To the editor:

This letter is presented in hopes that local voters will check the real facts before casting their vote for or against Issue 1 on the ballot in the upcoming November election.

A casual reading of the language might make the issue to appear acceptable to those who are even mildly in favor of a “woman’s right to choose.” That is because the framers of this document used purposely vague and innocent sounding language to sneak a very radical agenda past the average well-meaning Ohio voter. For example, the title refers to “abortion and other reproductive decisions.”

Parents should be especially on guard about the likely horrendous results in Ohio if this amendment passes. Part of the vague language refers only to individuals… not to adults which means that parents would have no control of “reproductive medical treatment” of their minor children. This could mean anything from an abortion for a 13-year-old child to sex change surgeries for an elementary school aged child.

The apparent limitations on late term abortions in the language are simply window dressing aimed to confuse voters since the language goes on to state that a “physician” (also called abortionist in this context) may override this provision in considering the “health of the pregnant woman” but does not describe what “health” actually means. Legal precedent sometimes describes health as being emotional, financial, and other even more esoteric definitions.

For those who really want to know where this may lead when numerous distortions of existing laws are considered by liberal judges based on this amendment, I advise you to google ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Ballot-Initiatives. You will find a plain language analysis by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost which may give you pause about where this proposal intends to take us.

Be an informed voter. Don’t be swayed by slick commercials paid for by outside “Progressive” operatives who have agendas not at all in sync with the citizens of counties like ours.

Denny York

Russia