The US Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization [fn 1] marked a critical divergence from the principles championed by James Madison and other Founders at the time of the ratification and implementation of the United States Constitution.  Two years later, it is clear that Dobbs unleashed far-reaching consequences for American federalism and individual rights, posing significant threats not just to reproductive freedom, but to our constitutional republic's foundational structure and liberties.

By overturning fifty years of Roe v. Wade [fn 2] precedent and returning the issue of abortion “to the people and their elected representatives” of the individual states, [fn 3] the Dobbs Court emboldened and empowered state-level extremist factions, often solidified by severe gerrymandering (as in Ohio), to enact policies that starkly diverge from the clear preferences of a majority in both Americans and Ohioans. Dobbs and its fallout starkly illustrates Madison's warnings about the dangers of unchecked factionalism to republican governance.

In his 1787 "Vices of the American Political System" [fn 4] and elaborated in Federalist No. 10, [fn 5] Madison warned about the dangers of localized factions:

If the multiplicity and mutability of laws prove a want of wisdom, their injustice betrays a defect still more alarming: more alarming not merely because it is a greater evil in itself; but because it brings more into question the fundamental principle of republican Government, that the majority who rule in such governments are the safest Guardians both of public Good and private rights. [fn 6]

Madison’s advocacy for a large federal republic was rooted in the belief that it could dilute and moderate the influence of any extreme faction and protect the rights of individuals across a diverse populace.  By revoking federal protections for abortion rights and “returning” the issue to the states for regulation, Dobbs intensified state-level factionalism, enabling de facto extreme minority rule through gerrymandered legislatures that hurriedly imposed abortion bans contrary to the will of the broader populace. The combination of Dobbs’ reverence for states' rights and ongoing short-sighted gerrymandering by power-hungry politicians has disrupted the Founder’s careful constitutional balance and decoupled legislative bodies from the electoral accountability that should naturally regulate them.

This concentration of power in extreme state factions insulated from electoral accountability subverts the core Madisonian (and American) principle that the majority, formed in a fair process of electing representatives, should safeguard both public good and private rights. The resurgence of absolute abortion bans in various states, which neglect considerations such as the life and health of the mother, and provide no resulting public good, exemplifies a blatant legislative disregard for women's rights and personal liberty, as well as democracy and republicanism.

We are witnessing the purposeful and systematic erosion of liberty and representative democracy, as evidenced by the need for citizens to resort to extraordinary (and expensive) ballot initiatives to protect their fundamental rights.  While overwhelming majorities have voted in support of reclaiming their abortion rights, individual privacy, and personal liberty, the utter necessity of resorting to such direct democracy measures signals a profound failure in American concepts of representative governance.  Post-Dobbs, the normal channels of representative republican government are failing.

Dobbs and the resulting extremist rush to pass punitive state abortion bans has not simply restricted American women's liberty and right to choose, but stricken the very heart of our democratic and republican ethos. By enabling and empowering factional tyranny by extremists, the Dobbs doctrine threatens the broad spectrum of liberties guaranteed by our federal and state constitutions.  If we don’t act, what other cherished rights will come under minority attack?

As we face this erosion of rights, it becomes crucial to reaffirm and advocate for federal protections that can restore and preserve the liberties that Madison and the Founders envisioned, and that we cherish as essential to a free and just society. The stakes extend beyond reproductive rights, touching the very essence of our freedom and the integrity of our democratic system.

Respectfully,

Jeffrey A. Ruppert

libertasohio.com

jeffreyruppert.com

[fn 1] Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. 215 (2022).

[fn 2] Roe v. Wade,  410 U.S. 113 (1973)

[fn 3]Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, syllabus and pp 8-79.

[fn 4] Madison, J. (1787). Vices of the American Political System

[fn 5] Madison, J. (1787). The Federalist No. 10.

[fn 6]

Madison, J. (1787). Vices of the American Political System

http://www.libertasohio.com

• TEXAS SUPREME COURT TEMPORARILY HALTS RULING ALLOWING DALLAS WOMAN TO GET AN ABORTION [fn 1]

• TEXAS AG THREATENS TO PROSECUTE DOCTORS IN EMERGENCY ABORTION [fn 2]

My fellow Ohioans:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s recent intervention in a judicial proceeding related to a legal health-based abortion petition, and particularly Paxton’s express and implicit threats to prosecute the healthcare team involved in the patient petitioner’s care, represents a stark and alarming example of governmental overreach. This purposeful intrusion into the profoundly personal and exceedingly difficult decision of a Texas mother, advised by her doctors to consider abortion due to a severe fetal abnormality (trisomy 18), is not just a violation but a blatant and shameful disregard for the sanctity of private, health, and family decisions.

Such actions by anti-abortion extremists and “Christian” nationalists like Paxton highlight a concerning inconsistency in the application of the principles of individual liberty and autonomy. There is rich irony and hypocrisy in states like Texas and Ohio — where there is a pronounced emphasis on protecting the individual rights of assault weapon owners, and where Second Amendment rights are cited and celebrated as a paramount expression of freedom, personal choice, and protection against “big government” — taking the contradictory stance against liberty when it comes to personal health decisions. This discrepancy is particularly jarring given the impact of assault weapons on community safety, including the well-being of children.

As a proponent of all individual liberties, including the right to common sense gun ownership, I assert that our commitment to the principles enshrined in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights and Ohio Constitution Article I concerning life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, must be unwavering and universal. It is imperative that individual liberty, especially those rights protected by our foundational legal documents, applies to all citizens and situations, not just those aligned with particular religious, moral, or ethical views.

Government's role is to foster a community that supports the well-being and autonomy of its citizens, not to control or dictate personal decisions, especially those that have been carefully considered and sanctioned by judicial processes respecting due process. The overbearing moves in Texas, as well as the broader national conversation about individual rights in areas like gun ownership, serve as a stark reminder of the need for vigilance and consistency in our advocacy for individual liberties.

We must stand against such government intrusions that strip individuals of their right to make deeply personal decisions. We must respect our shared national history and values by continuing to champion a government that respects, not undermines, the personal liberties and health and family choices of its citizens. Respect for individual liberty should not be selective nor biased by the agenda of what is a clear extremist minority. Liberty must be the guiding principle that upholds the rights of all individuals in all aspects of life, health, and family, as well as the good of the community as a whole.

Respectfully submitted.

Jeffrey A Ruppert

LIBERTAS OHIO

www.libertasohio.com

[fn1] Eleanor Klibanoff, Ken Paxton petitions to stop Dallas woman from getting an abortion, The Texas Tribune (2023), https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/08/texas-abortion-lawsuit-ken-paxton/ (last visited Dec 10, 2023).

[fn 2] Brendan Pierson, Texas AG threatens to prosecute doctors in emergency abortion, Reuters (2023), https://www.reuters.com/legal/texas-judge-allows-woman-get-emergency-abortion-despite-state-ban-2023-12-07/ (last visited Dec 10, 2023).

My fellow Ohioans:

There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,'' or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers…

James Madison, Federalist No. 47, quoting Montesquieu [fn 1]

In the wake of the Supreme Court's Dobbs [fn 2] decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, [fn 3] a new fault line has emerged in American politics, one that not only concerns the right to abortion but also the very essence of democracy itself. Recent developments in Ohio [fn 4] highlight a disturbing trend where anti-abortion extremists, under the guise of “Christian” nationalism, are actively undermining democratic principles and institutions.

Just last week, four Ohio legislators - Republican state Representatives Jennifer Gross of West Chester, Melania Miller of Ashland, Bill Dean of Xenia, and Beth Lear of Galena [fn 5] - announced a bill to “bypass” judges by removing their jurisdiction to interpret new Ohio Article XVI, Section 1 and rule on former and renewed efforts to limit abortion. Such legislative actions, taken in direct contravention to the overwhelming voter support for Issue 1, are emblematic of this anti-democratic stance. Despite a clear majority of 57% voting in favor of Issue 1, these officials have vowed to block its implementation, challenging the very foundations of governance in a democratic republic – the people's will.

We must not forget that these so-called “Christian” legislators are acting as elected officials in positions of public trust.  As such, each swore to support the Ohio Constitution and to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all of the duties incumbent upon me as a (State Representative) according to the best of my ability.” [fn 6] In our republican form of government, an elected or appointed public official’s primary duty is to implement and execute the will of Ohioans as expressed through democratic processes. If these extremists are unwilling to uphold the Ohio Constitution and facilitate the enactment of lawfully adopted amendments — including Amendment XVI, Section 1 —  then it is not appropriate for them to impede or block Ohio’s supreme law based on personal or ideological grounds. Instead, the proper and honorable course of action for those who cannot fulfill this fundamental obligation is to RESIGN.

The extremists' intransigence is not just anti-democratic; it is rooted in the most extreme version of Christian nationalism. This ideology seeks to impose a narrow, minority, and religiously defined moral order on the broader society, disregarding the pluralistic nature of our diverse state. By refusing to accept the outcome of a democratic process — referendum and direct vote of the people — these extremists are not only rejecting the specific issue of abortion rights.  They also challenge the legitimacy of democratic decision-making itself.

The commitment to democracy and a functioning republic is fundamentally about respecting the outcomes of elections and policy decisions, even when they do not align with one's personal beliefs. Democracy thrives on the principle of majority rule, tempered by protections for minority rights. However, the actions of these anti-abortion extremists reveal a willingness to discard these democratic norms in favor of their own agenda. By proposing legislation to prevent Ohio courts from interpreting the abortion rights amendment and challenging the citizen-led ballot initiative process, they are effectively trying to dismantle the system of checks and balances that is crucial for a healthy democracy.

An integral part of this system is the inherent authority of courts to interpret and enforce constitutional mandates. As outlined in Ohio Constitution Article IV, Section 1, the judicial power in Ohio is vested in the courts. This power includes the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws and ensure that the state constitution is adhered to. While the jurisdictions of these courts may be set by law determined by the Ohio Legislature, the legislature cannot remove the courts' inherent power to interpret the Constitution and enforce its provisions. As recently confirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court in TWISM Ents., L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors, [fn 7] “only the judiciary has the ultimate authority to interpret the law.” This principle echoes the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice John Marshall famously stated, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." [fn 8]

Where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted.

James Madison, Federalist No. 47 [fn 9]

By attempting to restrict the judiciary's role in interpreting the Ohio Constitution, especially regarding the abortion-rights Amendment XVI, these extremist officials are undermining the democratic process and infringing upon the separation of powers that is fundamental to constitutional governance. Such actions threaten the checks and balances system, designed to prevent any one branch of government from exerting undue influence or power. As noted by the Ohio Supreme Court, separating “the several powers of enacting, construing, and executing laws” aids “the just exercise of the powers” and “prevent[s] abuse.” [fn 10]

Moreover, the extremist stance reflects a dangerous trend in American politics where hyper-partisanship and ideological extremism are increasingly taking precedence over democratic principles. The refusal to accept election results, undermining judicial independence, and attempting to restrict direct democratic processes like ballot initiatives all indicate a movement that places its own ideology above the democratic process and a functioning government that works for all of the People.

“Christian” nationalist extremism is not only a threat to Ohioans' now-established right to abortion. It is also  a threat to the broader democratic framework. It sets a precedent where any group, dissatisfied with the outcome of a democratic process, might feel justified in undermining or disregarding the vote. This path leads to a breakdown in democratic norms and institutions, fostering a climate of divisiveness and instability.

The actions of anti-abortion extremists in Ohio and elsewhere represent a clear and present danger to democracy. The extremists’ refusal to accept the will of the majority, coupled with their attempts to subvert democratic processes, infringe upon the judiciary's role, and disregard their constitutional obligations, is a stark reminder of the fragility of our democratic institutions.

We must recognize and confront this threat, reaffirming our commitment to democratic principles, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. We must defend our Ohio Constitution by ensuring all elected officials adhere to their Bible-sworn oaths. Only then can we ensure that our democracy remains robust and resilient in facing such challenges.

Respectfully submitted.

Jeffrey A Ruppert

LIBERTAS OHIO

www.libertasohio.com

[fn 1] The Avalon Project: Federalist No 47, Yale.edu (2023), https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp (last visited Nov 22, 2023), citing Charles Louis Secondat, Baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Law 181 (1748).

[fn 2] Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) 142 S. Ct. 2228, 213 L. Ed. 2d 545, 2022 WL 2276808; 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3057.

[fn 3] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[fn 4] The Associated Press, Voters back abortion rights, but some foes won’t relent. Is the commitment to democracy in question?, The Athens Messenger (2023), https://www.athensmessenger.com/news/voters-back-abortion-rights-but-some-foes-wont-relent-is-the-commitment-to-democracy-in/article_38289a00-88a0-11ee-83fb-efd912fca68e.html (last visited Nov 22, 2023).

[fn 5] See e.g., Thomas Suddes, Lawmakers need constitutional proficiency test. Plan to seize power on abortion proof., The Columbus Dispatch (2023), https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/2023/11/19/plot-to-overturn-abortion-rights-in-ohio-thomas-suddes/71585021007/?link_id=14&can_id=5bc741ac747c2b9b2be91cd5cec9f5ac&source=email-daily-news-clips-579&email_referrer=email_2119407&email_subject=daily-news-clips (last visited Nov 20, 2023); Susan Tebben, “First Anti-Abortion Policy Post-Issue 1 Enters Ohio Senate - Ohio Capital Journal,” Ohio Capital Journal, November 15, 2023, https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/11/15/first-anti-abortion-policy-post-issue-1-enters-ohio-senate/(last visited Nov 20, 2023); Tebben, Susan. “As Potential Hurdles to Abortion Amendment Proposed, Advocates Ready to Keep up the Fight.” 10tv.com. WBNS, November 2023. https://www.10tv.com/article/news/politics/ohio-abortion-amendment-hurdles/530-f710d95a-98de-48fb-b127-8b4fa1c20bdb (last visited Nov 20, 2023).

[fn 6] Section 3.23 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws, Ohio.gov (2023), https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-3.23#:\~:text=%22I%2C%20(name)%2C,the%20best%20of%20my%20ability (last visited Nov 22, 2023).

[fn 7] TWISM Ents., L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4677, at 10, citing State ex rel. Ferrara v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 166 Ohio St.3d 64, 2021-Ohio-3156, 182 N.E.3d 1142, ¶ 21.

[fn 8] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 138 (1803).

[fn 9] The Avalon Project: Federalist No 47, Yale.edu (2023), https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp (last visited Nov 22, 2023).

[fn 10] TWISM Ents., L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4677, at 11, citing Chesnut v. Shane’s Lessee, 16 Ohio 599, 620 (1847) (Read, J., dissenting); and 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Section 519, 2-3 (1833) (“the three great powers of government * * * should forever be kept separate and distinct”).

In the wake of Ohio's historic support of Issue 1, where a substantial 56% majority has spoken, the essence of democracy demands respect for the people's choice.

The passage of this constitutional amendment is not merely a policy shift; it is a declaration by Ohioans affirming their natural rights to liberty, autonomy, personal choice, and privacy. It is a clear statement against government overreach and intrusion. Yet, despite this clear mandate, the extremist Republican leadership within Ohio's state government vows to resist the amendment's impact.  This challenges the very foundations of our ideals of a democratic republic.

The principle of "Salus Populi Suprema Lex" – "The public good is the supreme law" – must guide Ohio’s path forward. Democracy is inherently a system of fluctuating fortunes, where loss and victory are distributed by the hands of the electorate. When the will of the people is expressed directly through the ballot, it is incumbent upon all, especially those in positions of power, to listen, accept, and respect the majority's voice. To do otherwise is to erode the bedrock of our republic.

American political life is complex and multifaceted, rarely boiling down to simple binaries. Issue 1 was a rare instance of such a binary choice, and Ohioans made their decision clear. If we, as a state, cannot accept the decisions of our fellow citizens and seek change through productive, constitutional means, we risk the very survival of Ohio and our national union.

The current Republican leadership in Ohio must now relearn and embrace the true skills required for democratic-republican governance. They must adapt to operate within a system built on the consent of the governed, to transition from would-be autocratic to responsible overseers. The MAGA faction and other extremists, whether they lean towards theocracy or fascism, must cultivate the discipline to act as a loyal opposition to the true majority.

Our state and nation cannot tolerate continued assaults on the integrity and authority of the people's decisions. We cannot condone the interpretation of laws to serve narrow, partisan ends, nor can we entertain threats to disregard laws with which we disagree. The recent attacks on our democracy and government norms and institutions are not the product of disinterested criticism by patriots seeking constitutional change. They are the manifestations of dangerous hyper-partisanship fueled by grievance. Such attacks are not constructive; they simply sow discord and undermine our union.

Change in a democracy is achieved through constitutional means – at the ballot box or in the courtroom. We must stand firm against hyper-partisanship and the threats it poses to our still fragile and still novel federalist democratic republic. Politics and policy are arenas of compromise and long-term strategy, not immediate gratification. We must resuscitate and invigorate the role of a loyal opposition, recognizing that we must all live with the decisions of our co-citizens, striving always to improve our nation in a constitutional way.

Let this be the time and call to all Ohioans, and indeed all Americans: to respect the decisions made by the majority, to engage in constructive debate, and to work within our constitutional framework to foster both needed change and the public good. In doing so, we do not just preserve our state; we preserve the very essence of our democratic way of life.

Respectfully submitted.

Jeffrey A Ruppert

LIBERTAS OHIO

www.libertasohio.com

Liberty, freedom, and privacy are central to Issue 1.

When Ohioans vote on Issue 1 on November 7th, they are not merely participating in a democratic process. They are making a profound statement about the sanctity of individual liberties, including their freedom to make personal choices and their right to privacy.

Liberty and freedom are not just abstract ideals; they are the lifeblood of a democratic society. They represent the space in which individuals can pursue their happiness and live free from undue governmental interference and intrusion. Issue 1 is a referendum on these very principles. "YES" is a vote for an Ohio that values the liberty of its citizens to make deeply personal decisions free from the peering eyes and the heavy hand of government.

Privacy, too, is a cornerstone of freedom and liberty. It is the realm in which individuals can be their authentic selves to make choices about their bodies, health, and families, without fear of public persecution and judgment. By voting "YES" on Issue 1, Ohioans affirm that this private sphere is sacrosanct, and that the government has no business intruding into it. By voting “YES” on Issue 1, Ohioans are upholding our Ohio Constitution as a guardian of this privacy, and a barrier against governmental overreach into the most intimate areas of our lives.

A vote “YES” on Issue 1 draws a line in the sand. It unequivocally declares that there are certain areas where legislators and government simply should not tread. It affirms that the Ohio Constitution is not just a document, but a living covenant that protects the citizens of Ohio from the excesses of governmental power. It's about standing up and saying that in Ohio, liberty means the freedom to control our lives, and privacy means the right to make life decisions free from undue governmental scrutiny or interference.

This November 7th, send a powerful message about the kind of state you want Ohio to be—a state that values freedom, cherishes liberty, and respects the privacy of its citizens now and for generations to come.

Vote "YES" on Issue 1.

Respectfully submitted.

Jeffrey A Ruppert

LIBERTAS OHIO

www.libertasohio.com

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically Section I, Clause 2—commonly referred to as the Due Process Clause—explicitly states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In the landmark 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case of Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, the Court unambiguously affirmed that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards the inviolable right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and overall care of their children. [fn 1]

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that while state constitutions can offer more individual freedoms than the U.S. Constitution, they can't offer fewer. The U.S. Constitution sets the minimum standard for rights like parental rights, which no state can undermine. [fn 2]

Given this unequivocal legal precedent, the repeated assertions made by anti-abortion extremists, including Ohio Governor Mike Dewine, that Issue 1—officially known as the Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative—would somehow infringe upon or dilute the parental rights of Ohioans are not only misleading, but amount to nothing more than false propaganda. They are trying to needlessly scare Ohioans into voting no.

Issue 1, when examined through the lens of constitutional law, neither interferes with nor can be construed to undermine parental rights in any conceivable future interpretation. The Due Process Clause serves as a robust constitutional safeguard that ensures the protection of these rights. Therefore, when Ohioans ratify Issue 1 on November 7th, the parental rights of Ohioans will remain unassailable under both the United States and Ohio constitutions.

In fact, a "YES" vote for Issue 1 does more than merely maintain the protected status quo. It fortifies the liberty and freedom of Ohioans to make autonomous decisions and choices concerning their personal lives, family planning, health, and reproductive care. It does so by explicitly rejecting unwarranted government intrusion or control exerted by any extremist - such as those who are lying to you now.

By voting "YES" on Issue 1, Ohioans not only preserve but also enhance their constitutional rights, thereby ensuring that decisions about their families remain where they rightfully belong—in the hands of Ohio citizens themselves, free from governmental overreach.

Vote "YES" on Issue 1.

Respectfully submitted.

Jeffrey A Ruppert

LIBERTAS OHIO

www.libertasohio.com

[fn 1] 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868), National Archives (2021), https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment#:\~:text=No%20State%20shall%20make%20or,equal%20protection%20of%20the%20laws. (last visited Oct 30, 2023).

[fn 2] Arnold v. Cleveland, 67 Ohio St. 3d 35, 41 (Ohio 1993)(“e.g., City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc. (1982), 455 U.S. 283, 293, 102 S.Ct. 1070, 1077, 71 L.Ed.2d 152, 162 ("* * * [A] state court is entirely free to read its own State's constitution more broadly than this Court reads the Federal Constitution, or to reject the mode of analysis used by this Court in favor of a different analysis of its corresponding constitutional guarantee."); and California v. Greenwood (1988), 486 U.S. 35, 43, 108 S.Ct. 1625, 1630, 100 L.Ed.2d 30, 39 (''Individual States may surely construe their own constitutions as imposing more stringent constraints on police conduct than does the Federal Constitution."). See, also, Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins (1980), 447 U.S. 74, 81, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 2040, 64 L.Ed.2d 741, 752.

The Declaration of Independence is not a mere proclamation. It is not an end or finished product, but a commencement and covenant. It is American scripture, the core of our shared first principles, and a solemn pledge of American allegiance to the eternal principles and blessings of natural rights.  The Declaration is America’s mission statement, forever binding our nation to the indispensable and inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Declaration’s solemn words are far from hollow rhetoric; they form the foundational bedrock upon which the Constitution of the United States, and by extension, the Constitution of the State of Ohio, find their grounding. As stated in Article I, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution:

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.

It is from this fount of wisdom that the Constitution draws its essence, serving as a practical “users guide” to the exercise of governance, with a delicate balance of power, justice, and liberty.

In Ohio's long constitutional tradition of freedom and liberty, Issue 1 is a pivotal juncture. With a YES vote for Issue 1 in November, Ohioans can further secure their privacy, personal autonomy, and choice within the state’s legal fabric.  Issue 1 is a profound affirmation of the fundamental rights echoed in the Declaration of Independence and embodied within Article I, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution. By seeking to safeguard reproductive rights by writing them into the Ohio Constitution, Issue 1 bolsters Ohioans’ individual liberty against an ever-expanding onslaught of religious extremism and government overreach and intrusion. Issue 1 ensures that an extreme minority motivated by fundamentalist whims does not trample upon our democracy and rights.

Voting against Issue 1 threatens to revert Ohio to the extreme "Heartbeat Bill," which bans abortions post the initial six weeks of pregnancy—a juncture when many women remain unaware of their condition—with no exceptions for rape, incest, or consideration of the health or life of the mother.  A no vote and subsequent reversion to the “Heartbeat Bill” will starkly undermine Ohioans’ privacy, personal autonomy, and right to make informed healthcare and reproductive choices. The Heartbeat Bill abortion ban casts a long shadow of unwarranted absolutism on American and Ohioan traditions of individual empowerment and personal sovereignty traditions. Absolute abortion bans reek of despotism. They reflect not a governance guided by reason and law, but a tyranny of minority opinion at odds with the ethos of our republic.

No less important, the Heartbeat Bill—like other absolute abortion bans—imparts a wide spectrum of harms upon the fundamental dignity and freedom of Ohio women, girls, and families:

Health Risks: Absolute abortion bans pose serious health risks to women, especially in cases of medical complications, where terminating a pregnancy might be necessary to protect the woman's health or even save her life. The lack of exceptions for the mother's health or life in such bans can lead to tragic outcomes.

• Victims of Rape and Incest: Absolute abortion bans that lack exceptions for rape and incest are particularly grievous. Victims are forced to carry pregnancies resulting from traumatic and violent circumstances, further exacerbating their emotional and psychological distress.

• Economic Burden: Unwanted or unexpected pregnancies can impose substantial economic burdens on women and families, particularly those struggling financially. The costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and child-rearing can be overwhelming, perpetuating cycles of poverty.

• Access to Reproductive Healthcare: Absolute abortion bans lead to a shortage of accessible reproductive healthcare services, including affordable contraception, as providers face legal threats or clinics may shut down. This lack of access disproportionately affects low-income individuals and communities, exacerbating healthcare inequities.

• Psychological and Emotional Toll: The emotional distress and psychological impact of being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term can be profound. This is further compounded by the societal stigma and potential ostracization individuals face in such situations.

• Legal and Judicial Consequences: Women and healthcare providers may face legal and judicial consequences, including prosecution and imprisonment under stringent abortion laws. This punitive approach undermines the doctor-patient relationship and deters medical professionals from providing essential care.

Issue 1 isn’t a simple policy choice. It is a referendum on the very core of Ohioans’ individual autonomy, the sanctity of private choice, and citizens’ power to limit government to its proper scope and function. Issue 1 is a clarion call to uphold the legacy of principled governance and constitutional integrity.  A YES vote on Issue 1 declares anew our commitment to the principles enshrined in our founding documents and ensures that your majority voice is affirmed in law and policy.

Ohioans, the time to merely lament the extremist encroachment upon our cherished rights is behind us. Stop lamenting. Start leading. Lamentation does not get us far. The path ahead calls for more than passive discourse and protests—it demands action, decisive and unyielding. Voting YES on Issue 1 on November 7 is a powerful tool—a gateway to amend the Ohio Constitution and shield Ohioans from the shackles of restrictive mandates like the Heartbeat Bill's absolute abortion ban.

We must move. We must act. The mantle of leadership is ours to bear. Seize this moment and embrace the solemn duty to lead Ohio towards a brighter, healthier, freer future where the rights of all are upheld, and the promise of liberty is realized for generations to come.

Vote "YES" on Issue 1.

Respectfully submitted.

Jeffrey A Ruppert

LIBERTAS OHIO

www.libertasohio.com

[fn 1] Thank you to historian and author John Meacham for this inspirational thought.

[fn 2] Ohio.gov. (2023). Article I, Section 1 - Ohio Constitution | Ohio Laws. [online] Available at: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-1.1#:\~:text=Article%20I%2C%20Section%201%20%7C%20Inalienable%20Rights&text=All%20men%20are%2C%20by%20nature,and%20obtaining%20happiness%20and%20safety. [Accessed 16 Oct. 2023].

‌

A grave question of freedom is before us. Our liberty and personal autonomy are under siege. The battle lines are drawn around Issue 1 and the extremist Ohio legislature's "Heartbeat Bill," both of which have profound implications for Ohioans’ privacy and reproductive rights now and in the future.

John Dickinson, one of the luminaries of the American Revolution, once posed a question that resonates with our current struggle:

Who are free people? [fn 1]

His answer was unequivocal: "Not those over whom government is reasonable and equitably exercised, but those who live under a government so constitutionally checked and controlled that proper provision is made against it being otherwise exercised." [fn 2] This wisdom is a clarion call for Ohioans today, as we confront extremist legislation that erodes the constitutional checks and balances that safeguard our God and nature-given freedoms.

The Heartbeat Bill seeks to ban abortions in Ohio upon mere detection of fetal heart electrical activity as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. This is not merely an assault on reproductive rights but an affront to the very principles of freedom and liberty. The Heartbeat Bill sets a dangerous precedent, signaling that the extremist Ohio legislature can - and will - impose any burden upon our rights and liberties that it wishes, unchecked and unbalanced. As Dickinson warned, "Each new encroachment will be strengthened by a former." [fn 3]

The Heartbeat Bill is a calculated move by Ohio extremists and their theocratic allies to establish such legislative rights violations as precedent, forcing Ohioans to passively submit to and accept an erosion of constitutional norms and protections.   The Heartbeat Bill not only represents a clear and immediate danger to Ohioans’ liberties but also poses a grave risk to the future of free men and women. The Heartbeat Bill is designed for one purpose: to set a precedent for future infringement on our rights. Surely other rights concerning Ohioans’ privacy, family formation,  freedom to marry, medical decisions, and even choice in contraception will be next on the extremists’ to-do list.

The Ohio Constitution, in Article I, emphasizes Ohioans’ inalienable rights to life, liberty, and happiness. These rights are not mere abstract concepts; they are essential to our well-being, born with us, existing with us, and, as Dickinson would also argue, "cannot be taken from us by any human power without taking our lives." [fn 4] The right to happiness is intrinsically linked to freedom, including the freedom to make personal choices about our bodies and health care.

Ohioans now have the opportunity to fight the reality and risk of the Heartbeat Bill and other extremist legislation.  Issue 1 on this November’s ballot - the Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative - is a critical measure that enshrines reproductive, family, and health care choice protections in Ohio’s constitution. It represents the next phase of defending our liberties from escalating attacks.  Issue 1 overturns the Heartbeat Bill and other laws violating our right to reproductive and health freedom. Failure to pass Issue 1 equals passive ratification of the Heartbeat Bill and all that comes next to invade our privacy and undermine the foundation of our rights and constitutional democracy.

"He certainly is not a wise man who folds his arms, composes himself at home, viewing with unconcern the flames that have invaded his neighbor's house, without using endeavors to extinguish them." [fn 5] We must not view the Heartbeat Bill’s infringement on and risk to our liberties with indifference. This is a cause for all Ohioans. Our negligence and division will lead to distress and death of the very freedoms we hold dear, as well as certain increased physical pain and death for the pregnant women it most directly impacts. As the old Revolutionary song goes- “In freedom, we are born, and in freedom, we must live.”

The Ohio that merits respect and veneration is the Ohio whose people and legislature embody respect for its citizens' natural rights. We declare our respect by voting “YES” on Issue 1 in November.

As we approach the vote on Issue 1 this November, let us remember that this is not merely a question of reproductive rights and health (although those are critical too); it is a question of freedom, liberty, and personal autonomy. It is a call to action for every Ohioan who values these principles. We must act with vigilance and union to pass Issue 1 and secure our rights.

We cannot allow the Heartbeat Bill’s initial encroachment to stand. Liberty dies from such an illegal exercise of power. Each new constitutional violation and overstep of our privacy and rights will be strengthened by the Heartbeat Bill enactment, as a gerrymandered, unrepresentative extremist legislature slowly chips away at Ohioans’ constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Ohio must not allow this to happen. Let us rise, united in purpose and resolve, to ensure that Ohio remains a beacon of freedom, where the rights are not mere words on paper but living principles that guide our actions and shape our destiny.

In the spirit of the Founding Generation, let us write the next chapter of the Ohio Revolution, one that reaffirms our commitment to freedom, liberty, and personal autonomy.

Defend privacy and access to reproductive healthcare for all.

Vote "YES" on Issue 1.

Respectfully submitted.

Jeffrey A Ruppert

LIBERTAS OHIO

#voteyeson1 #ohioansforconstitutionalfreedom

[fn 1] The Project Gutenberg eBook of Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania by John Dickinson., Gutenberg.org (2014), https://www.gutenberg.org/files/47111/47111-h/47111-h.htm (last visited Oct 10, 2023).

[fn 2] Id.

[fn 3] Id.

[fn 4] John Dickinson, An Address to the Committee of Correspondence in Barbados: Occasioned by a Late Letter from Them to Their Agent in London. Philadelphia: Printed and sold by William Bradford, John Dickinson: Penman of the Revolution, Udel.edu (2023), https://exhibitions.lib.udel.edu/john-dickinson/exhibition-item/john-dickinson-an-address-to-the-committee-of-correspondence-in-barbados-occasioned-by-a-late-letter-from-them-to-their-agent-in-london-philadelphia-printed-and-sold-by-william-bradford-at-his-bo/ (last visited Oct 10, 2023).

[fn 5] The Project Gutenberg eBook of Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania by John Dickinson., Gutenberg.org (2014), https://www.gutenberg.org/files/47111/47111-h/47111-h.htm (last visited Oct 10, 2023).

Our Ohio Revolution began just this past August, when we triumphed over extremist efforts to limit citizens’ power to amend the Ohio Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that "my most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular control pushed to the maximum to its practicable exercise." [fn 1] In other words, the people have the power to govern themselves and protect their own rights. Lincoln, in his immortal Gettysburg Address, crystallized the essence of this spirit, emphasizing a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." With their overwhelming vote on August 8, 2023, Ohioans defeated the legislature’s power grab to preserve popular sovereignty. Ohioans fully exercised their popular sovereignty to protect essential liberties.

Now, the fight continues with a second Issue 1 on this November’s ballot - the Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative. This critical measure would enshrine reproductive choice protections in Ohio’s constitution. It represents the next phase of defending our liberties from escalating attacks.

Extremists have passed laws that would ban abortion outright in Ohio - even where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or poses a risk to maternal health.  Moreover, these same politicians are erecting insurmountable barriers for women to access safe and legal reproductive care, including contraception. Such actions are an assault on our privacy, reproductive freedom, and all Ohio women; they challenge the very principles upon which our nation was founded.

This November, a “YES” on Issue 1 will further enshrine and protect the sanctity of Ohioans’ rights to autonomy over their privacy and personal and family reproductive health decisions.  Issue 1 provides Ohioans the opportunity to vote “YES” and seize the moment to safeguard every Ohioan’s unassailable freedom to make decisions about their bodies, their family, and their lives.

The primary role of government is securing inalienable rights, including privacy and reproductive choice. As the Ohio Constitution eloquently affirms in Article I, Section 1:

All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. [fn 3]

The right to bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom is one of our most fundamental rights.  It is intertwined with Ohioans' right to make decisions about their own families and pregnancies. It is essential to the ability to control our own destiny, and to limit government overreach  nd intrusion into life’s most intimate and life-changing challenges and choices. Such rights are universal and inherent, woven into the very fabric of our being.

The call to action is clear. Ohioans must rise, united in purpose and mission, to defend our fundamental rights by voting YES on Issue 1 come November 7. We must also amplify and clarify our collective voice to ensure that Ohio’s elected representatives understand our unwavering resolve to defeat attacks on our fundamental rights. Supporting organizations that champion the cause of reproductive freedom and abortion access is no longer merely a choice; it is a duty. Just as past generations summoned the patriotic spirit of ‘76 to abolish slavery and secure full citizenship for women, Ohioans must rally to protect our cherished rights from unrelenting extremist assault and threats.

liberty is imperiled and Ohioans must stand united. By keeping faith with the founding spirit of human equality and freedom, we can secure the blessings of liberty for generations to come. Together, let us ensure that Ohio remains a beacon of freedom, where every individual can live life to its fullest potential, unencumbered by the long arm of government oppression.

Our Ohio Revolution, like America’s, remains unfinished - but together, we can write its next victorious chapter by voting YES on Issue 1 on November 7, 2023.

Respectfully submitted.

Jeffrey A Ruppert

LIBERTAS OHIO

[fn 1] Founders Online: Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 26 August 1816, Archives.gov (2013), https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0234 (last visited Oct 2, 2023).

[fn 2] Gettysburg Address delivered at Gettysburg Pa. Nov. 19th, 1863. [n. p. n. d.]., The Library of Congress (2015), https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.24404500/?st=text (last visited Oct 2, 2023).

[fn 3] Article I, Section 1 - Ohio Constitution | Ohio Laws, Ohio.gov (2023), https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-1.1 (last visited Oct 2, 2023).

The United States emerged from the revolutionary ideas of the Enlightenment—a period teeming with new philosophies that radically shifted the perception of individual rights and liberties, as well as man’s relationship with and to government. America's Founders held a nuanced, yet profound view on the concept of natural rights as founded in the ineradicable moral sensibility inherent in every human being. The Founders believed this innate moral instinct served as the fount of each America’s natural, inalienable rights such as life, liberty, freedom, privacy, and happiness. This founding philosophy wove and enmeshed itself into the fabric of America's civic values, virtues, and government structures. Now more than ever - when religious extremists threaten Ohioans’ liberties and rights - we must remember that America and Ohio’s founding principles and rights are not based upon and did not arise from the imposition of religious beliefs, or any other external societal factors, but rather are innately human and rooted in what Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence termed “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”

Inalienable Rights: Rooted in Human Nature

Our Declaration speaks of "self-evident" truths and "unalienable Rights," affirming that neither government nor society grants certain fundamental rights.  Rather, they exist a priori, rooted in human nature. The founding generation, including specifically Washington, Jefferson, the Adamses, Franklin, Mason, Madison, and Hamilton, were all  influenced by and adopted the Enlightenment thinking of John Locke, who had earlier written that the state of nature is governed by "a law of nature," and that law was "reason."

This concept of reason is intricately-connected to the Founders' notion of innate moral sensibility. Reason was a guiding force, enabling humans to both discern right from wrong and recognize private and public obligations and duties without external arbitration. The founders argued that even without societal norms or religious dictates, individuals could, through reason, understand essential principles like the importance of rights in life, liberty, and property.

Civic Values and Virtues: A Collective Moral Conscience

If natural rights arise from innate moral sensibility, the same foundation gives rise to our shared civic values. In the Federalist Papers, Madison and  Hamilton delved into the importance of civic virtues like justice, prudence, and integrity for a  republican form of government. Abigail Adams is said to have summed up this perspective succinctly: "To be good, and do good, is the whole duty of man comprised in a few words." Her observation emphasizes the Founding Generation's belief that goodness—an expression of innate moral sensibility—is not just a personal attribute but a civic duty essential for the well-being and governance of the republic.

Here, too, the idea is that civic virtue is not something learned from external structures but is a product of inherent human qualities amplified by a well-structured society. The Founders also emphasized the importance of an educated, but not necessarily religious, citizenry to uphold and protect these principles and rights. They believed that a well-informed public would be better equipped to engage their innate moral sensibilities to cultivate civic virtues, ultimately ensuring that the government stays true to its foundational principles.

Beyond Religious Instruction

While many of the Founders were deeply religious or spiritual, they were careful to delineate natural rights and civic virtues from religious teachings. This separation is exemplified in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion. They believed that equating inalienable rights, virtues, and duty with religious dogma would imply that these rights are not natural but granted, thus compromising their universality. As noted by Madison, “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt. in the Constitution of the United States.”

America and Ohio were founded in a period that encouraged questioning traditional authority, including religious institutions. The implication that human beings have a natural moral compass made it clear that while religion could serve as a personal guide, it was not the source of universal principles or rights that applied to everyone. Defining natural rights and civic virtues as inherently human rather than religiously-ordained ensures their applicability to a diverse population, underscoring the pluralistic society the Founders envisioned.

The Inviolability of Natural Rights and Reproductive Freedom in Ohio

As we reflect upon the foundational principles that the Founders articulated—inalienable rights emanating from an innate moral sensibility—it becomes incumbent upon us to examine contemporary challenges that confront these principles.

Case in point is the ongoing debate surrounding the right to and availability of abortion and reproductive health care in Ohio. Efforts to limit these rights (such as Ohio’s “Heartbeat Bill” banning abortions after six weeks without exception) infringe on Ohioans’ liberty and privacy and their right to govern and control their bodies and families free from government intrusion and interference. Such laws limiting access to medical care run directly counter to the foundational beliefs that have shaped our nation and our state and are constitutionally invalid.

The United States Constitution, through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Similarly, via the Fourth Amendment, the Bill of Rights safeguards "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Ohio Constitution also acknowledges individual rights and freedoms, declaring in Article I, Section 1 that 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." Even more precisely, Article I, Section 21 of the Ohio Constitution expressly states and protects Ohioans’ freedom to choose health care and health care coverage free from government trespass.

While these foundational documents do not explicitly mention reproductive rights, the essence of these rights lies in the autonomy they afford individuals over their bodies, lives, and families—clearly in line with the broader principles of liberty and privacy. Efforts nationally and in Ohio to limit reproductive rights stem from minority religious beliefs and extreme interpretations. As established earlier, the Founders were explicit that natural rights are not derived from religious instruction but are innate to human beings. Therefore, religion should not influence legal rulings related to inalienable rights, including the right to choose reproductive health care.

The effort to limit reproductive health care options contravenes the principles enshrined in our foundational documents and contradicts the very ethos upon which the United States and the State of Ohio were founded. Just as the Founders argued that our natural rights and collective moral compass are products of our shared human nature, so too should modern-day policy respect the complexities and diversities of individual choices, free from religious or ideological imposition.

The question of reproductive rights, and any attempts to limit them, thus becomes not just a policy issue but a test of our commitment to the very ideals that birthed our nation. If we are to remain true to our founding principles, we must steadfastly defend the natural rights of all Ohioans and ensure that these rights are not unduly compromised or infringed upon.

By anchoring contemporary debates within the timeless principles of natural rights and innate moral sensibility, we fortify the integrity of our republican institutions and affirm the inalienable freedoms that define us as a people, a nation, and as Ohioans.

Jeffrey A Ruppert

LIBERTAS OHIO

Ohioans for Constitutional Freedom

https://libertasohio.com

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

• Declaration of the Representatives of the United States Of America, in General Congress assembled, July 4, 1776

The power of the Declaration of Independence arises from Americans’  embrace and defense of Thomas Jefferson’s claim that our most basic, fundamental rights emanate from “self-evident” “truths.”

The use of such language has great meaning.  The Declaration is a sweeping assertion - offered without definition, proof, or rationalization - that there are universal truths known and rights “inherent” [fn1] to all individuals upon their “equal creation” [2] in nature. Critically, the Declaration establishes that such rights, as stated in Jefferson’s original, unedited draft of the Declaration, “are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.”[fn 3]

In other words, our fundamental freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are neither dependent upon, nor founded in, any religious opinion, secular grant, or government recognition. Instead, as Jefferson articulated in that early draft of the Declaration, American rights are “sacred and undeniable” and ‘inherent and inalieable.” [fn 4] These rights require no justification to, nor ratification by, any third-party. They are not only a part of our shared heritage, but also integrated into our very individual being.

Freedom will always prevail and triumph if left to herself and allowed to flourish. The principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence serve as a powerful rebuke and stumbling block to tyranny and oppression. However, we must always remain vigilant in recognizing, celebrating, and defending our inalienable natural rights against those who would attempt to deny natural, self-evident truths through misguided claims of authority, unwarranted exercises of power, and deceitful attestations of virtue.

#CelebrateTheFourth

Jeffrey A Ruppert

LIBERTAS OHIO

[fn 1]  Jefferson’s “original Rough draught” of the Declaration of Independence - Declaring Independence: Drafting the Documents | Exhibitions - Library of Congress, Loc.gov (2023), https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html (last visited July 4, 2023).

[fn 2] Id.

[fn 3] Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, Monticello (2013), https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/virginia-statute-religious-freedom/ (last visited July 4, 2023).

[fn 4]  Jefferson’s “original Rough draught” of the Declaration of Independence - Declaring Independence: Drafting the Documents | Exhibitions - Library of Congress, Loc.gov (2023), https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html (last visited July 4, 2023).

Liberty is “the greatest of all Earthly blessings.”

US Constitutional Ratification Convention, Virginia, 1788

The principle of popular sovereignty underpins our democratic republic.  Ultimate power resides not with a governmental body such as the Ohio General Assembly, but with the people themselves.  Individual Ohioans, through their collective will, are THE sovereign authority in our state, delegating specific powers to their elected representatives. This delegation establishes what we refer to as governmental or legislative sovereignty, which is distinct from ultimate sovereignty and is subject to the will of the people.

On May 10, 2023, Ohio right-wing legislators abused their power, and voted to make it tougher for Ohioans to exercise their 112-year-old right to initiate changes or amendments to the Ohio Constitution through citizen-led ballot measures.  Their proposal to raise the passage rate for citizen-led initiatives for constitutional change or amendments from a simple majority to over 60% is an example of the tension (if not conflict) that exists between these two forms of sovereignty. By making it more difficult for such initiatives to pass, the legislature is effectively proposing to limit the exercise of the people's ultimate authority.

This extreme and radical proposal fundamentally challenges the foundational premise of American and Ohioan constitutional thought. The gerrymandered General Assembly, a body to which the people have delegated only limited, certain powers, is attempting to assert its authority over the very source of its power: THE PEOPLE. 

By raising the passage rate, the legislature is making it harder for the people to express their collective will and shape their own government, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the people's ultimate sovereignty.  This is a naked grab for power - an abuse that contradicts the principle that the ultimate power lies solely with the people. 

While at first glance it may appear democratic on the surface for the General Assembly to submit the legislative proposal to limit citizens' initiative power to the Ohio people for passage (in a traditionally low-turnout August special election), this act in itself represents a further erosion of popular sovereignty.  The people may have the opportunity to vote on the proposal, but the very act of introducing such a proposal dramatically exposes the General Assembly’s desire to assert greater control over the democratic process. If this proposal passes in August 2023, it will set a precedent for further legislative attempts to constrain the power of  Every Ohioan, and steadily erode their rights. 

Popular sovereignty is not a static principle confined to a single moment in time, but rather a dynamic and continuous exercise of the people's will, extending across generations, events, and societal change.  By rigging the rules of citizen-led constitutional initiatives, the Republican-dominated General Assembly is seeking to limit and constrain not only the power of the present electorate, but also that of future generations. If passed, this proposal would impose the current will of a small minority of Ohioans on all future majorities, destroying their sovereignty. This violates the principles of intergenerational equity, which advocate for the rights of future generations to self-determination and political participation - another foundation of American and Ohio constitutional thought and design. 

The essence of democracy and popular sovereignty lies in the ability of each generation to shape its societal structures and norms according to its evolving needs and values. Popular sovereignty emphasizes the importance of the people's continuous and dynamic engagement with their government and its structures. Any legislative action that seeks to restrict this engagement undermines the very fabric of our democratic and republican principles.

Furthermore, as previously argued, by raising the threshold for the passage of citizen-led initiatives, the General Assembly's clear intent is to favor certain minority beliefs and groups over the vast majority of Ohioans. The General Assembly is further marginalizing both majority and minority voices, and shifting the balance of power even more towards those extremists and special interests who already hold significant sway within the political system. The inevitable conclusion of such maneuvering: a dangerous consolidation, imbalance, and corruption of power in Ohio government.

The long-term effects on popular sovereignty and the rights of future generations must be considered.  Through this proposal, extremists are effectively limiting the power of future generations to respond to evolving social, political, and economic challenges. This undermines the responsiveness and adaptability of the democratic republic system and effective government, which relies entirely on the people's ability to shape their government as circumstances change.

Preserve the principles of popular sovereignty, ensure a responsive and adaptable government, and protect the inherent rights and privileges of all Ohioans (especially those relating to their health and personal autonomy) - now and in the future - vote “NO” in August. 

Respectfully submitted.

LIBERTAS OHIO

Ohioans for Constitutional Freedom

The American Republic, encompassing the fifty states and US territories, is fundamentally founded on the following core principles, each of which relates to, and strengthens the others:

• Popular Sovereignty: The government should be based on the consent of the governed, and the people should have the power to make decisions about their government.

• Individual Liberty: Individuals have certain fundamental rights that cannot be taken away by the government, such as the right to life, liberty, and property.

• Limited Government: The government should be limited in its power and should not be able to interfere in the lives of the people.

• Checks and Balances: The different branches of government should be able to check each other's power so that no one branch becomes too powerful.

• The Rule of Law: The government should be subject to the law, and no one should be above the law.

On May 10, 2023, Ohio right-wing legislators abused their power and voted to make it tougher for Ohioans to exercise their 112-year-old right to initiate or change laws or amend the Ohio Constitution through citizen-led ballot measures.  This proposed constitutional change violates each of the fundamental principles of our American Republic. it particularly infringes upon the concept of consent of the governed and majority rule, which inevitably leads, in turn, to a breakdown in checks and balances, expansion of government power, and, ultimately, destruction of our personal liberty. 

When James Madison rose to introduce his draft of a bill of rights to the new US Constitution, his first resolution emphasized the importance of the people as the source of power in the government:

First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration--That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people. That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution. [fn 1]

Madison’s first resolution essentially proposed to incorporate and secure the principles, ideals, and rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence into the US Constitution - particularly the truism that all power comes from the people. Although Madison's initial proposal did not make it verbatim into the final version of the Constitution, the essence of the idea was captured in the Preamble's "We the People" phrase, as noted by Founder Roger Sherman of Connecticut:  

“The truth is better asserted than it can be by any words whatsoever. The words ‘We the People’ in the original Constitution are as copious and expressive as possible.”  [fn 2]

Madison's views profoundly influenced the formation and functioning of the American Republic at both federal and state levels. For over 200 years, popular sovereignty has been safeguarding the rights of the people. The concept of popular sovereignty—governance based on the consent of the governed and the accountability it ensures—is crucial not only to a free state but also to a just, stable, and prosperous one. As stated by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams, self-rule was the driving force behind the Revolution:

“We were fellow laborers in the same cause, struggling for what is most valuable to man, his right of self-government.” [fn 3]

The Founder’s intent is clearly discernible over these 200 years: government must recognize popular sovereignty and majority rule is connected and inseparable.  They both rely on the idea that the people are the ultimate source of power: when the people have the power to make decisions about their government, majority rule ensures that their voices are taken into account and their will expressed in law. Moreover, majority rule (by a simple majority not a supermajority of 60%+) ensures that the government and the people’s representatives remain accountable to their communities.  Upholding these principles is crucial for maintaining the moral force and legitimacy of any democratic republic.

By making it more difficult for citizens to initiate and pass constitutional amendments, extremists in the Ohio legislature are effectively silencing the voice of the majority. This not only contradicts the principles of majority rule but also erodes the fundamental concept of governance based on the consent of the governed. Moreover, when a so-called representative government limits the ability of citizens to participate in shaping their fundamental government charters, it inherently concentrates power in the hands of a few, often leading to an imbalance of power and an expansion of corruption. 

Such concentration of power not only strips majority coalitions of Ohioans of their power and rights, it exponentially increases the infringement of minority rights and privileges, as those in positions of authority prioritize their own interests or the interests of special interest groups over the well-being of the broader population. When the majority's ability to influence legislation is curtailed, minority voices become even more marginalized in a political process increasingly dominated by a select few. Without the ability to initiate change through true democratic means, minority groups are left with limited recourse to protect their interests.

The ability of Ohio citizens to initiate constitutional amendments serves as an essential check on government authority - a fundamental feature of the American Republic.  Ohio’s constitutional guarantee of the citizen initiative provides a last-resort mechanism through which the people can hold elected officials accountable, ensuring that the government remains responsive to Ohioan's needs, desires, and will.  America was established on the shared fundamental belief - as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Ohio Constitution - that the people have an inalienable right to reform or change their government if it becomes adverse or inadequate to its original purposes. By restricting this right by limiting the citizen initiative, extreme Ohio legislators have weakened the delicate system of checks and balances that is so vital to a healthy democratic republic, and a thriving state.

A functioning republic requires an engaged citizenry with the power to shape its government and hold it accountable. To ensure the protection of popular sovereignty and the rights of all citizens, the people must maintain their ability to participate fully in the democratic process. Otherwise, government is no longer limited and extreme legislators feel empowered to invade our privacy and personal autonomy by injecting their personal beliefs with laws designed to control our bodies, families, health, and lives. 

Ohioans' access to the ballot through citizen-led initiatives and majority control of and consent to the state Constitution is necessary and essential to the preservation of liberty and democracy in our Ohio.

Reject this direct attack on the fundamental right of Ohioans to have a say in their own government. Reject this “reform.”  It is fundamentally wrong, anti-American, and utterly destructive of our cherished democratic and republican traditions. 

The August 2023 proposed constitutional  Amendment is nothing more than a desperate attempt to prevent Ohioans from expressing their true beliefs about personal autonomy, privacy, health, and reproductive freedom.

Vote “NO” in August. 

Respectfully submitted.

LIBERTAS OHIO

Ohioans for Constitutional Freedom

[fn 1]  Rights: James Madison, House of Representatives, Uchicago.edu (2023), https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s50.html (last visited May 11, 2023)(emphasis added).

[fn 2] On this day: James Madison introduces the Bill of Rights | Constitution Center, National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org (2022), https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-james-madison-introduces-the-bill-of-rights (last visited May 11, 2023).

[fn 3] Founders Online: Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 21 January 1812, Archives.gov (2023), https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-04-02-0334 (last visited May 13, 2023).

Ohio Republicans voted today to rig our Ohio Constitution to attack majority rule to protect extreme special interests and ensure that 41% of Ohioans can tell you how to live your life.

libertasohio.com

#ProtectYourRights #OnePersonOneVote #VoteNoInAugust

Frightened by voters' recent endorsement of abortion rights all across the United States after the US Supreme Court eviscerated women’s rights in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization [fn 1] - even in conservative states - Ohio right-wing reactionary legislators have renewed efforts to change the rules and make it tougher for Ohioans to initiate or change laws, or amend the Ohio Constitution, through citizen-led ballot measures.

Right-wing resolutions in both the Ohio House and Senate would set new signature-gathering rules, making it harder to place an initiative on the ballot. An Ohio bill would set a 60% threshold for passage and require petition signatures from all 88 Ohio counties, instead of the current 44 counties, to get a measure on the ballot.  In addition, in an effort to get ahead of the citizen-led initiative to amend the Ohio Constitution to expressly recognize Ohioans’ health, reproductive, and abortion rights (which is likely to appear on the November 2023 general election ballot), the right-wing has proposed to hold a special election in August 2023 to change the rules.  The election date alone will cost Ohio taxpayers an extra $20 million.

Ohioans of all political persuasions - Republican or Democrat, or left, center, or right - must vehemently oppose the proposed changes to the state constitution aimed at limiting the referendum power of the people by imposing higher thresholds for the passage of citizen-driven constitutional amendments, laws, and other regulations.  The proposed changes run counter to fundamental American principles of democracy, as embraced in our revolutionary beginnings:

"All Power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the People.” [fn 2]

Americans fought a revolution, and framed a constitution, to reclaim and protect this core fundamental principle and to transfer sovereignty from the government (the crown) to “the people” (citizens).

Since that time, Ohioans have solidified their dedication to reserving power in “the people” by enshrining the idea of constituent assemblies for framing bills of rights and fundamental laws into Article II, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution:

[T]he people reserve to themselves the power to propose to the general assembly laws and amendments to the constitution, and to adopt or reject the same at the polls on a referendum vote. [fn 3]

Prior to the passage of this provision in the 1912 Ohio Constitution, Theodore Roosevelt delivered a powerful speech to the Ohio Constitutional Convention, emphasizing the importance of popular self-government as an object of every American constitution. Roosevelt's vision for a "Charter of Democracy" echoed the sentiments of the Founding Fathers, who sought to create a government that would protect individual rights and promote the welfare of its citizens, but which would also always be subject to the rule of the “we the people.” Roosevelt and the Ohio Framers’ goal was to empower citizens and ensure their active participation in the constitutional, legislative, and political process.

By restricting the people's ability to propose and pass constitutional amendments, laws, and regulations through ballot initiatives, the Ohio right-wing’s proposed changes undermine foundational principles of republican government and weaken the democratic process. This is contrary to not only the vision of Ohio’s founders but also the very core principles upon which our American republic is founded.

Imposing higher thresholds for the passage of citizen-driven initiatives would effectively place unlimited power in the hands of elected officials and special interest groups representing minority coalitions of 41% or less of Ohio’s citizenry.  These proposals purposefully limit the direct influence of a majority of citizens on Ohio government decisions and hold that majority hostage to a small minority of zealots. This concentration of power and minority-rule runs counter to the fundamental democratic and republican values established by the Founding Fathers in America and Ohio - that “the people” retain control over the government.  It’s a direct attack on the fundamental right of Ohioans to have a say in their own government.

By placing barriers in the path of citizen-led democratic initiatives, the right-wing’s proposed changes threaten the very foundations of Ohio’s participatory democracy.  This drive and naked grab for power by the right-wing – which is falsely sold by the right as “reform” and not a desperate attempt to prevent Ohioans from expressing their true beliefs about personal autonomy, privacy, and health and reproductive freedom -  is fundamentally wrong, anti-American, and utterly destructive of our cherished democratic and republican traditions.

The Ohio right-wing’s proposed changes to the state constitution are a dangerous and undemocratic attack on the people’s power. To protect and uphold the people's sovereignty over government, we must reject these changes and maintain the integrity of our democratic processes.

Respectfully submitted.

LIBERTAS OHIO

Ohioans for Constitutional Freedom

fn 1: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf.

fn 2: The Virginia Declaration of Rights, National Archives (2015), https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/virginia-declaration-of-rights (last visited Apr 2, 2023).

fn 3:  Article II, Section 1 - Ohio Constitution | Ohio Laws, Ohio.gov (2023), https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-2.1 (last visited Apr 2, 2023).

© 2023-2024 Libertas Ohio ⎸ @jaruppert  ⎸ @highmtnventures

Reproductive freedom is a fundamental and inherent aspect of individual autonomy and conscience.  as such, it is intertwined with the American commitment to religious liberty as enshrined in the US Constitution and the First Amendment.  similarly, Article I, Section 7 of the Ohio Constitution protects essential religious liberty and the natural and indefeasible right of all individuals to worship according to their own conscience, free from any coercion or interference:

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. [fn 1]

Article I, Section 7 respects Ohioans' freedom of religious expression, including the liberty of individuals to make their own moral and religious choices; this necessarily includes the decision whether or not to have a child, seek contraception or fertility treatment, or obtain miscarriage care or abortion. Moreover, the Ohio Constitution recognizes the duty and obligation of the state to protect the individual in their exercise of personal conscience when making such deeply personal and private decisions.

Religious freedom also requires the separation of church and state.  No less an authority than Thomas Jefferson advocated for the separation of church and state as a component of  the freedom of conscience: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” [fn 2]  Like other American and Ohio founders, Jefferson believed that the government should not interfere with an individual's religious beliefs or practices and that every person has the right to worship according to their own conscience. Again, both the First Amendment and Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 7's expressly protect religious freedom and prohibit any law respecting an establishment of religion. Indeed, so strongly have Americans cherished religious liberty that the nation’s memorial to Jefferson highlights his commitment to  protecting individual autonomy and conscience: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” [fn 3]

Almost immediately upon the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the US Supreme Court, [fn 4]Ohio’s gerrymandered legislature stripped Ohio women of their constitutional right to abortion and gave all authority and control over reproductive rights to the state. [fn 5]  Ohio’s “Heartbeat Bill” forces the state’s (and a minority of Ohio Citizens) religion and moralist-driven views of privacy, reproduction, pregnancy, life, and choice - generally unsupported by science - upon the women of Ohio.

Ohio’s Heartbeat Bill and similar laws unduly limit reproductive choice and options, strip women of personal autonomy to determine their own lives, and reserve clearly fundamental decision-making to the state alone. This is an egregious imposition upon and violation of Ohio women’s individuals' fundamental rights to exercise their own religion, beliefs, and views free from government interference, coercion, and most importantly, control - especially in situations where a mother’s health or life is at stake.

Additionally, Article I, Section 20 of the Ohio Constitution states that the enumeration of certain rights in the Ohio Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. [fn 6] This recognizes that the Ohio Constitution protects Ohioans’ rights beyond those explicitly stated, and encompasses broader notions stated in the Preamble and Article I, Section 1 of a “free and independent” Ohio Citizenry pursuing life, liberty, happiness, and safety.  The right of Ohio women to make deeply personal reproductive and health decisions, such as the choice whether to carry a pregnancy to term or seek an abortion, as based on their own  - not the state’s - moral and religious beliefs must be protected. Without the passage of the proposed amendment, which recognizes and protects reproductive autonomy and freedom, all principles and promises about Ohioans’ religious liberty, privacy, and personal freedom are hollow.

Consistent with the principles enshrined in our Ohio Constitution and held dear in every American’s heart, Libertas Ohio urges Ohioans to embrace and uphold religious freedom and defend their right and ability to make individual reproductive decisions based on their own beliefs and values.

Vote “YES” on November 7, 2023.

Respectfully submitted.

LIBERTAS OHIO

Ohioans for Constitutional Freedom

fn 1: Article I, Section 7 - Ohio Constitution | Ohio Laws, Ohio.gov (2023), https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-1.7#:~:text=No person shall be compelled,rights of conscience be permitted. (last visited Mar 25, 2023).

fn 2: Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists (January 1, 1802) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin, Loc.gov (2023), https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html (last visited Mar 25, 2023).

fn 3: See, e.g., Quotations - Thomas Jefferson Memorial (U.S. National Park Service), Nps.gov (2023), https://www.nps.gov/thje/learn/photosmultimedia/quotations.htm (last visited Mar 25, 2023).

fn 4: In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U. S. ____ (2022), the US Supreme Court upheld Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, which bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies and fetal abnormalities. The Court's decision overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and shifted the balance of power on the issue of abortion to the states. On June

fn 5: SB 23, Ohio's “heartbeat bill,” is a law that bans abortions in Ohio after the first fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before many people even know they are pregnant. The law appears in Section 2919.19 through 2919.1910 of Ohio Revised Code (ORC), and the relevant part of Ohio's Heartbeat Law appears in Section 2919.193. The law does not allow performing or inducing an abortion without first checking for a heartbeat, and a related provision, ORC 2919.195, does not allow for an abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been detected. The law was signed into effect on June 24, 2022, by Ohio's Governor, Mike DeWine, after the United States Supreme Court upheld Mississippi's similar 15-week abortion ban in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

fn 6: Article I, Section 20 - Ohio Constitution | Ohio Laws, Ohio.gov (2023), https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-1.20 (last visited Mar 25, 2023).

© 2023-2024 Libertas Ohio ⎸ @jaruppert  ⎸ @highmtnventures

The petition to bring the initiative to Ohio voters in November 2023 has been approved by the Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, as well as the Ohio Ballot Board.

A link to the official copy of the ballot initiative can be found at the Ohio Attorney General’s website:

https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/getattachment/cf27c10f-b153-4731-ae9e-e3555a326ed9/The-Right-to-Reproductive-Freedom-with-Protections-for-Health-and-Safety.aspx

In the distinguished manner of Publius, the esteemed collective pseudonym under which Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay composed the Federalist Papers, Libertas Ohio again addresses the people of Ohio to discuss and emphasize the significance of Ohioans asserting their collective authority as “The People” to vote “YES” this November to amend Article I of the Ohio Constitution by adding Section 22 - “The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety.”

This act of amending the Ohio Constitution, faithful Ohioans, embraces the very essence of federalism to reclaim and expand Ohioans’ rights and liberties beyond those stolen and left shattered by the United States Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s health organization. [fn 1]

A vote “Yes” to recognize and enshrine inalienable reproductive rights through a constitutional amendment demonstrates a profound commitment to the principles of American federalism, which empowers the several states to extend rights and provide greater freedoms, particularly in areas of personal autonomy and privacy, beyond the "floor" guarantees of the United States Constitution. [fn 2] With former freedoms no longer guaranteed by the US Constitution, US Code, or the United States Supreme Court, Ohioans nevertheless have the opportunity to forever secure reproductive rights within our Ohio Constitution and to ensure that our state’s laws more fully reflect the full scope and breadth of individual liberties, free from government intrusion and invasion.

By taking the bold step of adopting the proposed constitutional amendment safeguarding reproductive rights, Ohioans adhere to and re-align with the core American aspirations and goals articulated in the Declaration of Independence: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These values have long informed our shared understanding of personal autonomy and individual rights.  Passage of the constitutional amendment reaffirms Ohio’s commitment to these foundational guiding principles and proclaims anew that all Ohio citizens have the freedom and autonomy to make private, personal decisions about their own lives, bodies, and family formation.

The proposed amendment strengthens and reinforces the Ohio Constitution's existing provisions protecting individual natural rights. The prologue and Article I, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution already enshrine the inherent and fundamental rights of individuals, declaring that all people are "by nature free and independent and have certain inalienable rights.” By adopting a constitutional amendment explicitly protecting reproductive rights, Ohioans bolster the Ohio Constitution's foundational declaration in Article I that citizens possess an individual natural right to  “enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.”  [fn 3]

Let us, by voting “yes” on November 7, 2023, declare a brighter and more just, safe, and secure future for our beloved Ohio.

Respectfully submitted.

LIBERTAS OHIO

Ohioans for Constitutional Freedom

fn 1: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. ____ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf.

fn 2: Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), Justia Law (2023), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/463/1032/ (last visited Mar 23, 2023).

fn 3: Article I - Ohio Constitution | Ohio Laws, Ohio.gov (2022), https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/article-1#:\~:text=Article%20I%20%7C%20Bill%20of%20Rights&text=All%20men%20are%2C%20by%20nature,and%20obtaining%20happiness%20and%20safety. (last visited Mar 23, 2023).

© 2023-2024 Libertas Ohio ⎸ @jaruppert  ⎸ @highmtnventures

“At issue here is the inalienable natural right of personal autonomy, which is the heart of human dignity. It encompasses our ability to control our own bodies, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. It allows each of us to make decisions about medical treatment and family formation, including whether to bear or beget a child. For women, these decisions can include whether to continue a pregnancy.”

The above quote was taken from the 2019 Kansas Supreme Court majority opinion in Hodes & Nauser upholding the right to obtain an abortion under the Kansas Constitution and recognizing it as a matter of individual rights protected by the state's Bill of Rights. [fn 1] The Hodes opinion eloquently summarizes the high stakes and fundamental nature of the question that Ohioans must now decide as they consider the proposed 2023 Ohio Constitutional Amendment: is or should there be a fundamental right to abortion under the Ohio Constitution?

The answer to that question is a matter of profound importance to the fabric and future of our Ohio.  The inalienable natural right of personal autonomy is a cornerstone of human dignity and freedom. It is the bedrock upon which our liberties are founded and a principle that Ohioans have long cherished and championed. The nature and origin of these rights can be traced back to the very beginnings of human society. It is our duty and responsibility as Ohio citizens to consider and frame the Ohio constitution and its Bill of Rights (Article I) for the eternal preservation and protection of these rights for all Ohioans.

Natural rights are inherent to every individual, irrespective of the laws or institutions that govern society. They are derived from the very essence of our humanity, and they are the birthright of each and every Ohioan. As John Locke, the esteemed English philosopher, eloquently expressed, "Every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself.” [fn 2] Natural rights are not granted by the government; rather, they are endowed to each of us at birth by nature and our Creator. they cannot be taken away or abridged by any human authority.

The Ohio Constitution, as originally drafted in 1803 and subsequently amended in 1851 and 1912, was designed to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Indeed, In 1851, Ohio’s framers were concerned that the Ohio Constitution did not explicitly enumerate and protect the natural rights of the people. In response, the state constitution was precisely reworked to make its bill of rights the very first article to emphasize and protect these critical rights and provide an additional safeguard against the encroachment of government power.  Moreover, the new Article I, Section 1, as carried over from Ohio’s 1803 constitution, clearly and boldly declared the primacy of Ohio's guiding principles: “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.” [fn 3]

Ohio’s Bill of Rights enshrines the individual liberties that we hold dear and acknowledges the need to protect these rights from potential infringement by the government. Among these rights is the right of personal autonomy, which encompasses the right to control one's own body and to make decisions about medical treatment, reproduction, and family formation. This right is closely connected to the freedom of conscience, the right to privacy, and the right to be secure in one's person, all of which are essential to the preservation of human dignity and self-determination. The proposed constitutional amendment reaffirms and clearly states these values and protections. 

By enshrining the right to personal autonomy in the Ohio Constitution and Bill of Rights, we ensure that the government remains a servant of the people, rather than a master, and that the liberties we cherish are not sacrificed on the altar of governmental power. It is our duty as Ohioans, and as generational guardians of the great American Republic, to remain ever vigilant in the defense of these rights, for they are the very essence of our liberty and the foundation upon which our free society and Republic rests. The preservation and protection of the right of personal autonomy, including the right to an abortion before fetal viability, must remain at the forefront of our efforts as we continue to forge a more perfect union and Ohio.

As we have discussed the nature and origin of individual natural rights, and the need to protect such rights in a constitution or bill of rights, we trust that our words will resonate with those who value liberty and human dignity. 

We hope that our thoughts on this matter will contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding the proposed constitutional amendment, individual rights, and the role of government in safeguarding them.  

We reaffirm our commitment to Ohioan ideals of liberty, and remain steadfast in our defense of the inalienable natural right of personal autonomy.  Let us never lose sight of the importance of preserving and protecting the rights and liberties against government overreach. 

Respectfully submitted.

LIBERTAS OHIO

Ohioans for Constitutional Freedom

fn 1: Hodes & Nauser, MDS, P.A. v. Schmidt, 440 P.3d 461, 497-98 (Kan. 2019), https://www.kscourts.org/Cases-Decisions/Decisions/Published/Hodes-Nauser,-MDs-v-Schmidt-(Supreme-Cour)

fn 2: Property: John Locke, Second Treatise, §§ 25--51, 123--26, Uchicago.edu (2023), https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html (last visited Mar 20, 2023).

fn 3: Article I, Section 1 - Ohio Constitution | Ohio Laws, Ohio.gov (2023), https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-1.1#:\~:text=Article%20I%2C%20Section%201%20%7C%20Inalienable%20Rights&text=All%20men%20are%2C%20by%20nature,and%20obtaining%20happiness%20and%20safety. (last visited Mar 20, 2023).