A reproductive rights group is suing the Ohio State Elections Board and Secretary of State Frank LaRose for misleading language related to an abortion amendment on the November ballot.

Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit today with the Ohio Supreme Court challenging what it calls "deceptive summary language" for Issue 1, the reproductive freedom amendment ballot initiative, to appear on the ballot this November.

Among the many issues the lawsuit points out with the official language, some notable changes include the phrase "unborn child" instead of "fetus," which is the medically correct term.

It also changed "right to make reproductive decisions,” to "reproductive medical treatment." The official language makes it seem like the state, therefore the people will need to pay for these reproductive initiatives, which is not the case.

The lawsuit also claims the board only includes four of the five reproductive decisions afforded to patients included in the proposed amendment, which includes contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion. The official language does not include abortion.

The original amendment would restrict the "state" from penalizing anyone from carrying out these reproductive initiatives, however in the ballot language, it states the "citizens of Ohio" would not be able to penalize anyone. The lawsuit claims this is meant to confuse voters.

"Issue One was clearly written to protect Ohioan's right to make our own personal health care decisions about contraception, pregnancy and abortion," Ohio United for Reproductive Rights spokesperson Lauren Blauvelt said. "The summary adopted by the ballot board is intentionally misleading and fails to meet the standards required by Ohio law."

In a larger instance pointed out by the lawsuit, the board's official language reworks one passage to say:

"Always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health."

However, the original amendment states: 

"The state shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either an individual’s voluntary exercise of this right or a person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right, unless the state demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the pregnant individual’s health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.

However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health."

According to the lawsuit, the ballot language as it is "does not properly identify the substance of the proposal to be voted upon. Instead, it attempts to “mislead,
deceive, or defraud the voters.”

Board Member and State Representative Elliot Forhan said in the lawsuit that “the ballot language is longer than the amendment it purports to summarize. It is needlessly repetitive . . . it’s an attempt to confuse voters.” 

The coalition is asking for a writ of mandamus directing the state's ballot board to adopt the full text of the amendment as the ballot language or change inaccuracies the board included in the official ballot language.