COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Ohio Supreme Court has issued a partial victory to opponents of the November ballot issue that would make reproductive rights part of the state’s constitution.

The justices on Tuesday refused demands from amendment supporters to order the Republican-controlled Ohio Ballot Board to rewrite ballot language to substitute the phrase “reproductive medical decisions” for “reproductive medical treatment” and replace the phrase “unborn child” with “unborn fetus.”

However, under the court’s order, the ballot board must reconvene and change the phrase “the citizens of the State of Ohio” issue ballot language that accurately describes that the proposed amendment regulates actions of the “State.”

The court found that by using the term “the citizens of the State,” the ballot language approved by the ballot board might mislead the voters into thinking that the proposed amendment regulates nongovernmental conduct, when it does not.

Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, a coalition of statewide reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations advocating passage of Issue 1, filed the challenge arguing in part that the language voters will see on their ballots is longer than the language that the group submitted on their petitions to put the issue before voters.

Amendment supporters argued that the term “unborn child” is improperly argumentative because it injects the ballot board majority’s “ethical judgment or personal view” into the ballot language.

However, in rejecting the argument the justices wrote in their opinion:

We disagree with relators because the ballot language is factually accurate. While relators do not like the way in which the language is phrased, the structure of the statements is not improperly argumentative. As stated above, this court will not deem language to be argumentative when it is accurate and addresses a subject in the proposed amendment. Importantly, relators do not argue that the term “unborn child” is factually inaccurate. To the contrary, their argument asserts that “unborn child” is a divisive term that elicits a moral judgment whereas the terms “fetus” and “fetal viability” are more neutral and scientific.

Justice Jennifer Brunner weighed in on the issue, agreeing with part of the opinion, but not entirely.

“The term “unborn child” is unnecessary and argumentative against the amendment. Given the statements made during the board’s hearing and in the absence of any reasonable or rational explanation, it is unsurprising that the board changed the terminology to fit the majority of the board’s stance against the amendment, rather than either presenting as ballot language the full text of the proposed amendment or simply condensing it,” Brunner wrote.

The court noted that the Ohio Constitution does not require ballot language to contain the full text, or a condensed text of the proposal.

Justice Michael Donnely concurred with the court’s opinion, but noted: “It’s unfortunate that advocacy seems to have infiltrated a process that is meant to be objective and neutral. Nevertheless, I am confident that the voters will be fully informed about the proposed amendment when they enter the voting booth.

While amendment opponents like Protect Women Ohio applauded the court’s decision, unsurprisingly amendment supporters felt otherwise.

Press Secretary for the anti-amendment group Protect Women Ohio, Amy Natoce issued a statement saying the ballot language would help understand what she described as the amendment’s “gray areas”.

NARAL Pro-Choice America President Mini Timmaraju called the court’s decision “disgraceful” but claimed that Ohio’s will support the amendment.

The ballot language approved by the ballot board before the court’s decision may be seen below.