Bill to a) reverse and expunge any adverse actions taken by the state et al against a business who was found to be in violation of orders issued under the emergency order, b) restore rights and privileges that were affected by such adverse actions, c) refund businesses any penalties/fines levied.
Status: Expired
-
Vote No on Issue 1 — Redistricting (November 2024)
Vote No on Ohio Issue 1
This page is an archive of Issue 1
In the upcoming Ohio election, voters will have the opportunity to make a critical decision on an initiative known as Issue 1.
This legislation has been advertised as a measure to protect women’s “reproductive health” rights. It is essential to understand the full implications of Issue 1. Beneath the surface, this initiative poses a significant threat to parental rights and the wellbeing of children.
Call to Action
1) Download our NO in November content “toolbox” and share them on your social media platforms as well as text them to 10 family members or friends and remind them Voting is on November 7th! Download all our content via Zip file (367MB) or get individual content here (scroll right for more):
2) You can also print Protect Women Ohio flyers to hand out to voters at least 100 feet from the polling entrance: Downloadable flyer here.
3) Check your local Republican party headquarters for “no one issue one” signs (or make your own) and wave them on voting day at the busiest polling location in your district.
The Deceptive Nature of Issue 1
At first glance, Issue 1 may appear to be aimed at addressing what proponents argue are essential rights pertaining to “reproductive” matters. Nevertheless, it is imperative to delve deeper into the legislation’s intricate details, revealing an underlying agenda that extends beyond “reproductive rights”.
This legislative proposal brings to light legitimate concerns regarding parental rights, an enduring cornerstone of our societal values. Parents traditionally hold a pivotal role in shaping their children’s upbringing and welfare, including decisions of medical significance. Issue 1 raises alarms as it threatens to undermine this longstanding principle, potentially depriving parents of their influence in choices concerning abortion, the use of puberty blockers, or gender reassignment treatment for their children.
It is crucial to underscore that while safeguarding “reproductive rights” is deemed crucial by some, it should not come at the cost of compromising parental rights — a fundamental aspect deeply entrenched within our legal and ethical framework.
“Reproductive Choice”
Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom (OAMF) staunchly advocates for medical freedom, a principle rooted in the fundamental definition of medicine as “the science and art dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease.”
Within this framework, OAMF takes a clear stance regarding “reproductive choice”, that – except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk – terminating the life of a fetus contradicts the very essence of maintaining health.
Furthermore, OAMF maintains the perspective that – once again, with potential exceptions to preserve the life of the mother – a fetus should not be categorized as a disease.
In aligning our advocacy with this perspective, OAMF underscores the importance of preserving life while recognizing the complexity of the debate surrounding “reproductive choice” and its implications for medical freedom.
Puberty Blockers
Another concerning aspect of Issue 1 revolves around its potential impact on the use of puberty blockers, a topic fraught with debate when it comes to their administration to children diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
Under the provisions of Issue 1, parents may find themselves facing limitations on their ability to make these decisions for their children. This legislative approach raises questions about the balance between parental rights and the authority of medical professionals, particularly when it comes to contested matters such as the use of puberty blockers.
It is crucial to recognize that the decision to initiate or discontinue puberty blockers should be informed by comprehensive medical assessments, in-depth consultations, and a consideration of the individual needs and circumstances of each young person. Parents often play a pivotal role in this process, collaborating closely with healthcare providers to make decisions that prioritize their child’s physical and psychological health.
Issue 1’s restriction on parental involvement in these decisions could disrupt this collaborative approach and hinder the ability of families to navigate the complex terrain of medical care for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
Gender Reassignment Treatment
Issue 1 introduces yet another area of concern by limiting parental input in decisions related to gender reassignment treatment or surgery for their children.
Gender reassignment is a multifaceted and profound process with far-reaching implications, especially for minors. While it is essential to acknowledge the complexities and sensitivities surrounding these medical procedures, Issue 1’s proposed restrictions on parental involvement raise significant questions.
Parents play a pivotal role in guiding their children’s lives and well-being, and this includes making decisions about their medical care. The erosion of parental authority in this matter would disrupt the established dynamics of family decision-making, which have traditionally been guided by parents’ understanding of their child’s best interests.
-
Limit emergency-rule extension power
Bill to a) limit the governor’s power to extend emergency rule, b) implement oversight on emergency rule changes, to specifically mitigate adverse impact on businesses, c) limit the duration of emergency rules.
While this bill doesn’t prohibit the type of rules that can be implemented (vaccine mandate, mask mandate, vaccine passport, business closures, etc), it does provide further limitations on the state from endlessly perpetuating emergency rules.
-
Oppose Governor DeWine and the State Health Director’s COVID-19 orders
Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom opposes the current Health Orders as issued by Governor DeWine and the State Health Director.
Please contact the Governor’s Office to voice your opposition to the current orders.
-
Legislative oversight of executive orders
Bill to establish legislative oversight of the Governor’s executive orders, certain public health orders, and emergency rules, including by establishing the Ohio Health Oversight and Advisory Committee.
While SB22 passed into law, HB90 was better language and OhioAMF would like to see HB90 passed into law in a way that it amended SB22 to improve the code.
-
COVID-19 and genetic technologies
Bill to prohibit certain actions related to COVID-19 and genetic technologies.
While HB425 aims to reduce vaccine choice discrimination in Ohio, this bill would only apply to “vaccines” utilizing “messenger ribonucleic acid, deoxyribonucleic acid, or any other genetic vaccine technology”.OhioAMF believes that vaccine choice bills should protect all Ohioans in all circumstances, as such, we support HB248. We are waiting to see how this bill evolves before making further determinations regarding our support or opposition to the bill.
-
Individual Privacy and Anti-Discrimination Act
Bill to prohibit mandatory disclosures related to an individual’s COVID-19 vaccination status, to name the act the Individual Privacy and Anti-Discrimination Act, and to declare an emergency.
While HB411 aims to reduce vaccine choice discrimination in Ohio, OhioAMF’s analysis of the bill is that it is a much weaker version of Ohio House Bill 248, and OhioAMF fully supports HB248. We are waiting to see how this bill evolves before making further determinations regarding our support or opposition to the bill.
-
Workers’ comp exemption for employer-mandated COVID vaccination
Bill to exempt an injury or disability caused by an employer-mandated COVID-19 vaccination from the Workers’ Compensation Law and to allow the employee to sue the employer for damages.
While HB401 would make a good effort at reducing vaccine choice discrimination in Ohio, since employers would assume liability for vaccine-related injuries to employees as a result of employer-mandated vaccines, OhioAMF believes that employers shouldn’t be permitted to mandate vaccines to begin with, such as the protections provided within HB248. We are waiting to see how this bill evolves before making further determinations regarding our support or opposition to the bill.
-
Prohibit actions against the unvaccinated
Bill to prohibit taking certain actions against an individual because the individual refuses to be vaccinated against a disease.
While HB 388 would make a good effort at reducing vaccine choice discrimination in Ohio, OhioAMF believes that vaccine choice bills should protect all Ohioans in all circumstances, as such, we support HB248. We are waiting to see how this bill evolves before making further determinations regarding our support or opposition to the bill.
-
Prohibit state mask mandates during the current emergency
Bill to prohibit state mask mandates during the current state of emergency.
Our concern is that this bill is that it doesn’t protect our mask choice from county, township, city, or other local jurisdictions, or from private sector requirements by employers, businesses, etc. Additionally, per the bill, if made law, it would only apply to the current state of emergency, and would not apply to future emergency orders.