Letter to the Editor: Against Issue 1 in favor of parental rights

Letter to the editor··2 min read

Editor’s note: The Portager publishes letters to the editor from the community. The opinions expressed are published not because they necessarily reflect those of the publication but because we feel they contribute meaningfully to the local discourse on matters of public interest.

I have read some letters to news agencies about Ohio Issue 1, the proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution that allows reproductive rights to all individuals. Some of the authors are correct. I may never really understand the emotional and psychological trauma of having an unplanned pregnancy, especially if it is due to a violent criminal act. I can only imagine in many of those situations, one may consider the situation a matter of self defense just to be able to survive such a desperate situation. Even though I consider life sacred from conception until a natural death, I will not judge anyone who was or is in such mental anguish.

What I have read and have heard in conversations from those who are in favor of Issue 1 is thinking it is only about a woman’s right to make decisions for herself. The way the proposed amendment is written, it is much more, and I expect, beyond what many supporters understand of its potential.

I wish everyone believed in the sacredness of all life beginning at conception. The reality is that there are more and more people not paying attention to life in that way. But, the proposed amendment lists ‘individuals’ without defining who those individuals are. We can assume that the individuals represented by the language are of adult minds, but in legal language, it means anyone, even minors of any age. This alone, I imagine, is troubling to some of those in favor of Issue 1. Secondly, it protects anyone who assists, councils or coaches those ‘individuals’ to seek procedures against the better judgement of their parents or legal guardians, thus reducing parental rights to the care of their own children. Our children can be brought to places where they can get abortions or other procedures without us having any say.

I believe that the proposed language goes far beyond what the majority of supporters of the issue understand. I believe the authors were intentional about this. I believe it was written to go beyond what most people would accept. Once it is in the constitution, there will be nothing our elected officials can do legally to reign it in. My hope is that everyone will consider this and not be deceived, and vote no, not accepting this amendment.

— Deacon Chris Germak, Pastoral Associate, Immaculate Conception Parish, Ravenna

Letter to the editor
+ posts

The Portager publishes a range of opinions from the community. To submit a letter to the editor, write to [email protected].

Related

8 Comments

  1. With all due respect, the implications of the author’s comments include a possibility that were a 15 year old female to be raped and impregnated, she would not be entitled to an abortive procedure if her parent(s) were against her aborting the fetus. In other words, along with the horrific rape, she would also be subjected to the will of her parents, which one might consider to be a “forcing” as well.

    One needs to remove belief from healthcare, belief that does not rest upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. More to the point, healthcare needs to not single out Women and decide that a certain aspect of their health – reproductive health – is up for debate simply because people believe sperm and ova combine via divine magic rather than mere biology.

    Healthcare is about health of the individual, not religious belief of the masses.

    Reply

  2. Deacon Germak,

    You do not consider people who want their pregnancy to come to term but cannot continue the pregnancy because of health reasons of either the mom or the fetus. Since Roe v. Wade was overturned and states have imposed draconian laws on the child-bearing public they represent, there have been myriad stories about people almost dying because they could not receive the healthcare they required.

    Aside from that, you do not seem to consider that a child’s body, although menstruating and able to conceive, is not yet mature enough to safely deliver a full-term baby, and poses a risk to that pregnant child’s life. You also fail to understand that children who seek help from adults other than their parents normally have a good reason to do so, such as mental, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse which causes lack of trust, trauma, and fear.

    You mention that you “wish everyone believed in the sacredness of all life beginning at conception,” but you are mostly concerned with the unborn, in my opinion, based on your stance that a person’s right to choose what is best for them regarding whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is less important than the fetus’s life. Don’t forget, people outside the womb are living beings as well. Also, sacredness of life is a religious construct created by men to hold themselves above everything else on earth, and let’s be real, based on the histories of many religions, life of anyone who doesn’t believe as they do isn’t sacred (ask the Native Americans). Oh, and since we’re coming into the Halloween season, let’s ask the women who were falsely accused of witchcraft in Salem how sacred their lives were.

    Lastly, your insinuation that the voting public doesn’t understand the amendment is insulting. We (especially those who can get pregnant) understand it perfectly. It removes the state from our personal medical decisions. Period.

    Reply

  3. Excellent letter by Deacon Germak. Thank you for standing up for those too meek or too afraid to do so themselves. Issue 1 is much more serious and important than many folks understand. As folks take your letter to heart, let’s hope they will better understand the underlying intentions behind the Issue itself. Thank you for your clarification.

    Reply

  4. I think it’s very important that the language reads “individuals” simply because some minors– a 14 year old rape victim, or a 16 year old who has gotten pregnant for whatever reason– may not feel comfortable involving their parents. A parents’ belief in life at conception, and their subsequent anti-abortion stance, would eliminate the 13 year old’s chances of getting an abortion if their parents were involved or had the final say.

    These days, 13 year olds are children. But so are many 28 year olds who live at home and have never had a job in their life. But historically, 13 year olds were old enough to marry. I’m not saying we need to bring back child brides, but we need to trust children — especially those of child-breeding age — to make their own choices.

    Reply

  5. Personal reproductive autonomy should need no one’s approval, parental or otherwise. I don’t see what right a parent has to control whether a young girl, who gets pregnant by ignorance, coercion or rape or even design should be forced to carry a pregnancy to birth. It is a deeply personal matter and should remain so for the physical and mental health of the child. What should a child do if the pregnancy is from a family member, clergy or close friend or anyone the child fears or is afraid to accuse? This law is a must. Vote yes on issue one and allow all women to enjoy bodily autonomy. It is the right way to go.

    Reply

  6. Deacon Germack, like so many people listening to the far right, is misinformed. The League of Women Voters, who have taken a neutral stance on Issue 1 states that there is absolutely no change to parental rights should Issue 1 pass.
    “There is nothing in the amendment that changes Ohio laws around parental consent, or anything else that would change state laws relating to parental rights.” Go to lwvohio.org to get information from a trusted, non-partisan source, rather than right wing spin docs who are using scare tactics to win.

    Reply

  7. I totally agree with your assessment of Issue 1. I pray, and hope everyone who votes will read the amendment wording. If voted “IN” it will change Ohios’ Constitution. Which in that act should not be taken lightly. READ!!

    Reply

  8. Excellent points mentioned in many of the letters about Issue 1. I believe in the sanctity of life but many people are only concerned about a fetus being born. What happens after birth if that child is in need of special care? People who claim to be ‘pro-life’ seem to be only concerned about birth rather than what is needed after birth. Sanctity of life can be 50, 60, 70, or more years. This is a very difficult subject to address. A woman’s decision to abortion (which involves many factors) is between her and her doctor. Politicians need to stay out of a woman’s womb.

    Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2021 © The Portager