattered over the yard.
Similarly in a different county, a YES sign went up, and in response the neighbor put up a NO THINK OF THE CHILDREN sign big enough to block the YES SIGN. Maybe 6ft wide. So YES put up a 10ft tall banner mounted on a 20ft scaffold in the middle of the yard with bullet points about the issue under the VOTE YES stuff.
Honestly given a couple of the areas I’ve been through, I wouldn’t put it past some neighbors to put a brick through someone’s window or a bullet through a wall just for having the YES sign out front.
When Kansas and then Ohio thoroughly shoot holes in your platform and you’re the dominant party in those places, maybe you should start re-thinking your platform.
Greene’s takeaway was literally "we’re losing because we’re not extreme enough on abortion.’
I guess that means Republicans will start proposing that any woman who even thinks of getting an abortion should be thrown in prison and any woman who suffers a miscarriage should be tried for murder.
Then, they’ll wonder why they are losing even worse!
There are already states that have been trying to criminalize miscarriages unless they can be “proven” to not be the result of an abortion.
It’s ok, Ohio Republicans have already signaled that they intend to put it on the ballot again to reverse the will of the people.
It won by such a large margin clearly abortion was supported by some Republican voters too. It won’t be reversed.
Issue 2, legalizing recreational marijuana for people over 21, is also projected to pass.
Psychedelics need to be next. That step will take a bit, but it’ll be awesome if that happens.
Colorado did good in setting the example, I believe. There wasn’t a huge push to monetize it and the most common psychedelics were made fully legal to produce, use and give away.
In some ways, I don’t really see mushrooms easily fitting into the dispensary model that we have here already. It’s just a different kind of drug, s’all.
Here in California my local smoke shop sells psilocybin infused chocolates under the table, but everyone knows about it and they’re all branded and clean looking
It’s legit a dream come true to pop by on the way home Friday for a trip on the weekend, and the idea that it’s illegal disgusts me
I read up on those, and (generally speaking, YMMV) the amount of active ingredient is ineffectively negligible, if there’s any detectable at all. Not what I want to spend my money on.
In some ways, I don’t really see mushrooms easily fitting into the dispensary model that we have here already.
In Massachusetts the dispensaries are giving out mushroom chocolates as “gifts” since they are decriminalized but not yet legal to “sell”
So at least in some states they are already being integrated into the dispensary market ahead of legalization.
From what I’ve seen you really need to eat the whole bar to get a legit trip but at least they are available to the general public. I suspect that given a little time (and actual legalization) there will be a wider variety of stronger products available.
They are likely playing it safe to avoid any mishaps that could damage their PR or their grey market psilocybin business
I think psychedelics are interesting because their non-addictive nature doesn’t cause competition for other drug companies.
There simply isn’t a way to make egregious profits with them. Mushrooms are cheap and easy to grow. LSD, while being exceptionally hard to make, is effective in such small dosages it ends up being significantly cheaper than mushrooms.
I guess the biggest fear would be psychedelics causing people to ‘wake up’ to what they’ve been ignorant of. There’s also the “I don’t do it and so neither should anyone else crowd,” but I don’t think they’re plentiful in Colorado.
