Support for the statewide broadcast of the state of Ohio comes from medical mutuel, providing more than 1.4 million Ohioans peace of mind with a selection of health insurance plans online at med mutual dot com slash Ohio by the law offices of Porter Wright, Morris and Arthur LLP.

Now with eight locations across the country, Porter Wright is a legal partner with a new perspective to the business community.

More at Porter Wright dot com and from the Ohio Education Association representing 124,000 members who work to inspire their students to think creatively and experience the joy of learning online.

At OHEA.org.

A huge week at the U.S. Supreme Court, decisions that hit millions across the country almost immediately and set off a flurry of protests, celebrations and lawsuits in Ohio.

That's all this week in the state of Ohio.

Welcome to the state of Ohio.

I'm Karen Kasler.

Ohio's approaching its first full week of a ban on nearly all abortions.

A law outlawing abortions after around six weeks of pregnancy went into effect last Friday after the US Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health.

There's no constitutional right to abortion.

And states have the right to regulate abortion.

This ban is one of the strictest in the nation.

And while Ohio's nine clinics that provide surgical and medication abortions are open, they spent the last week canceling patient appointments and helping arrange out-of-state care for patients.

Meanwhile, as anti-abortion advocates were celebrating, abortion rights supporters were mobilizing for demonstrations around the state.

Statehouse correspondent Joe Ingles reports.

Just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Friday morning, a federal judge allowed Ohio's six week abortion ban that had been first proposed in 2011 that finally was passed and signed in 2019 to go into effect.

The strong emotions surrounding the decision prompted Governor Mike DeWine to do a livestreamed statement calling for civility, though there had been no incidents of violent protest at that point.

It's going to be very easy to let this debate get rough and tough, and there's certainly nothing wrong with spirited debate.

However, one must do it in a way that recognizes that smart, sincere, dedicated and caring people can have very, very different and equally heartfelt views.

The First Amendment right of freedom of speech and those who choose to exercise that right must be respected, must be protected.

Not sex, not the protests began Friday night, not long after DeWine's comments, when a group of women and men marched onto the grounds of the statehouse It's devastating.

Obviously, I'm I'm past childbearing age, but I have a daughter in law's I have a granddaughter and and my male children and grandchildren as well.

And I just I don't want them growing up in a world that is controlling other people.

And frankly, I'm concerned, particularly given Clarence Thomas's concurrence, that this is just the beginning.

Well, this just erodes a total number of landmark Supreme Court decisions in the past that affects everyone's rights.

And that's why that's why I have the sign here today.

And that's why I am also here to just as kind of a warning, I guess, just to tell everyone, you know, well, it may not have affected you personally today.

You know, your your rights are also in danger.

On Saturday afternoon, a group of about two dozen, including neighbors of Attorney General Dave Yost, showed up for a hastily planned hour long protest at his Columbus home.

Armed with pots, pans and other noisemakers, Yost had asked a federal court to lift the legal stay on the state's six week abortion ban.

Hours after the Supreme Court's decision.

For some Ohioans, the decision was an answered prayer.

The Faith Wife Church, an evangelical Christian congregation in Columbus, addressed the ruling in its virtual Sunday morning service right now.

We pray for the women right now.

We pray for the men and anybody and everybody that's been involved in this whole line of abortion to try to steal children, to try to destroy the lives of little children.

The Catholic Conference of Ohio's said in a statement, this decision enables the possibility of the state of Ohio to fully protect the lives of pre-born children.

Other bishops offered similar statements, but other churches were not celebrating and raised concerns about the impact of the decision on the lives of women.

Christian and Jewish leaders working with other groups, as Faith Choice Ohio said in a statement, We are not surprised by this ruling, but we still feel the gravity and grief of the moment.

We lament the court's decision.

For some Ohioans, this was a call to political action.

Thousands gathered on the statehouse lawn, carrying signs and chanting for change.

Democratic U.S.

Senator Sherrod Brown joined gubernatorial candidate Nan Whaley and U.S. Senate candidate Tim Ryan, along with other candidates.

Brown said the power is with the people this November.

By this time next year, the Senate in the House of Representatives will have codified Roe v Wade And by this time next year, President Biden will sign into law sign a bill to make abortion rights the law of the land.

A couple of hours later, Whaley and other Democratic leaders gathered at a Columbus home where they spoke to and raised money from people who support abortion rights.

Whaley said November's election will determine the future of legal abortion in Ohio and across the country, putting political momentum and the Democrats corner stage.

I think that has changed the way people are thinking about voting and then you add to the fact that at the state House and the governor are unequivocally way out of step with the majority.

I'd probably say probably 90% of the population on this issue.

But Ohio Right to Life President Mike Garner Dacus disagrees.

I'll never tell Democrats what to do, but if they think abortion is the number one issue facing Ohioans in America is simply wrong and they know that.

Garner Dacus says he thinks economic worries, not abortion, will determine how voters cast ballots this fall.

But many Democrats have said the issues are linked.

In a statement that started the weekend, DeWine said his administration will do more to help pregnant women by improving pre and post-natal care and depression screenings.

Seeking to expand health care coverage to mothers and children and asking his staff to develop ways to identify vulnerable women who need help.

That pro-choice Ohio's Kelly Copeland is doubtful and angry.

We don't even have a minimum unpaid maternity leave, and these politicians and organizations have the unlimited gated goal to say now, now somehow they're going to be here for people.

Where the hell have they been?

Where What took them so long?

If this was about supporting pregnant people and about babies, they would have done something.

That's not what this is about.

A statement from Ohio Right to Life also stressed helping women in need with access to health care and support services.

But gun advocate S also says his organization will be working hard to reelect a Republican supermajority here at the statehouse so they can pass a total ban on abortion in Ohio, which could happen after the November general election.

Joe Ingles, Statehouse News Bureau, The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, which challenged a six week abortion ban after it was signed into law in 2019, has also filed suit against the ban, this time saying it's illegal under Ohio's Constitution that the US Supreme Court's ruling, quoting here, hardly gives states like Ohio a free pass from abiding by their own constitutions.

Ohio has a due course of law provision which is analogous to the federal provision.

But Ohio's provision protects against injury done to person, so it's more protective.

It's been interpreted as being more protective of bodily autonomy.

Procreation, privacy.

Freedom of choice in health care, decision making.

And you say that coupled with this health care freedom that voters approved several years ago, really strengthens the argument that Ohioans have the fundamental right to make a decision that includes whether or not to have an abortion.

Well said, Karen.

And in addition, we also have an equal protection provision in our state Constitution, again, analogous to the federal constitution.

But Ohio's provision, it's called the Equal Protection and Benefit Clause, has been interpreted to provide broader protection than its federal analog.

Attorney General Dave Yost, who got the federal judge to lift the ban on the six week abortion of the hold on a six week abortion ban, addressed some of this in the state in a statement that he put out saying abortion is not in the Ohio Constitution, which you're not alleging that it is.

But he also said that race is don't start at the finish line and lawsuits don't start in the final court, aside from filing in the wrong action in the wrong court.

They are wrong as well on Ohio law.

So you did file this in the Ohio Supreme Court rather than Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

Why was that?

The Ohio Supreme Court does have jurisdiction to take this case.

We did file it is a case of original jurisdiction.

It's important to have this case resolved consistently and throughout the state and uniformly And that would mean going to the Ohio Supreme Court.

I can imagine some people, though, would look at the opinion which said this should go back to elected representatives to decide whether abortion should be legal or not and say, hey, Ohio's voters decided with their elected representatives to ban abortion, essentially, and that that this is what the voters of Ohio want.

But I know that that's been said.

But I think another thing that has to be kept in mind is that Ohio, the legislature isn't necessarily reflective of the the the opinions and desires of the populace.

We know that it's gerrymandered.

We know that the Supreme Court has stricken maps repeatedly that we're voting under maps that are still gerrymandered.

And we know that all public opinion surveys show that that Ohioans are in favor of reproductive choice.

Only a very small minority actually are in favor of a ban.

In the meantime, some Ohio prosecutors, including Columbus City Attorney Zach Kline and Cuyahoga County prosecutor Michael O'Malley, both Democrats signed on to a letter with dozens of other prosecutors throughout the nation saying they will not charge those who perform or seek abortions.

Others, such as Hamilton County prosecutor Joe Deters, a Republican, say or suggest they will enforce the ban.

The Dobbs ruling has also raised real concerns about other issues that have been decided by precedent set by the US Supreme Court.

While the majority opinion and Dobbs said it applies only to abortion.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the 2015 marriage equality decision in Obergefell v Hodges also should be reconsider it.

That ruling struck down both an Ohio law and a state constitutional amendment outlawing same sex marriage, along with a federal law and laws in some 40 states.

The Ohio man at the heart of that case is Jim Obergefell, who sued Ohio Department of Health Director Rick Hodges to be listed as the surviving spouse on his husband's death certificate.

I ask Obergefell about reading those words just seven years after he won his case.

Angry and honestly disgusted because here is a justice on the highest court in the land saying, well, here are other cases, other cases that represent rights that people enjoy and should enjoy as human beings and as citizens.

The right to contraception, the right to intimate relations with the person you love or care about in the privacy of your own home and the ability to commit to that one person that you love more than anyone, to have that relationship recognized and to form a family.

So his concurring opinion and my mind attack so many of those fundamental things that make up humanity, family privacy and the ability to make decisions about your own body, your own health.

So it angered me and honestly disgusts me because I think this is an appalling step for a Supreme Court justice to take.

And to be clear, I know there were questions when the decision came down whether abortion was legal in Ohio.

And for a period it still was until the six week ban came into effect and essentially outlawed nearly all abortions But it's a little bit different for the right to marry in Ohio because there is not only a state law, but also a constitutional amendment that would prohibit same sex marriage.

So it's very clear what's at stake in your case when it comes to Ohio law.

It is.

And that's here in Ohio.

And that's many other states across the nation.

These are, in essence, trigger laws where if Obergefell v Hodges is overturned, states could choose to immediately say we will no longer issue marriage licenses.

We will no longer recognize marriages, we will no longer recognize your relationship or your family and everything that goes with it.

And that should terrify everyone in this nation.

You know, hundreds of thousands of same sex couples have gotten married since June.

26.

20, 15.

Hundreds of thousands Those marriages have harmed no one.

Those marriages have done nothing but make those couples, those families secure.

And the recipients of dignity, respect and rights, they have harmed no one.

And for a sitting Supreme Court justice to paint a target on the back of marriage equality and the most fundamental relationship we can have as a human being is despicable.

So, yes, it is very much a concern that should of Obergefell v Hodges be overturned.

We could see states across the country, including Ohio, suddenly say you no longer exist you are no longer part of we the people.

You are not worthy of the same things that other couples receive and other families And that's a that's a horrible thing for a government to do.

Obergefell is now a Democratic candidate for the Ohio House, running against incumbent Republican Jay Swearingen.

The district is newly drawn, but the area has voted Republican since 2014.

I also reconnected with an Ohio State University more.

It's College of Law Professor who specializes in inequality in the law and culture, especially LGBTQ rights and reproductive justice.

Mark Spellman was on this show in May after the draft majority opinion was leaked.

The dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence and Obergefell.

Those are the cases involving married couples and the right to use contraception, unmarried individuals using contraception, intimacy and same sex marriage.

But says the majority, we have stated unequivocally that, quote, Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion, unquote.

The majority opinion repeats this point in different ways throughout the course of its decision.

Emphasizing the uniqueness of the abortion rate.

Importantly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh files a concurrence in the case which as the swing justice in the case has distinctive, distinctive significance, as his opinion points out.

This comes from Page ten of his concurrence.

I emphasize what the court today states overruling Roe, he explains, does not mean the overrule ing of those other precedents and does not threaten or cast doubt upon that.

So what we have is reasoning in the majority opinion that could be mobilized the way that Justice Thomas is concurrence suggests.

But Justice Thomas wrote for himself, nobody else was joining him on this view, whereas a majority of the court, including a separate opinion by the key vote justice in the case, Justice Kavanaugh emphasizes over and over again that there's this important, big, bold, bright distinction between abortion and the other, constitute rational rights that are in question, suggesting that this case does not mean to open the door to reregulation of contraception.

Adult consensual intimacies or same sex marriage right before the decisions protecting them.

That said, it's important to recognize that although the majority opinion says this, and although Justice Kavanaugh says this and right now it seems very clear and very firm, this big, bold, bright distinction, those continue and so it's important for people to understand that while right now the opinion is saying these questions are subtle, then nothing that we're doing means to raise a doubt.

It's important potentially for people to be engaging politically and re solidifying, reaffirming those rights, overshadowed by the huge ruling on abortion was another case that seemed to be at odds with what was decided in Dobbs those spindles and says from a conservative originalist point of view, they line up neatly.

But he notes that many people don't have that originalist point of view.

In that case, the court ruled that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, calling into question some states rules on that.

Republican former Ohio Senate President Larry Osborne filed a brief in that case for the conservative Buckeye Institute.

He says to show firearms laws that were in place around the time the Constitution was adopted and why the Buckeye Institute felt the New York law requiring a reason to carry a weapon outside the home went too far.

It was a 100 year old New York law that was at the center of this case.

A lot has changed since then as you've just gone through, including here in Ohio.

What does the outcome of this case mean for Ohioans?

For instance, a law took effect recently that allows permit concealed carry in Ohio.

So how does the ruling in that case affect Ohio?

I think in the short term it probably doesn't affect Ohio much, but in the long term, it's important to have the proper constitutional understanding in place because, you know, ten years from now, 15 years from now, 100 years from now, you may have very different policymakers with very different ideas about what they'd like to regulate and what they wouldn't.

So as a general proposition, when we see cases when Buckeye sees cases that they ask me to get involved in, what I think they're looking for our cases to pose significant constitutional issues that whether they directly impact Ohio today or might impact specific policymaking in Ohio today are things that that will be around for a very long time.

That could be recurring issues that could come up in the future.

And and what we really try to focus on in this brief was making sure that we made the unique arguments to the Supreme Court that we thought would help them come to what we thought was the right conclusion.

Let me ask you about another front of the court brief that Buckeye Institute was involved in, and you, Larry, I hope also as well, in a case striking down a Maine law prohibiting private religious schools from receiving public funds.

And the ACLU says that one of the justices noted in the dissent that the ruling, quote, leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation.

But let me ask you about that line from the dissent and also how does this case affect Ohio?

Sure.

Well, that that case is Carson versus Macon.

And the state of Maine has a very unique program that is in large part due to the fact that it is so rural and so sparsely populated in some areas that they don't actually have public schools in some areas at that secondary level.

So they have essentially a broad based school voucher program.

And what what happened in that case, in in our brief what we argued was that if you have generally available programs or generally available public funds, that you cannot discriminate against religious institutions that may receive those.

For decades, the the program in Maine functioned to essentially allow parents to send their children anywhere they wanted.

And in the 1980s, they changed that program to exclude certain types of religious organizations based based in part on their assessment of the U.S. Supreme Court's constitutional rulings on the establishment clause at the time.

Many of those precedents and in particular Clement versus Kurtzman that they relied on in making that assessment in the early eighties have have fallen to the wayside and the U.S. Supreme Court a number of times in recent years that indicated that when you have generally available programs that those must include or cannot discriminate against religious organizations.

And so what I think if you ask the the petitioners in that case, the ultimately successful petitioners, what they were asking the court to do was clarify its prior rulings and restate something that it had already come to that conclusion a number of times.

And in terms of that cases, immediate impact in Ohio, again, probably not significant because Ohio.

To the best of my knowledge, is not discriminating against religious organizations in any way like that.

But something that will guide future policymakers in the next decade, the next five decades, knowing what the limitations are there.

I can imagine that there are some people that view that case as well as the case involving the coach that was allowed on the 50 yard line with its players as being kind of cases that wear away at that separation of church and state.

You're talking about not discriminating against religious organizations, but there are people who feel about wall between church and state is really starting to disappear.

What do you say to those people I think that they should actually read the decisions themselves.

They're not nearly as broad as as the impression that people would get if they just learn about these things on social media.

And and actually Justice Kavanaugh in the Second Amendment case had a separate concurrence where he discussed that and and he sort of walked through the types of laws that are still allowable, the types of regulations that are in place in the majority of the states that that weren't employing a New York style law.

And really, I think tried to try to recenter on the idea he was what the case actually does Here's what it doesn't do.

And let's let's talk about what's really happening instead of maybe a third hand interpretation of what's happening.

And that is it for this week for my colleagues at the Statehouse News Bureau of Ohio Public Radio on television.

Thanks for watching.

Please check out our website at State News dot org and you can follow us on the show on Facebook and Twitter.

Happy Independence Day.

Andy Chow will be here next week, so please join him next time for the state of Ohio.

Support for the statewide broadcast of the state of Ohio comes from medical mutuel, providing more than 1.4 million Ohioans peace of mind with a selection of health insurance plans online at med mutual dot com slash Ohio by the law offices of Porter Right Morris and Arthur LLP.

Now with eight locations across the country, Porter Right is all legal partner with a new perspective to the business community.

More at Porter right dot com and from the Ohio Education Association representing 124,000 members who work to inspire their students to think creatively and experience the joy of learning online at OHEA.org.