Issue 1 is poorly and vaguely written (probably intentionally because as the writer says, future courts could be tasked with interpreting what was meant. This could lead to much broader interpretations of the amendment, beyond what many would be comfortable with. It should be defeated and if the proponents come forward with something more limited, I'm sure Ohio would be ready. I don't believe most are comfortable with the strict limitations of the Heartbeat law.
"Issue 1 is poorly and vaguely written (probably intentionally because as the writer says, future courts could be tasked with interpreting what was meant", wrote Nancy. "It should be defeated and if the proponents come forward with something more limited, I'm sure Ohio would be ready."
I agree with both of her statements. Hence, at this time I prefer to stick with the legislative process.
Issue 1 is poorly and vaguely written (probably intentionally because as the writer says, future courts could be tasked with interpreting what was meant. This could lead to much broader interpretations of the amendment, beyond what many would be comfortable with. It should be defeated and if the proponents come forward with something more limited, I'm sure Ohio would be ready. I don't believe most are comfortable with the strict limitations of the Heartbeat law.
good analysis
"Issue 1 is poorly and vaguely written (probably intentionally because as the writer says, future courts could be tasked with interpreting what was meant", wrote Nancy. "It should be defeated and if the proponents come forward with something more limited, I'm sure Ohio would be ready."
I agree with both of her statements. Hence, at this time I prefer to stick with the legislative process.
Excellent explanation! This should be distributed....