Article I, Section 1 | Inalienable Rights

All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.

Article I, Section 2 | Right to alter, reform, or abolish government, and repeal special privileges 

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the general assembly.

Article I, Section 16 | Redress for injury; Due process

All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delay.

Article I, Section 21  |  Preservation of the freedom to choose health care and health care coverage

(A) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.

(B) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall prohibit the purchase or sale of health care or health insurance.

[...]

Personal/private liberty refers to the rights and freedoms that individuals possess in their personal and private lives and which the government is not allowed to intrude upon. Examples of such liberties include the right to privacy, the right to marry, the right to make personal choices about one's own body and health, and the right to own property. 

Neither the US Constitution nor the US Bill of Rights explicitly enumerates and protects these rights.  However, they have been interpreted by the courts as being protected by the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment.  In contrast, Ohio’s Bill of Rights (Article I) expressly guarantees those private/personal rights (“liberty rights”). For example, Article I, Section 21 declares Ohioans’ right of the freedom to choose health care and health care coverage; others are encapsulated within Article I, Section 1’s guarantees of “life and liberty” and “seeking and obtaining happiness and safety” (thereby securing the promise of the Declaration of Independence).

When read in conjunction with other provisions of Ohio’s Bill of Rights, such as Section 1 and Section 2, Section 16 operates as the functional equivalent of the US Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Thus, Ohioans' “liberty rights” are both directly and indirectly expressed and secured; they simply cannot be abridged without due process of law. 

Anti-choice radicals will tell you that Ohio’s six-week abortion ban is constitutional because it was enacted through a valid legislative process (i.e., that Ohio women’s rights to life, liberty, and equal protection of the law were properly ripped away because legislative due process was respected).

But as noted by Alexander Hamilton in 1787 (pre-US Constitution), “The words ‘due process’ have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of the legislature.”  In other words, no act of the Ohio legislature can constitute due process sufficient to protect Ohio women’s long-recognized “liberty rights” - especially their natural and inalienable right to be free of forced governmental intrusion into, and regulation of, their bodies and family decision-making. 

https://opensea.io/assets/ethereum/0x495f947276749Ce646f68AC8c248420045cb7b5e/10230591088812457033718901168189344744337200517224114374701086345659383021569

James Madison wrote that when men - such as anti-choice radicals - “are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion… adversed to the rights of other citizens,” and “measures are…decided not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority,” then heightened protection must be provided and respected for the maintenance of “essential”  public and personal liberty.  That protection is true due process.

Due process is the minimal legal requirement that a state must respect all legal rights owed to a person.  By their passage and championing of SB 23, which eliminates by legislative fiat alone multiple critical personal rights previously enjoyed by Ohio women, Ohio’s radical right shows its utter contempt not only for the privacy and liberty of Ohio women - indeed, their pursuit of happiness - but also for the due process and “liberty rights” of all Ohioans. 

#ohioansforconstitutionalfreedom 

#protectpersonalliberty

#protectfreedom

#handsoffohio

[^1]: See, e.g., Direct Plumbing Supply Co. v. Dayton (1941), 138 Ohio St. 540; and Akron v. Chapman (1953), 160 Ohio St. 382.

[^2]: Alexander Hamilton, Remarks Regulating Elections, New York Assembly, February 6, 1787; The Works of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (Federal Edition) (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), Volume 4, page 35; The Founders' Constitution, edited by Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001), Volume 5, page 313.

[^3]: James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787), Bill of Rights Institute (2023), https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/federalist-no-10 (last visited Jan 19, 2023).