No, Ohio’s new abortion-rights measure doesn’t allow for ‘financial’ exemptions to restrictions
FILE - Signs for and against a proposed constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights in Ohio stand in front of the Greene County Board of Elections in Xenia, Ohio, Oct. 11, 2023. The Associated Press on Friday, Nov. 10, 2023 reported on social media posts falsely claiming that the measure allows for abortions later in pregnancy for “financial reasons.” (AP Photo/Julie Carr Smyth)
CLAIM: A newly-passed constitutional amendment in Ohio allows abortions later in pregnancy for “financial reasons.”
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The amendment does not include “financial reasons” as an exemption to the state’s restriction on abortions after a fetus has been deemed viable. Opponents argue that a stated exemption for “health” reasons could be interpreted to include financial considerations. But legal experts say that’s an inaccurate reading of the law, and no court has interpreted “health” that way in an abortion case.
THE FACTS: In the run up to Ohio’s closely watched vote on abortion rights, a campaign ad running on social media made the provocative claim that the ballot question would allow residents to cite financial hardship as a reason for seeking an abortion late in pregnancy.
The ad from Protect Women Ohio features a woman, who is only identified as Meredith from Columbus, speaking directly into a camera about why she’s voting against the referendum, known as Issue 1.
“Legal experts say Issue 1 allows for abortion after viability for mental, emotional and even financial reasons, not just to protect the life of the mother,” the woman says. “I’m pro-choice, but Issue 1 goes too far.”
But legal experts say the measure, which passed with roughly 57% of voters in favor, does nothing of the sort.
Issue 1 affirmed a person’s right to “make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” including birth control, fertility treatments, miscarriage and abortion.
But it also allowed the state to prohibit abortions after a fetus becomes viable — meaning it had a high likelihood of survival outside the womb — so long as there are exceptions for cases in which a doctor has determined the “life or health” of the woman was at risk.
The amendment makes it clear that the health risks are solely for the patient’s physician to determine, said Jessica Waters, a professor at American University’s School of Public Affairs who focuses on reproductive rights law.
“It’s a medical question—not an accountant question,” she said in an email this week.
Lucinda Finley, a professor at the University at Buffalo Law School in upstate New York, agreed, calling the claims “completely false.”
“Health means that a physical or mental condition must be involved,” she wrote in an email. “Financial exigency is not a health condition.”
Amy Natoce, spokesperson for Protect Women Ohio, argued that “health” isn’t defined in the amendment, meaning financial considerations could be among the factors weighed by medical professionals.
“When left undefined, courts across the country - including the U.S. Supreme Court - have interpreted ‘health’ to include not just a mother’s physical health, but also her mental health, financial health, familial health, emotional health and social health,” she wrote in an email Thursday. “Essentially, late-term abortions will be permitted for any reason.”
The coalition, like other anti-abortion groups nationally, cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Doe v. Bolton, which held that when considering whether an abortion is necessary for health reasons “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”
“Certainly finances are ‘relevant to the wellbeing of the patient’, and you could argue they fall under the ‘familial health’ exception,” Natoce said.
Legal experts, however, don’t agree.
Jessie Hill, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland who served as a consultant to the Issue 1 campaign, noted the decades-old ruling never mentions financial health or financial factors.
She also argued that the ruling’s language isn’t a “definition” of health, just factors a doctor may take into account when determining whether an abortion is medically necessary.
“Whether an abortion is necessary for a patient’s ‘health’ is still a medical determination (not a financial or social one),” Hill wrote.
What’s more, the Ohio ballot referendum clearly refers to a “medical” definition of health, since it specifically cites “evidence-based standards of care, argued Tracy Thomas, director of the Center for Constitutional Law at the University of Akron School of Law in Akron, Ohio.
Mary Ruth Ziegler, a reproductive rights expert at the University of California, Davis School of Law, added that no court has identified financial or economic reasons as a health factor when addressing abortion-related issues.
“It is a completely absurd suggestion,” said Hill. “I cannot stress that strongly enough.”
___
This is part of AP’s effort to address widely shared misinformation, including work with outside companies and organizations to add factual context to misleading content that is circulating online. Learn more about fact-checking at AP.
