U.S. 6th Circuit Decides Haskell Clinic Licensing Case

On February 17, 2006, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held in Women’s Medical Professional Corp. v. Baird that applying a requirement for a written transfer agreement with a hospital to an abortion facility owned by Dr. Martin Haskell did not constitute an unconstitutional “undue burden” under abortion law...read more

Pro-Choicers Introduce, Well, a Pro-abortion Bill
September, 2006—A bill that is supposed to “significantly reduce the number of abortions in America,” actually only promotes a massive slush fund for abortion groups and “comprehensive” sex-ed programs that promote condom use and sexual experimentation as well as Plan B, which can act as an abortifacient...read more

House Falls Short of Two-Thirds Vote for Abortion-Fetal Pain Measure
Washington, DC-- The House of Representatives on Wednesday failed to approve
a measure that would provide information to women considering an abortion
showing it will cause their baby severe pain.  Rep. Chris Smith, a New
Jersey Republican who sponsored the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, said
"It is horrifying that unborn children are subjected to such a violent and
inhumane death but to do so without even giving the mother the opportunity
to ask for pain reducing medicine is simply unconscionable," Smith
concluded. "Abortion already takes the lives of unborn children, but must
the children also be tortured?" (Excerpts from LifeNews.com)

 Regardless of Federal Decision, Ohio's Partial Birth Abortion Ban Will Stand
November, 2006--The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the federal
Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) Ban. Ohio has a PBA Ban in place and we have
been asked what effect does the Supreme Court hearings have on Ohio's ban?
Ohio is the only state where these abortions were being performed that
already has a ban in place. PBAs are not permitted here, and the ruling of
the Supreme Court on the federal case will not change that. (Excerpts from
Ohio Right to Life)

 Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
After years of speculation, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) officially
threw her hat into the ring for the 2008 presidential election. Clinton made
her announcement on the same weekend that pro-life Americans were observing
the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  During her years as first lady and as
a New York senator, Clinton amassed quite a record on unborn children,
including support for the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure. Planned
Parenthood has consistently given her a 100 percent rating. During her brief
time on the campaign trail, she's attempting to appear more moderate on
social issues like abortion, affirming Sen. Harry Reid's (D-NV) bill to
increase funding for "family planning" and dispense more "emergency
contraception." She is selling the bill as a cultural "compromise" on life,
but critics note that it undermines abstinence education and doubles the
funding for Planned Parenthood programs (excerpts from Family Research
Council).

 Want to blog for life?  Go to www.blogs4life.com
<http://www.blogs4life.com/>

 New Alternative to Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Scientists there have discovered yet another alternative to embryonic stem
cell research (ESC) that increases the promise of treatment without
destroying human life. Stem cells found in the rich amniotic fluid that
sustains a baby in the womb have the ability to grow into brain, muscle, and
other tissues to fight and treat disease. Not only does the research lack
the controversy of ESC, but it also hasn't generated the tumors that have so
often been the result of embryonic experimentation (excerpts from Family
Research Council).

Senate Adopts Amendment Stopping Pro-Life Lobbying Restrictions
Washington, DC Pro-life groups are delighted with a Senate vote on January
19 that removed the concerns they had about a bill that would have made it
difficult for them and others to lobby members of Congress on pro-life
issues.  Ohio Senator Voinovich voted for this amendment, Senator Sherrod
Brown voted against (excerpts from LifeNews.com).

 U.S. House Passes Bill to Fund Killing of Embryonic Human Beings
On January 11, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 253 to 174 to
pass H.R. 3, which would authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell
research which destroys human embryos, but not by enough to override a
Presidential veto. The bill, which would apply to embryonic human beings
created by in vitro fertilization, would overturn the Bush Administration's
policy restricting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. In July
2006, President Bush vetoed an identical bill (H.R. 810). The margin of
passage in the House is again short of the 2/3rds necessary to override a
veto (Ohio Right to Life).  Dayton Right to Life supports the wide range of
ethical stem cell research which does not kill human life and has had many
successes, but opposes embryonic stem cell research, which involves breeding
tiny humans to extract their stem cells, after which they die.

BREAKING NEWS! BILL 239 PASSES STATE SENATE!

Pro-Choicers Introduce, Well, a Pro-abortion Bill
September, 2006—A bill that is supposed to “significantly reduce the number of abortions in America,” actually only promotes a massive slush fund for abortion groups and “comprehensive” sex-ed programs that promote condom use and sexual experimentation as well as Plan B, which can act as an abortifacient.  Studies show that increased contraceptive use correlates with increased abortion rates. (Source: Family Research Council and Alan Guttmacher Institute)

Senate's Failure on Abortion Notification Bill Points to Election Concerns (Source: LifeNews.com)
The Senate's failure to approve an abortion bill that would have provided support for parental notification and consent laws across the country points to the need for pro-life advocates to get involved in key election battles that are happening in virtually every state.

The Senate fell three votes short last week in turning back a hold pro-abortion lawmakers placed on the pro-life bill. Unfortunately, given the tenuous election climate for pro-life advocates, the pro-life movement may fall further behind after November.

Ultimately, pro-life people need to get involved in these election battles now because the pro-life movement is in danger of taking a severe hit on Election Day. Your work is needed in the next month to keep up our pro-life numbers so we can stop the pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-destructive research onslaught that continues in Congress and state legislatures around the country....

Ohio's abortion pill law rejected
September 28, 2006--Judge Susan Dlott has ruled unconstitutional an Ohio bill banning unlawful prescription of mifepristone or Mifeprex, commonly called the RU-486 "abortion pill." H.B. 126 created state criminal penalties if RU-486 was provided to induce an abortion without complying with federal requirements governing its use.

The decision is a victory for Planned Parenthood, which argued that limiting the use of the drug, RU-486, could put women at risk.

What the law would do is make it illegal for doctors to prescribe the drug after the seventh week of pregnancy, a restriction recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration six years ago.  Second, only physicians can prescribe the drug to induce an abortion, and they must do so according to Federal Drug Administration guidelines for proper use. The law does not prevent RU-486 abortions, but only mandates that FDA guidelines be enforced.

These FDA guidelines include a complete medical exam before prescribing RU-486, careful monitoring during the abortion process, and that any physician who provides RU-486 report any serious complications to the state medical board.

The FDA is currently examining mounting reports of serious adverse effects for women who take RU-486, which have resulted in black box alert labeling on the drug's packaging. These adverse effects include serious sepsis blood infections, serious bacterial infections, bleeding, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, and death.

Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro has defended the law, describing it as "sensible and mainstream." He said it is intended to protect women from a potentially dangerous drug.

OVER THE COUNTER SALES APPROVED FOR PLAN B (Morning After Pill)
Dayton Right to Life Opposes Decision
August 24, 2006--Over-the-counter sales of Plan B has been approved by the FDA. This age limit of dispensing the so-called Morning After Pill to those over age 18 is a facade--minors will obtain this megadose of hormones from adult accomplices (including men), who will purchase this drug for underage teens without parental knowledge nor medical supervision. 

Planned Parenthood recently stated on their website, happy about the decision—“our work is not over yet, now we just need to make it available for teens… and stop by and purchase your Emergency Contraceptives at our nearest location to you.”

Dayton Right to Life opposes Plan B due to its abortifacient properties and other harmful negative aspects such as the encouragement of increased sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, and sexual abuse of women by predatory men.

U.S. 6th Circuit Decides Haskell Clinic Licensing Case
On February 17, 2006, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held in Women’s Medical Professional Corp. v. Baird that applying a requirement for a written transfer agreement with a hospital to an abortion facility owned by Dr. Martin Haskell did not constitute an unconstitutional “undue burden” under abortion law. However, the two-judge majority of the panel held that Ohio had violated Haskell’s procedural due process rights by not giving him a hearing prior to ordering that the facility be closed. Stating that the procedural due process violation can be remedied by allowing Haskell and the clinic a hearing on the proposed license denial, the majority vacated the permanent injunction against enforcing the transfer agreement requirement and remanded the case to the District Court.

 
On January 9,2003, J. Nick Baird, Director of the Ohio Department of Health ordered Women’s Med Center of Dayton to cease operating as ambulatory surgical facility (ASF) without a license. Baird issued the order after denying Haskell’s request for a waiver of the requirement that an ASF have a written transfer agreement with a hospital “for transfer of patients in the event of medical complications, emergency situations, and for other needs as they arise”. Haskell had based his waiver request on the fact that an anonymous 5-member OB/GYN group with admitting privileges at area hospitals agreed to provide back-up for the clinic. (Dr. Haskell, who is not board certified in OB/GYN, does not have admitting privileges at any Dayton-area hospital.) Haskell and his Women’s Medical Professional Corp. then filed in U.S. District Court and obtained an injunction preventing enforcement of the order to cease operating pending the outcome of the case. On August 15, 2003, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley of Columbus issued a permanent injunction preventing ODH from enforcing the written transfer agreement requirement against the clinic.

 

In the 6th Circuit decision, Judge Julia Gibbons, writing for herself and Judge R. Allan Edgar, rejected the District Court’s conclusion that closing the only Dayton abortion facility and requiring women to travel to other Ohio abortion facilities constituted an “undue burden” on the right to abortion. They also rejected the District Court’s conclusion that a written transfer agreement requirement gave an unconstitutional delegation of authority to deny a license to private hospitals, since the Director of Health could still grant a waiver of the transfer agreement requirement. However, they concluded that ODH violated due process when it ordered the clinic to close before holding a hearing.

 

Judge Jeffrey Sutton concurred with the conclusion that there was no undue burden, but dissented from the conclusion that Haskell and the clinic had been denied due process.  (ORTL)

 

Click here to see the Haskell opinion http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0065p-06.pdf

 

Ohio One of Five States Seeking to Ban Abortion

February 3, 2006-- Legislators in at least five states have proposed legislation that would severely limit or altogether ban abortion. Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota and Tennessee are all considering bans.

Rep. Tom Brinkman introduced HB 228 in the Ohio House of Representatives in April of 2005.  Although, in the case decision of Roe v. Wade, individual states are not permitted to ban abortion until Roe v. Wade is overturned,  HB 228 is a test case for Ohio, perhaps setting the stage and being ready for when this happens.

The bill is now assigned to the Health Committee and is awaiting hearings promised by House Speaker John Husted.

 

Ohio Senate Committee Approves Ban on Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Life Suits

              On February 15, 2006, the Ohio Senate Health, Human Services & Aging Committee voted 8-2 to ban “wrongful birth” and “wrongful life” lawsuits in Ohio. The vote came on an amendment offered by Sen. Jim Jordan (R, Urbana) to H.B. 287, a bill which originally dealt only with licensing requirements for certain birthing centers. After adopting the Jordan amendment, the committee passed H.B. 287 by the same 8-2 vote.

“Wrongful birth” and “wrongful life” lawsuits are medical claims that, but for the act or omission of a medical professional, a child with a disability would have been aborted rather than born. The suits do not allege that the medical professional caused the birth defect or physically injured the child. Rather, they allege that the birth of the child with a disability was a legal injury and that if the disability had been discovered and the parents informed, the child would have been aborted. In “wrongful birth” suits, parents are the plaintiffs. In “wrongful life” suits, the child is the plaintiff.

 
Those members of the Committee voting the pro-life position FOR the Jordan amendment were: Kevin Coughlin; Randy Gardner; Jeffry Armbruster; Patricia Clancy; Jeff Jacobson; Jim Jordan; Larry Mumper; and Charlie Wilson.

Those members of the Committee voting the pro-abortion position AGAINST the Jordan amendment were: Ray Miller and Robert Hagan.

Senators David Goodman and Eric Fingerhut were not present.

ACTION REQUESTED

H.B. 287 now goes to the full Senate and, if passed by the Senate, will return to the Ohio House for a vote on whether to concur in the Senate amendments.

Please contact your State Senator and State Representative and urge them to support H.B. 287 and ban “wrongful birth” and “wrongful life” lawsuits in Ohio. Some points that you can make are that such suits:

 

You can find out who your State Senator is and his or her contact information by entering your Zip Code at: http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/SenateZipSearch.html .

             

You can find out who your State Representative is and his or her contact information by entering your Zip Code at: http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/Representatives.jsp .

 

H.B. 500, CORD BLOOD DONATION BILL INTRODUCED IN OHIO HOUSE 

On February 2, 2006, State Representative Mike Gilb (R, Findlay) introduced H.B. 500, a bill that would require the Ohio Director of Health to establish a Cord Blood Donation Program in Ohio. The bill would allow the Ohio Director of Health to enter into agreements with cord blood banks which are qualified under the new Federal C. W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program in order to fund and establish the donation program. Once established, information about the program would be sent to hospitals and birthing centers across the state. Participation in the program will be voluntary, both for hospitals and birthing centers as well as parents. Hospitals and birthing centers that elect to participate in the program would provide pregnant women with information about cord blood donation provided by the Department of Health and give the woman an opportunity to donate cord blood to a qualified cord blood bank. Cord blood is a source of “adult” stem cells for use in research and therapy.

Bill Bars Physician Assistants from Prescribing Drugs to Induce an Abortion

On January 25, 2006, the Ohio House passed S.B. 154 by a vote of 95-0. S.B. 154 revises the laws regarding physician assistants and authorizes physician assistants to prescribe certain drugs. At the request of Ohio Right to Life, the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Lynn Wachtmann (R, Napoleon), included in the bill several provisions that indicate that a physician assistant may not “prescribe any drug or devise to perform or induce an abortion, or otherwise perform or induce an abortion.” The bill makes violating these provisions a reason for revoking or suspending a physician assistant’s certificate to practice or certificate to prescribe. The abortion-related provisions mirror similar restrictions which Ohio law places on “advance practice” nurses, who also have the authority to prescribe.

The bill had passed the Senate on October 25, 2005 by a vote of 30-1.

 

Information on Judge Samuel Alito, By Tracie Johnson, Legislative Director

Judge Alito is considered to have a conservative "originalist" judicial philosophy.  Here is what we know:

 

Ohio House

Ohio House Hearing  Stem Cell Research and Cloning Bill

Currently, the Ohio House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is hearing HB 355, a bill to ban all human cloning and not allow state funding for embryonic stem cell research.

H.B 355 would create a criminal ban on human cloning in the state of Ohio and prohibit the use of all state funds (including Third Frontier research funds) for embryonic stem cell research that was not done in accordance with the federal guidelines adopted by President Bush in August 2001. H.B. 355 would also prohibit state funding of research that involves the use of tissue derived from an induced abortion.

Opponents of the bill have created some confusion over the terms “reproductive cloning” and “therapeutic cloning.”

Some legislators have said they supported a ban on “cloning human beings” but opposed banning “therapeutic cloning”. (“Therapeutic cloning” involves the cloning of a human embryo, which is then destroyed in research.) This may partially be the result of misinformation spread by some cloning proponents indicating that the “ball of cells” produced in “therapeutic cloning” is not a human embryo. This is a little like saying that the “ball of cells” that became “Dolly” the cloned sheep, was not a sheep embryo or could have been called something else if the intention was to destroy it in research rather than to implant it.

 

United States Senate

President Bush Signs Umbilical Cord Adult Stem Cell Research Bill
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Demonstrating his long-standing commitment to stem cell research involving adult stem cells, President Bush on Tuesday (12/20) signed a bill that would promote a national program to encourage the use of cord blood stem cells. The measure would provide $79 million in federal funding for the collection and storage of umbilical cord blood. It provides a total of $265 million for life-saving stem cell therapeutic therapy, cord blood and bone marrow treatment. The bill also reauthorizes the national bone marrow transplant system, combining it and the cord blood in the same database. The Senate approved the measure last week on a voice vote and the House backed it 431-1 in May.  All members of the Ohio delegation to the US House of Representatives voted in favor of the bill. Senator Voinovich and DeWine were cosponsors on the companion bill in the Senate.

Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act - Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fl) introduced the Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act in the Senate as S. 539 on March 7; Representative Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-Fl-15) introduced it in the House as H.R. 1151 on March 8.  The bill, also known as “The Federal Terri’s Law” (for Terri Schiavo), would permit the filing of a federal “habeas corpus” action for an incapacitated person when a court order “authorizes or directs the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids or medical treatment necessary to sustain the person’s life”. The law does not apply when the person has an “advance directive” authorizing the withholding or withdrawal of the food, fluids or treatment.

 

Other

 

RU 486 Legal Challenge – Planned Parenthood v. Taft

On June 24, 2004, Governor Taft signed H.B. 126, which creates state criminal penalties for violating federal rules governing distribution of RU-486. The bill was scheduled to go into effect September 23, 2004. The law says that only physicians can prescribe the drug to induce an abortion, and they must do so according to Federal Drug Administration guidelines for proper use. The law does not prevent RU-486 abortions, but only mandates that FDA guidelines be enforced.

These FDA guidelines include a complete medical exam before prescribing RU-486, careful monitoring during the abortion process, and that any physician who provides RU-486 report any serious complications to the state medical board.

Planned Parenthood from affiliates from three cities (Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus) and the Cleveland abortion facility Preterm filed a lawsuit challenging this law on August 2, 2004, claiming that it violates a constitutionally-mandated requirement that every law contain an exception for the woman’s health. However, the Supreme Court has never declared that all state laws need a health exception to be constitutional. They have said that such exceptions are needed when it is proven that without such an exception some women’s health might be endangered. Since there was never a trial in this case, no evidence of how women might be endangered was ever presented.

Unfortunately, on September 22, 2004,U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott of Cincinnati (a Clinton appointee) issued a preliminary injunction preventing H.B. 126 from going into effect. This meant that she believes that the Plaintiffs are likely to win a permanent injunction on the merits because the law did not contain an exception for the life and health of the mother.

Attorney General Jim Petro appealed this decision to the next level of courts, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. A panel of three judges from this court will hear the arguments from both sides on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 in Cincinnati, OH. The abortion clinics have to convince the court that they will probably win on the merits in order to succeed in continuing to block this law.

The United States Supreme Court just heard arguments regarding health exceptions in the New Hampshire case, which will probably be decided next Spring. With new members joining the Supreme Court, this is an open question. It also demonstrates how important the judicial nomination process is.

According to the Ohio Department of Health, 4,542 non-medical (chemical) abortions were performed in Ohio in 2004, over 13% of the total number performed in the state annually. Twenty-two percent (22%) of the total injuries reported are from these chemical abortions.

 

 

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In a surprising unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal appeals court wrongly overturned a New Hampshire law that requires parental notification before a teen can have an abortion. Pro-abortion groups wanted the law to be struck down because it lacks a health exception. Instead of issuing a major ruling in the case, the high court asked the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision overturning the law. The Supreme Court determined the appeals court went too far in issuing a permanent injunction preventing the law from being enforced. Pro-abortion Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the opinion for the court. "In the case that is before us ... the lower courts need not have invalidated the law wholesale," O'Connor wrote.
: 

"Only a few applications of New Hampshire's parental notification statute would present a constitutional problem," she explained. "So long as they are faithful to legislative intent, then, in this case, the lower courts can issue a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting the statute's unconstitutional application." Under that opinion, the appeals court will issue an opinion explaining under what circumstances the law cannot be used to require parental notification 48 hours before the teen's abortion.

The judges did not deal directly with the question of whether the parental notification law should have had a health exception, as abortion advocates contend. Typically the judicial bypass provision of such laws, which have proven to reduce abortions, are sufficient to cover rare health emergencies. "We do not revisit our abortion precedents today," O'Connor added.

The New Hampshire law is patterned after Minnesota's parental involvement statute which has no health exception and was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. That law has been in effect for over 20 years with no reported health emergencies suffered by Minnesota teens. Mary Balch, an attorney for National Right to Life who handles state legislation, says the claims by abortion advocates that a health exception is needed is a "red herring." "When a minor daughter confronts a medical emergency, she needs her parents most," Balch explained. "As knowledgeable doctors have briefed the Supreme Court, an immediate abortion would not be appropriate treatment for any non-life threatening complication of pregnancy."

Balch said the New Hampshire law does not preclude a doctor from treating any medical emergencies and does contain an exception allowing immediate abortions for life threatening medical emergencies.

No other members of the high court issued opinions as all joined in O'Connor's.

O'Connor is expected to be replaced soon by federal appeals court Judge Samuel Alito, who is a member of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Pro-life groups hope he will be a more reliable vote on pro-life issues. The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144.

 

Supreme Court Decision Curtails the Controlled Substances Act In Favor of the Practice of Assisted Suicide in Oregon (from Culture of Life Foundation)

 Yesterday (1/17), the Supreme Court sided with the State of Oregon in its lawsuit to overturn the regulations that prevent the use of federally controlled substances in assisted suicides. In a majority opinion signed onto by five other Justices, Justice Anthony Kennedy decided the case of Gonzales v. Oregon, holding that the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 did not authorize the United States Department of Justice to declare that the drugs regulated by the act cannot be used in assisted suicides because assisting in a suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose." Instead, Kennedy wrote that the act's prohibition of the prescription of controlled substances for illegitimate medical purposes only covers doctors who prescribe controlled substances for their patients to "recreationally abuse" or who take part in "illicit drug trafficking." Since a patient who seeks the assistance of a doctor in committing suicide through the prescription of a lethal overdose of a federally controlled drug (such as morphine) is doing neither of these things, Kennedy concluded that the act did not authorize the Department to issue its regulation.

Justice Scalia dissented strongly from the Court's opinion, and was joined in dissent by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas. Scalia argued that the Department's characterization of assisted suicide as an illegitimate medical purpose was, in fact, "the most natural" way to interpret both the act itself, and also the early regulations promulgated pursuant to it by past officers of the Department. Scalia went on to write that "virtually every medical authority from Hippocrates to the current American Medical Association…confirms that assisting" in a "suicide has seldom or never been viewed as a" legitimate medical purpose for a doctor to have and act on. He also argued that even if the regulation did not interpret the act in its most natural way, the Department of Justice, as part of the Executive Branch that serves under an elected President, was entitled to deference from the Federal Courts in how it interpreted the act's language. Justice Thomas, in addition to joining in Scalia's opinion, also wrote his own vigorous dissent.

Contrary to public misconceptions, neither the majority opinion, nor the dissents, in any way asserted that either individual Americans had a constitutional right to assisted suicide or that States had a constitutional right to legalize assisted suicide. Instead, Justice Kennedy wrote that all that was at issue in the case was "interpreting a federal statute to determine whether Executive action is authorized by, or otherwise consistent with" the language of that statute. Also, even if the Department had won the case there was still the question of whether there are drugs that are not federally controlled substances that may be as efficient in performing suicides as the federally controlled substances are, and that therefore the Oregon law legalizing assisted suicide was never really in danger of being completely voided by these regulations.

 

Recent statement made by leading democratic candidate for Ohio Governor

Congressman Ted Strickland, a Democratic candidate for Governor of Ohio, has pledged to veto any new pro-life legislation if he is elected as governor. In accepting the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, Strickland stated that as governor "I would veto any legislation to further restrict access to reproductive health care including abortion."

In the January 11 NARAL press release announcing the endorsement, Wendy Leatherberry, President of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio stated: "Ohioans deserve a governor who will maintain a woman's right to safe, legal reproductive health choices, including abortion. Ted Strickland will be the kind of governor all women can depend upon. With the future of Roe v. Wade hanging tenuously in the balance of an uncertain U.S. Supreme Court, the battle for a woman's right to choose is in the states. NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio is pleased to endorse a candidate that we believe is not only the best choice for women, but the best choice for all Ohioans."

The Strickland campaign press release responding to the NARAL endorsement stated: "Strickland expressed appreciation for the endorsement, reiterating his commitment to be Ohio's first pro-choice governor in sixteen years. 'I am pleased to be able to work with NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio to enhance access to reproductive health care services Ohioans need and deserve,' Strickland said. 'I would veto any legislation to further restrict access to reproductive health careincluding abortion.' "

The NARAL press release appears on its website at:
http://www.prochoiceohio.org/s09newsroom/press/200601111.shtml

The Ted Strickland campaign press release on the NARAL endorsement
appears at http://www.tedstrickland.com/news/186/naral-pro-choice-ohio-endorses-ted-strickland-for-governor