- [Announcer] Production and distribution of "City Club Forums" on Ideastream Public Media are made possible by PNC and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland Incorporated.

(lively instrumental music) (bell rings) - Hello, everyone, and welcome to The City Club of Cleveland where we are devoted to conversations of consequence that help democracy thrive.

It is Friday the 20th of October.

I'm Rick Jackson, formerly with Ideastream Public Media, moderator for this afternoon's debate.

(audience applauds and cheers) Thank you very much.

And of course we'll be talking about Issue 1.

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, it sent the issue of legalizing abortion back to the states.

After the court's decision, Ohio enacted a near total ban on abortion, which remained legal a little more than two months.

That is, until a Hamilton County judge placed the law on hold due to a lawsuit from the ACLU and Planned Parenthood.

Currently, abortion is legal in Ohio before 22 weeks of pregnancy.

Just last August, voters were asked to head to the polls for a special election on a measure that would make changing the state constitution more difficult.

Specifically, the proposal would have raised the threshold for future citizen-led constitutional amendments.

Ohio voters overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, protecting citizen-led ballot initiatives like the one we'll be debating here this afternoon at The City Club.

We now have a new Issue 1.

It will be on the ballot this November 7th, or early voting's already begun.

Worth noting that that especially is true across the state and here in Cuyahoga County.

A yes vote on Issue 1 will enshrine the right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions in the state's constitution.

Joining us on stage as supporters or a yes vote on Issue 1, Dr. Lauren Beene, co-founder and executive director of Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights and a general pediatrician practicing in the Greater Cleveland area.

She served as a leader of the non-partisan grassroots coalition, Protect Choice Ohio.

Dr. Beene now sits on the Executive Committee of Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, the broad coalition leading the campaign to enshrine reproductive freedom in the Ohio Constitution.

To her left... (audience applauding) We'll applaud for them all in a bit.

To her left is Dan Kobil, professor of law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio.

He has taught principally in the area of constitutional law since 1987.

He's a graduate of the University of Toledo Law School and clerked for Judge Albert J. Engel of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit before practicing as an attorney at Baker & Hostetler's office in Columbus.

A no vote on Issue 1 will oppose amending the state's constitution to establish the constitutional right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions.

Joining us as opponents or a no vote to Issue 1, Mehek Cooke, spokeswoman at Protect Women Ohio, an attorney for more than a decade.

She previously served in the Ohio Governor's Office and the US Attorney's Office working on civil, criminal, and counter-terrorism cases in the Southern District of Ohio.

Alongside her, Dr. Lindsay Rerko, a board-certified family medicine physician with a specialty in obstetrics.

She's practiced full spectrum family medicine including the prenatal care and delivery of many babies over the past 15 years.

Additionally, she's worked in multiple federally-qualified health centers and has a focus in fertility medicine.

Now, before we begin, let me explain the rules of this debate, which were agreed to by both sides.

Some of the questions in the debate will come directly from Ohio voters.

They were submitted in advance, reviewed by The City Club Debate Committee, a bipartisan group of City Club members.

None of the debate participants has viewed any of these questions in advance.

Each side will be permitted an initial 90-second response to questions.

Any rebuttals or responses from additional participants may be granted at my discretion.

The proponents will go first in opening statements.

Closing statements will be one minute long.

One participant will deliver the closing statement.

Opponents will go last in the closing statement.

In order to get as much substantive debate as possible, we ask our audience to refrain from applause during the event except at this moment, where we welcome our four debaters to The City Club of Cleveland.

(audience applauding) And now to our opening statements.

Each candidate has four minutes.

The proponents' side, you will go first.

Dr. Beene, you may begin.

- Should I come up to the podium?

Oh, I'm miked.

That works.

Hi, everybody.

My name is Dr. Lauren Beene, and I think I'm gonna stand.

I'll feel more comfortable.

I am a general pediatrician in the area.

I am also the executive director and co-founder of Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights.

And I am here today with Dan Kobil, professor of law and legal scholar from Capital University.

And we are here to present the facts, to present the truths regarding Issue 1.

And we're here because the stakes could not be higher for Ohio.

First, I wanna take us back to the summer of 2022 when on a normal day, me as a general pediatrician in my office, I would be seeing children, teenagers for a variety of conditions.

On the Monday after the Roe v. Wade fell, I found myself having terrible conversations, fielding calls from a mother of a 13-year-old girl who asked if we should put her daughter on birth control to protect her in the case that she were sexually assaulted.

I spoke with scared parents, confused and distraught teenagers, and it was horrible.

And then I went home and I saw on the news and I learned from my colleagues that there had been terrible situations all over the state on that very first date that were coming to light.

I learned of women who were forced to leave Ohio to have an abortion in order to start chemotherapy for melanoma.

I learned about women who were carrying pregnancies with no chance that that fetus would survive with organs on the outside of their body and which the pregnancy was only putting the woman's life in danger, who could not get care in our state and were forced to leave.

I heard of people all over the state having these situations and they were stories that no one from Ohio should ever have to endure.

Our opposition is going to tell you a different story.

They are gonna pretend that 2022 did not happen.

They're gonna pretend that they are in support of reasonable restrictions on abortion healthcare.

They are going to pretend that they are not actively trying to reinforce Ohio's six-week abortion ban that has no exceptions for rape or incest.

These things, this could not be any further from the truth, but now they are changing their tune.

And they're changing their tune because they know that Ohioans do not support this extreme six-week ban, and politicians out there are promoting this ban.

And we as individuals, Professor Kobil and myself, we have no political gain in this conversation and we feel very strongly that it should not be the politicians who are making these decisions about our healthcare.

So we have an opportunity now.

This November, we must all go out and vote yes for reproductive freedom for the right to make our own reproductive healthcare decisions without the government getting in the middle of it.

So I ask everyone here today and everyone listening to please vote yes on Issue 1 by November 7th.

Thank you.

- Thank you.

We will now hear from the opponent's side.

Mehek Cooke, you have four minutes.

- Thank you.

My name is Mehek Cooke, and I am an attorney as well as a mother.

I really want to set the record straight today.

I'm glad the other side is trying to establish the truth, and that is what I'm here for.

Whether you're pro-choice, pro-life, or even somewhere in between, Issue 1 goes way too far.

It eviscerates just basic health and safety standards for our women.

It eviscerates parental consent and it allows for full-term abortions.

And you don't have to hear it from me.

Look at the amendment.

I urge every single individual.

The ACLU had the pen on this amendment.

They specifically wrote in their amendment, "Every individual has the right to carry out one's own reproductive decisions."

They wrote the word individual.

An individual can mean anybody.

There's no age limit.

They didn't say woman.

If they said woman, we'd be having a different debate today.

They specifically say "individual."

Reproductive decisions means anything that touches your reproductive parts.

And let's talk about parental consent.

Why didn't they put an age requirement in there?

And then lastly, look at viability.

The ACLU had the pen.

They could have specifically stated, "We would like a 22-week ban."

Which by the way, that is what our state law is today.

This is not about the Heartbeat Bill.

This is about what is in our law today.

This is what physicians are practicing.

We have those protections.

And when we talk about parental consent, I cannot imagine, I have a second child on the way, my daughter going into a clinic, getting an abortion without my knowledge and consent.

Because you know who has to deal with the aftermath of the mental, emotional, and potential abuse?

It's the parent.

We had a 14-year-old rape victim here in Ohio.

Her soccer coach called Planned Parenthood and forced her to have a painful surgery without parental notification.

Now you're telling me that any child can go in and allow for painful abortions without consent.

And lastly, all you have to do is look at the state up north.

These are facts.

Michigan had a similar constitutional amendment.

They have now, the Governor has said, "These are unconstitutional."

You cannot have health and safety standards.

You cannot have a 24-hour waiting period.

You can't have ambulatory care.

I mean, God forbid somebody's going through an abortion.

Don't you want ambulatory care just in case with a hospital?

And you can't screen for coercion.

So this amendment is way too radical.

It goes further than Roe v. Wade, and Governor DeWine has studied this carefully and said, "This is not the best alternative for Ohio."

- I'm a physician.

I've taken care of women and children for the last 15 years.

And I'm here to tell you that Issue 1 is not for Ohio.

Women currently and will continue to have access to contraceptive care, miscarriage care.

And there is always going to be an exemption in the law for the life of the mother.

These things are currently in place.

These are going to to stay in place.

And all that Issue 1 adds is painful late-term abortions.

We doctors are able to do what we need to do to take care of our patients currently.

Why do we need this amendment?

We don't.

Ohio does not need Issue 1.

- Thank you both.

Now we're going to move on to the questions.

And as a reminder, some of these questions have come directly from Ohio voters.

Each side will have timed responses of 90 seconds.

I can grant additional responses from each side or rebuttals.

The first question, the election brings to bear questions on issues such as gender-affirming care and minimum wage even though we are not voting on those topics.

Tell us what you want voters to know about and what muddied the waters.

Dan, we'll go to you first.

You have 90 seconds.

- Oh yes.

Thank you, Rick.

And first of all, I'd just like to say one thing.

The other side said, "Read the amendment."

I wanna tell you that it's gonna be very hard for you to do that because they fought tooth and nail to keep the amendment off the ballot.

Their language on the ballot is misleading summaries, not the amendment itself.

Go to readtheamendment.com and actually read the amendment.

That's the best thing I think every Ohioan could do.

On gender-affirming care, these claims are simply false.

And they've been advanced in order to distract from the radical Heartbeat Bill that has been enforced.

You heard Dr. Beene.

She had to deal with the aftermath when Roe was overturned.

That was, the day it was overturned the state of Ohio was enforcing its six-week ban with no exception for rape, no exception for incest.

Now, if that is the Ohio that we want, then vote no on Issue 1.

That's what caused a 10-year-old girl to have to leave the state to abort her rapist's pregnancy.

And that isn't the sort of thing that we want Ohio to have to face.

- Thank you.

Mehek Cooke, you have 90 seconds.

- What happened to that 10-year-old girl was horrific, and thank God for law enforcement today.

But this amendment isn't about the Heartbeat Bill.

This amendment is about allowing full-term abortions.

It allows the abortionist to determine viability.

And again, the ACLU had the pen on this.

And to state that we don't have miscarriage care today, I had a son last year, and it was the darkest moment of my life when I thought I was having a miscarriage.

I ran to Riverside Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

They didn't ask me for an intake or health insurance.

They ushered me into a room.

I had doctors, nurses, healthcare professionals that were by my side, and this is what they said to me.

"Given the amount of blood loss, I cannot guarantee you're having a miscarriage, but I will stay by your side and I will provide you the care that I would provide anybody else."

That is all you can ask for.

So this fear-mongering is unacceptable.

And when you look at the amendment, which by the way, was cleared by the Secretary of State Frank LaRose, he specifically ensured that you had a very clear understanding of what an individual means.

And we are talking about the life of an unborn child.

That is extremely important to articulate here.

At 15 weeks, a child can feel pain.

And it's important to continue to note that the other side continues to talk about the six-week Heartbeat Bill.

That's not what this is about.

You don't wanna make a decision between Heartbeat Bill and full-term abortions.

There is a middle ground here.

There is common sense.

And we can get there without having these extremes.

- Thank you.

The second question.

We have seen polls and ads in many cases, as you've both alleged, misrepresentation of opposing views.

Dr. Lauren Beene, what frightens you about what's being said contrary to your position?

90 seconds.

- Our opposition knows that the truth is not on their side, and they have been working to intentionally confuse and deceive Ohioans for the last year that we have been working on this.

And what frightens me most about those ads is just how blatantly false they are.

The ads that our opposition has been pushing are funded by extremist groups who think that children who have been raped should be forced to carry their rapist's pregnancy to term.

Those people are funding these advertisements, and the advertisements are filled with lies.

And I fear that those lies are only working to distract and confuse Ohioans from what is really going on, which is that we are trying as hard as we can to pass Issue 1 that will protect Ohioans' ability to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions by themselves, with their families to keep government and extremist politicians out of the exam room, to make sure that physicians can provide healthcare without fear of being charged with felonies or losing their license.

And I'm afraid that Ohioans are being deceived, but I know that we are smart and that we are all going to vote yes in support of Issue 1.

- Dr. Rerko, 90 seconds.

- Thank you for this question.

So I recently read a letter from Dr. Bruce Vanderhoff.

He is the head of our Ohio Department of Health.

And he had a very passionate letter which is unfortunate that he even had to write to give confidence to women in Ohio that miscarriage care is available.

The ads are misleading.

They're telling Ohioans that miscarriage care is not available.

It absolutely is.

And I'm fearful for what this message from advertisements will tell our women.

Will they stay home thinking that care isn't available, they need to go across state lines from miscarriage care?

Nothing has been taken away from miscarriage care, contraception care, and exception for the life of the mother.

Those things are all in place and all that Issue 1 does, if enacted, would be to allow painful late-term abortions.

Abortion late term, do you know what happens in a late-term abortion?

The cervix is dilated for the mother.

The baby's head is crushed.

These are babies that could be born tomorrow, that could be in a NICU that could be taken care of.

Their head is crushed, their limbs are ripped, and they are taken out of their mother.

These babies, you've all met newborns, they feel pain!

They're very sensitive to pain.

And we are allowing this in our state?

Women are gonna come to our state for these procedures?

This isn't necessary.

There aren't convincing medical needs for this in our state.

We have better ways to offer healthcare for women.

- 30 Seconds.

- Thank you.

I would like to add that what she's describing does not exist.

It is a fabrication made in the minds of extremists to scare Ohioans away from being able to make reasonable decisions and support of our own reproductive healthcare decisions.

Last year, anybody can look up the data in Ohio, there were, so 0.06% of abortions done in Ohio occurred between 21 and 24 weeks.

Zero abortions occurred after that point.

Abortion after that point will not happen when Issue 1 passes.

When those situations arise late in pregnancy- - [Rick] That's your 30.

- Oh, that's my...

Okay, thank you.

- I'm gonna let Lindsay go ahead and rebut in her next question.

I was going to you anyway with this.

A fear of women and medical professionals is the potential for limits on fertility treatment.

Effects were not spelled out in the Supreme Court Dobbs decision.

Would an abortion ban impact the 10 to 15% of couples who are unable to naturally conceive?

You have experience in fertility treatments.

We will begin with you.

I'll give you 120 seconds so you can rebut her as well.

- So in response to the late-term abortion, it's very difficult to collect this abortion data.

It's mandated.

It doesn't always happen.

The four abortions that happened that were late term were probably the life of the mother.

There are many that are happening that are not being reported.

There were 235 that happened between 19 and 20 weeks last year so don't believe this.

These absolutely are happening and if we...

They also weren't reported 'cause they were illegal.

And so when they become legal, you will see a great increase.

Late-term abortions are extremely dangerous for women.

We see women who have late-term abortions have an increased risk.

This is all published data.

You can look these things up.

They're very likely to have preterm deliveries their next pregnancy.

They're very likely if they have preterm deliveries to have cardiovascular disease and stroke.

These are all published data.

And so if we're just telling women, if this isn't a good time for you, you've got a lot of stress in your life, I've had an unplanned pregnancy, they're stressful times.

We don't think we can be stretched to have one more child in our family.

But these are not reasons to just tell them it'll be a safe thing to have this abortion.

No, you have to counsel them that they have a risk of preterm delivery, they have cardiovascular death.

These are things that can happen with late-term abortions.

This is terrible healthcare for women.

We have better ways to take care of women in our state.

- Moving on, the fourth question.

We've seen reports of people being jailed or threatened with incarceration.

How do you assure women they'll be cared for health-wise were they to be detained for attempting to find a remedy to their pregnancy?

What of doctors who perform operations?

Can they be assured they would not lose their license or lose their practice for what they perceive of as saving the life of the mother?

Dan Kobil, I'll start with you.

- Well, I mean, I think the answer is Issue 1.

If we read the language of Issue 1, it specifically says that every individual has a right to make and carry out their reproductive decisions, and it lists the decisions of abortion, but also contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one's own pregnancy, and miscarriage care.

So if Issue 1 passes, that will not be a danger.

It also strikes a reasonable balance.

It strikes the balance that we had in this state and across the country for 50 years.

It allows the government to regulate reasonably throughout the pregnancy to protect the health of the woman.

That is something that Roe said.

That's something that our amendment says as well.

It does permit abortions after viability, but only when they are found in the professional judgment of the physician to be necessary to protect the life and health of the woman.

A physician is not going to put their professional license on the line and make this arbitrarily, so this is exactly the line that was struck.

If we don't enact and pass Issue 1 through constitutional initiative, the radical six-week no rape no incest ban will go into effect and that will be our law.

- Ms. Cooke.

- That's just not true.

When you look at the amendment today, it specifically talks, and it's broad, and the ACLU, again, they had the pen on this.

It allows the abortionist to decide when there's viability.

And when you talk about health and safety of a mother, when you legally look at the word health, it can be physical, emotional, social, financial.

If we know a baby feels pain at 15 weeks and we know viability, and these are scientific standards, at 21 to 22 weeks, why didn't the ACLU write that in?

And any physician will tell you, my doctor said it when I thought I was having a miscarriage.

Dr. Rerko sitting next to me will tell you this.

The life of the mother is the most important thing that, it's sacred.

They continue to peddle misinformation.

This amendment is not talking about the life of the mother.

This is giving the abortionist the final say to allow for full-term abortions.

If this was truly just about abortion care, they would have written the word woman.

They would have allowed for a line for viability, and health of a mother is protected in Ohio.

So to say that we need a extreme radical amendment that is cemented into our constitution, we won't be able to go back and protect women today.

We won't be able to have health and safety standards whether it's ambulatory care, parental consent, ensuring that there's no abuse at home.

Why not allow the General Assembly to work with us to find common-sense solutions?

And right now the law in the state of Ohio is 22 weeks with exemptions.

- Thank you.

Doctors have come down on both sides.

(clears throat) Excuse me.

But it's been seen that some doctors and many medical students have promised to leave the state and practice elsewhere should their options become limited by law.

Are you worried that the health of Ohioans could be compromised by a loss of medical professionals?

Or do you believe that one of our state's best assets, healthcare, will stay strong?

Dr. Beene, I'll begin with you.

- Thank you for asking.

I think that is a very important and often overlooked question.

We are here in Cleveland, Ohio, which is an epicenter of medical advancements historically and currently in the world.

If we do not support Issue 1, if we don't pass Issue 1 and this extreme ban becomes the reality in Ohio, we know that medical students won't stay in Ohio to do their residencies.

We know that young recently graduated OB-GYNs high-risk obs, family medicine docs, pediatricians won't come to Ohio to take care of our families.

We know that our current people who work in the state who fear that they are gonna go to jail if they provide the care that they feel that they have a duty to provide as physicians for their patients, they're gonna leave.

And we see this happening already in other states in our country.

There are zones where people have to drive hundreds of miles to get OB-GYN care in these extreme restrictive states.

And that is where maternal mortality and infant mortality is the highest.

That is where our racial disparities in healthcare are absolutely off the charts.

That is gonna become Ohio, and we cannot let it happen so we must vote yes on Issue 1.

- Dr. Rerko.

- Yeah, how many doctors left when Roe was turned down?

Would be a question I have, but I disagree with your statement there.

And I think there have been many political things that have happened over the years, and people get very worried and people threaten to leave to go to other countries.

They don't wanna live in a country with certain types of leadership, and I just don't think the fruition is there.

We do have a wonderful state, I agree with you there.

As far as healthcare, amazing care that we can get in this state.

And we do have an issue with limited access to primary care.

We just don't have enough primary care physicians, and we don't wanna lose our physicians.

But what I would tell you, countries that had, this is studied, this is documented, countries that had open access to abortion that then restricted abortion had improved outcomes.

Maternal mortality went down.

And I would say that we're not gonna be at a lack for care.

We're gonna have wonderful care.

These countries included Poland and Chile and Nicaragua and El Salvador.

So I would say these are well-studied things we should be focusing on something otherwise, which is maternal mortality.

And on that topic, abortion does not improve maternal mortality.

What improves women's health is having full-term pregnancies and giving birth.

It's in the science so you can look up the articles.

- Thank you.

I promised we'd use member and listener questions.

I have one from Debbie from Mentor.

She asks, "Is it true that if Issue 1 does pass, that minors will still need to get parental consent for any type of medical surgery according to the Ohio Constitution?"

Mehek, let me start with you.

- That is the number one issue that a lot of individuals really don't ask us.

Parental consent will no longer exist because, again, there's no age limit.

There's no age requirement.

And because this is a constitutional amendment, this trumps state law.

So this is going to be what we have to follow in the state of Ohio.

If my child wants to go and get an abortion, they will go to a doctor.

And I told you about the soccer coach that essentially raped the 14-year-old girl, pretended to be the father.

He won't even have to pretend.

We'll have increased human trafficking, increased rapists that are pushing for these painful surgeries of our children.

Parental consent will no longer exist.

And if a parent wants it, well, we better lawyer up, Ohio because that's what it's going to take to stop your child from going and getting painful life-altering surgeries.

And again, the ACLU had the pen on this.

They could have stated parental consent.

In Florida, they have a similar amendment, and they went back, the ACLU went back and they specified, the state legislature may add parental consent.

If they had done that here, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Why did they treat Florida different?

It's because Ohio is a battleground state.

It's because they're testing parents and families today, and it's extreme.

It goes further than Roe v. Wade and eviscerates parental consent and notification.

- From attorney to attorney, Dan.

- You heard what Ms. Cooke was trying to do.

Issue 1 is going to cause rapes.

That's what it's going to cause.

It's a scare tactic.

They don't want you to look at the amendment.

They want you to pretend that there is something in there that says that, and I guarantee you there isn't.

This law does not affect parental consent by one iota.

This has been fact-checked time and again.

The US Supreme Court during the Roe versus Wade era, which this amendment tries to take us back to, upheld Ohio's parental consent law.

The idea that Ohio will somehow not be able to enforce that law now with the adoption of Issue 1, which is memorializing the standards set forth in Roe versus Wade is simply wrong.

In fact, parental options will be strengthened by Issue 1.

Why?

Because Issue 1 will give parents greater choices in how they care for their children.

It will not be the government saying to you, "You must have your child bear her rapist's pregnancy."

That's what we are not going to allow Ohio's government to do to our parents.

This idea that parents are gonna be hurt is absolutely absurd.

- [Rick] 30 Seconds.

- To say that I think there's going to be more rapists in Ohio is absurd.

What I am saying, though, is there could be coercion because it's happening.

And now the rapist or somebody who is coercing an individual, that young girl no longer needs permission from a parent.

And regardless of where we're talking about in terms of post-Roe, the ACLU has made it its mission to go after parental consent.

They did it in Alaska.

Please look it up.

They've done it in Indiana.

There's a whole page that says parental consent is a burden.

They have fought parental consent over and over again.

The top ACLU attorney has stated, "We don't need parental consent.

Individuals should make their own decisions."

- [Rick] That's your time.

- So that is the most important part of this discussion.

- There is no reference to transgender care in this proposal yet it's become a touchpoint.

What do you say to those with concerns that they are being targeted under the potential of this measure?

Dr. Beene first, then Dr. Rerko.

- Thank you.

So, the Issue 1, when we all vote yes and it passes, will enshrine reproductive freedom and decision making into the Ohio Constitution.

Gender-affirming care is a different area of medicine, and it's being brought up as a distraction.

As we keep seeing, our opposition is trying to distract us from what we're actually trying to do, which is to put Ohioans, families, individuals in control of their own reproductive healthcare decisions around abortion, contraception, miscarriage management, continuing one's own pregnancy.

Gender-affirming care is an entirely separate area of medicine, and Issue 1 does not apply to gender-affirming care.

- Thank you.

This amendment was written very, very broadly.

There's room for lots of interpretation, and I'll read to you.

It says that, "Every individual has a right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on..." And number two is fertility treatment.

So why can't that include gender-affirming care?

And this, again, they're sneaking too many things into this amendment, taking the eyes away from what really matters.

And what we don't want in Ohio is painful late-term abortions.

- I have another question from an Ohio voter which slightly follows something Dr. Rerko said earlier.

I'm gonna direct this question first to Mehek Cooke.

The question comes from Lisa from Youngstown.

She asks if you can explain how an extreme abortion ban enhances the lives of women.

She mentions that limiting maternal healthcare is shown to increase the poverty rate of the state as a whole.

Ms. Cooke.

- Today, Ohio law says the ban is 22 weeks except to save the life of a mother.

That is where doctors are operating today.

We don't have an extreme ban.

And if you're going to talk about the Heartbeat Bill, that is pending in court.

What is at stake today is 22 weeks.

And if we want to fight and work with the legislature, let's do that.

What we are against is allowing for abortion at any time.

Allowing for full-term abortions, allowing for the abortionist to decide, eviscerating parental consent.

This goes further than Roe v. Wade.

Our law today says 22 weeks so let's have the discussion.

If you feel boxed in today, pro-life, pro-choice, somewhere in between, know that the six-week ban is not our law.

We're at 22 weeks.

And if you want changes, let's work through the General Assembly because that's the place to start.

You cement an extreme abortion amendment that eviscerates parental rights and health and safety standards for women, we're going to look like the state up north.

Just Google what's happening in Michigan.

They're getting rid of health and safety standards screening.

When you go in for a pregnancy check, they separate me from my husband and they say, "Are you safe at home?

Is there abuse?"

Those are really important questions.

The governor in Michigan has stated, "Those are now unconstitutional."

We need those basic health and safety standards.

So the Governor has said this.

He has studied this amendment.

It goes way too far.

We need to come back to common-sense solutions, but it's not a six-week ban versus full-term abortions.

I know Ohioans want some type of access, care, and safeguards, but at the same time, the ability to have and make their own healthcare decisions.

This goes too far.

- Dan Kobil.

- I'm glad Ms. Cooke brought up the Governor because the Governor did not say that the six-week ban, without any exception for rape or incest, went too far when he signed it into law.

He also did not say it went too far when he turned the Attorney General and prosecutors across the state free to go after doctors for 82 days the day that Roe versus Wade was overturned.

That was what Ohio did.

They're trying to create this illusion that 22 weeks will be the law if we vote down Issue 1.

That couldn't be further from the truth.

If the government of Ohio's is empowered to make our decisions for us at six weeks, that's what they're going to do.

If we say no, they will feel heartened to do that.

And that is what we have to stop by passing Issue 1.

Women will suffer, as the questioner suggested, tremendous hardships.

I have family members who had to obtain this sort of healthcare, and if they had to confront the ban that this group is fighting in court to have enforced, I dread to think what would have happened to them, so please vote yes.

- [Rick] Quickly.

- Protect Women Ohio is not fighting for the six-week ban.

So let's be clear, I am not sitting here fighting for extremism in our state.

And for the Governor to come out and state that we need common sense-solutions, I think legislature, people like you and me actually realize that we aren't an extreme state.

We don't want full-term abortions.

Sounds like we don't want six weeks.

We have to find a common ground.

All I'm saying is, Issue 1 would cement full-term abortions, and we can't go back from that.

We can't go to health and safety.

We can't.

We'd have to fight for parental notification.

So we don't have to pick through extremes, vote down Issue 1.

Say no, and let's work together to find common-sense solutions.

- [Rick] Lauren, did you raise your hand?

- [Lauren] I didn't, but I'm happy to talk if... (audience laughing) - [Rick] You only get the same 30 she did.

Go ahead.

- Okay.

So, Ms. Cooke keeps saying lie after lie despite the conversations that we're having here.

This is a discussion, and I feel like, you know, these just, it's the same propaganda statements over and over again that are intentionally designed to scare Ohioans.

Issue 1 will protect the rights that we've had under Roe for decades, the rights that my grandparents and many people here probably fought for.

And these same people are the people who are trying to enforce extreme abortion bans, including the six-week ban, the Personhood bill that would ban all abortion at contraception and might even make IUDs illegal.

- I'm gonna stop you there on your rebuttal because that kind of dovetails into my next question, which was going to go to you anyway so- - [Lauren] Okay, perfect.

- One of the aspects of discussion has been the rights of people not yet born.

In your view, and based on the language we're discussing here today, how should they be protected?

- So Issue 1 is going to prioritize the health and safety of Ohioans.

And this is a huge topic, and that's why we're here today.

And pregnancy is a complicated and life-threatening situation for women.

I think that part of the problem with these conversations is it doesn't put into account just how dangerous pregnancy is and how complicated it is and how every single pregnancy is different and experiences different complications.

And a woman's life is inherently at a higher risk just by being pregnant when it is going well.

And so what I am here to do is to make sure that people in Ohio can make their own decisions about their reproductive healthcare choices and that they can go to their physicians that they have a trusted relationship with, have private conversations and make the decisions that are right for them based on every individual situation with reasonable regulations as are spelled out in Issue 1 and are consistent with the laws that we have been working under for decades.

So for me, this is about the health and safety of all Ohioans, and we need to vote yes to protect that.

Thank you.

- I'm a physician who takes care of women and children.

And when a patient is pregnant, I have two patients.

I'm taking care of her unborn child and I'm taking care of her, and I'm taking care of them all the way through the entire pregnancy.

And fortunately, as a family doctor, I can continue to take care of that child after birth.

I respectfully disagree with Dr. Beene that pregnancy is so extremely dangerous that abortion is the alternative.

As I stated earlier, abortion increases the risk in further future pregnancies of preterm delivery, which is obviously dangerous for the baby and for the mother.

Mothers who've had preterm deliveries have a higher chance later on of having cardiovascular disease and death.

If we wanna talk about maternal mortality, this is a very complex issue.

We have plenty of access to abortion, and maternal mortality keeps going up so why is Issue 1 gonna solve it?

Issue 1 is not gonna solve this.

We haven't forgotten, I hope, the woman in Canal Winchester who drove up to Cleveland to receive a 20-week abortion, and the facility where she had that abortion was not up to the standards that the state had put in place for health and safety.

She did not make that trip home, and she left a two year old behind.

- Another question from Ohio voters.

This comes from Will who lives in Broadview Heights.

He asked, "Oftentimes the public hears politicians speak of limited government as a means to curb government power in people's lives.

However, prior to Issue 1, it seemed as if the state government consistently passed legislation which created additional deadlines and regulation on women's reproductive care."

He wanted the panelists to help the public understand how proponents of limited government reconcile their political philosophy with the legislative actions on these two issues.

Mehek, I'll begin with you.

- I'm for limited government, but this isn't about limiting government.

We already have safeguards in place.

What the General assembly has done is ensure that there are health and safety standards for women.

So you can have limited government by still having standards of care, making sure that there's 24-hour notification, making sure that you have ambulatory facility care because God forbid you have an abortion like what Dr. Rerko just talked about, that a woman can be rushed into a hospital for immediate care.

Parental notification, that's important.

So these are just guardrails that we have put so that women feel that they are protected, making sure they're screening for abuse at home.

And the government has continued to stay out of our lives.

But this amendment is forcing every individual to understand, what do we need?

What does government need to do?

Because you can't allow for full-term abortions.

The other side has said that they aren't existing.

Please look at the Ohio Department of Health.

They specifically state in the last year we had 234 between the 19 and 22 week mark.

And that is where government has drawn a line, unless it's for the life of the mother.

So you can be for limited government and still want health and safety protections.

Government also mandates a seatbelt.

I don't think...

I'm for seat belts.

I'm still for limited government.

You don't have to pick one or the other.

These are just basic safeguards that every woman in Ohio deserves, but this radical amendment will get rid of those safeguards so that every doctor's practice will be different, inconsistent, and not allow for just basic healthcare standards and parental notification.

- [Rick] Thank you.

Dan.

- Ms. Cooke says that she's for limited government.

You know what limits government?

The Ohio Constitution.

The Ohio Constitution is a rule for government.

It tells them the kinds of laws they cannot pass.

This amendment limits government's intrusion into our bedrooms, into our family's decisions about our children, about our daughters, about our wives, and our mothers, and this is something that is the reason that polling shows that Republicans who do care about limited government support Issue 1.

Independents support Issue 1.

Democrats do.

I have many friends across the political spectrum who support limited government in the form of telling the government that yes, you can regulate to protect a woman's health throughout a pregnancy.

That's reasonable.

Yes, you can prohibit abortions after viability as long as you maintain exceptions to protect a woman's health and a woman's life.

That is the proper limitation on government.

Ms. Cooke wants zero limits on government.

Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion in Dobbs, said, "I'd like to allow government to limit contraception, too."

That's what he says they are coming for.

Prior to Roe, states banned contraception for individuals.

If we wanna leave the door open to the government doing that, then vote no on Issue 1.

But I don't think most Ohioans want that form of, quote unquote, "limited government."

- Thank you.

I've mentioned earlier polls, and there hasn't been a lot of polling on this issue, but there was a poll released this week from Baldwin Wallace University showing roughly 58% of voters in this poll were going to lean toward yes.

Now, we know that polls aren't accurate and signs in yards don't vote.

But the question I would propose is, why do you feel voters seem to be versus your opinion?

And what do you do to persuade them otherwise?

Lindsay.

- Thank you.

So we are gonna be clear and get the truth out about this amendment until November 7th is over and the polls close.

The truth of the matter is that in our state at this time, women have access to miscarriage care.

Women have access to contraception care.

Women's lives will be protected if they are threatened due to a pregnancy.

And this amendment just opens the door for late-term painful abortions, for predators to be protected, for health and safety standards to go away.

There was a 350-pound woman who has no business having surgery in an ambulatory center.

Any surgeon will tell you that.

She needs to be in the hospital because she's extremely high risk, very huge cardiovascular risk.

She died on the table.

We have standards in place to protect women.

You really want those to all go away?

That's what will happen with Issue 1.

So I just want people to really be clear and really understand what they're voting for.

This isn't the final say for the pro-life pro-choice vote.

This discussion will always continue.

We'll always try to make things better and make them represent our state well.

But if you vote on this and vote yes, it'll shut down this discussion.

We'll lose all this health and safety protections that are there.

It's too extreme.

- Thank you, and for this side, Dan, the term fetal viability leaves a lot of discretion for the physician.

How do you assure voters doctors will prioritize human life?

- Oh, well, I think the term fetal viability is a term that we've understood for 50 years.

It's the definition that was used in Roe versus Wade.

In our amendment it says, "Abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability, which means the point in a pregnancy when in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus."

That is a definition the courts have applied.

That does not allow infanticide.

That's the sort of thing that they keep trying to scare people with.

This is the Roe versus Wade viability standard.

Remember, a physician, and Dr. Beene might be the one to speak to this, who's being assessed on her professional judgment on when they can perform an abortion is not going to take a risk to her license and try to go over the line in an unreasonable way.

I don't know if you'd like to speak to that.

- Sure.

- You have 30 seconds left.

- Absolutely, I mean, Issue 1 will protect a physician's ability to do what is right for their patient.

And for physicians that were working in Ohio during the 84 days in 2022 when the six-week ban was in effect, which we know will come back into effect if Issue 1 does not pass, those physicians had to sit and think, "I want to help this patient.

I need to help my patient, but if I do, I might go to jail.

I am the primary breadwinner for my family.

I will lose my medical license, but there is a person who needs my help in front of me."

- That's your time.

Thank you.

Our final question of the afternoon.

If this passes, what is the legislature likely to do?

Mehek, I'll begin with you.

- I'd like to go back to the other question that was just asked about viability.

Roe v. Wade was struck down.

That means every state gets to define, based through their legislature, viability.

We have science that says a baby can feel pain at 15 weeks and medical standards that specifically state 21 to 22 weeks is viability.

So again, if we wanted to have clarity in abortion law, the ACLU had the pen, why didn't they say viability as per the Ohio Revised Code, 22 weeks?

They left this broad, extreme, and open-ended because they want the abortionist to have the final say, and that is not where Ohio is.

Regardless of whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, this is too extreme.

And to continue to say, if this amendment fails, we're going to have the six-week ban, I don't deal in hypotheticals.

What my commitment has been is to ensure that we find common-sense solutions.

I don't know what the General Assembly is going to do, but I do know that Governor DeWine has said that this is too radical and that we need to come back as a state together, both sides, and find common-sense solutions.

And I think that there's a path to do that because what we don't want in Ohio is for somebody to feel like it's the six-week ban, which doesn't exist today.

It could.

I agree, it could, but it doesn't exist today.

Or a radical amendment that would be cemented because once it's in our Constitution, we can't have these discussions.

If you're with me and you say 22 weeks, great.

I just wish the ACLU had written that.

We would have a different discussion today.

- Your closing is coming up.

- This is too extreme.

- Thank you.

Dr. Beene, you have 90 seconds.

The question again was, what is the legislature likely to do?

- The legislature, we know, will reinstate the six-week ban.

The reason that we had to have a citizen-initiated ballot measure where we collected over 700,000 signatures from Ohioans, where we saw a grassroots explosion of energy around the state like we've never seen before, was because we are living under a gerrymandered and very anti-choice legislature that does not mesh with the general sentiment of Ohioans that we know through that Baldwin Wallace poll strongly is in support of Ohioans having control over their reproductive healthcare.

So I have no doubt that the Ohio legislature will do what they always do, which is pass these abortion restrictive bans, and a ban that is already passed.

The only reason it's not in effect right now is because it's held up on a technicality.

When that gets through the Supreme Court, it is gonna go back into effect, and it's delusional to think otherwise.

- And now to our closing statements.

Each side will have 60 seconds only and one speaker.

The order, the same as the opening, Dan Kobil, you're first.

- Thank you, Rick.

I wanna thank The City Club of Cleveland for hosting this excellent discussion.

I think this is really important.

My role here has been quite limited.

It was to try to keep us tethered to reality and the law, which was no easy feat given many of the things that have been coming out of the other side.

To be honest, this is a very simple issue.

Issue 1 is about reinstating the freedoms that Ohioans enjoyed for decades before Roe versus Wade was overturned.

If we fail to pass Issue 1, we know, to hearken back to Dr. Beene's introduction, we know what the world is going to look like for physicians and for women seeking medical care.

Medical rules would be imposed that have no exception for rape, no exception for incest, that ban abortion at six weeks before many women know they are pregnant.

If we want to- - [Rick] That's your minute.

- Vote yes.

- [Rick] The last word is yours.

- Thank you, City Club.

- Good job.

- My goal here is to set the record straight, and whether you're pro-life, pro-choice, or somewhere in between to know that the other side has been pedaling misinformation about contraceptive care, about abortion care.

We have access today.

Our state law today is 22 weeks.

We need to make sure what we're really protecting is parental consent because otherwise any individual can go and it's up to their reproductive decisions what they decide to do, including an abortion.

We need to protect our children.

We need health and safety standards.

Just look at the state up north.

They are eviscerating every health and safety standard that the General Assembly has put in place to protect us.

And vote no because we are not a state of full-term abortions.

We want common-sense solutions and regulations.

We cannot leave these decisions to the Supreme Court.

Governor Mike DeWine has said the same thing.

He is for common sense.

This amendment is too radical.

It goes further than Roe v. Wade.

Thank you.

- Thank you.

And thanks to each of our debaters for joining us at The City Club of Cleveland.

A special thank you to all the Ohio voters who submitted questions at cityclub.org for this debate.

Up next at The City Club, Tuesday, October 24th, Heather Conley, President of the German Marshall Fund, joins us for a discussion about the importance of global alliances and strategic relations.

Global Cleveland's Joe Cimperman will lead that conversation.

Next Friday, The City Club celebrates the grand opening in Playhouse Square of this beautiful space we're in.

You can check out the new space at the Community Open House and City Club Annual Meeting on the 27th.

Craig Hassall, President and CEO at Playhouse Square will be in conversation with City Club CEO Dan Moulthrop about the intersection of free speech and the art of the spoken word.

Immediately following that forum, you're all invited to a free celebration from 1:00 to 4:00 right here.

Drop in anytime, bring a friend, enjoy the music, enjoy the food.

You can learn about the Open House and other forums at cityclub.org.

Again, thank you, members.

Thank you friends.

I'm Rick Jackson.

Thank you to the panelists.

This forum is adjourned.

(bell rings) (audience applauding) - [Announcer] For information on upcoming speakers or for podcasts like "The City Club," go to cityclub.org.

(warm instrumental music) - [Announcer] Production and distribution of "City Club Forums" on Ideastream Public Media are made possible by PNC and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland Incorporated.