In Ohio, the fight to enshrine abortion access in the state constitution has met with opposition from right-wing media and anti-abortion groups spreading false claims that the measure would allow for abortion “up to the time of birth” and erase parental notification for gender-affirming care and abortion care for minors. Right-wing media are framing their coverage on the upcoming ballot measure with language lifted from anti-abortion groups, who have taken inspiration from anti-LGBTQ organizing.

Last week, abortion advocacy groups in Ohio submitted more than 700,000 signatures in support of adding an amendment protecting abortion to the state’s constitution, turning in nearly double the minimum requirement to be placed on the ballot. The ballot measure asserts, “Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” and that the state shall not infringe upon that right. If approved by voters in November, Ohio would join six other states that approved similar abortion protections or rejected anti-abortion measures in 2022. Conservative politicians are increasingly trying to limit the power of such ballot measures, however — including in Ohio, where Republicans are backing an amendment that would require ballot measures to pass with 60% of voter approval rather than a simple majority. 

As the Ohio ballot measure has garnered more attention in recent months, right-wing media and anti-abortion groups have worked to establish the narrative about the proposed amendment by painting it as “extreme” and spreading misinformation about the legislation. For instance, shortly after the ballot measure was first filed in February, Marjorie Dannenfelser of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America claimed the “extreme proposal” would “endanger women and children.”

In a March piece for National Review, Carrie Severino and Frank Scaturro of the Judicial Crisis Network, a right-wing organization known for frequently spreading misinformation, were among the first voices to connect the ballot measure to gender-affirming care. Severino and Scaturro wrote that the “broad” nature of the term “reproductive decisions” used in the ballot measure would “extend to any medical procedure that involves the human reproductive system.” They also alleged that the ballot measure has no distinction between minors and adults, effectively eliminating parental notification for minors seeking abortions, and claimed that the ballot measure would allow for “abortion at any stage of pregnancy up to the time of birth.”

This recent trend of anti-abortion groups adopting anti-trans framing in Ohio is just the latest instance that proves that both movements are simply two sides of the same coin and consistently take notes from one another. As anti-LGBTQ organizing has increasingly ramped up in recent months, activists who aim to restrict gender-affirming care and trans visibility are employing the same decades-old media tactics from activists attempting to eradicate abortion care. And at the root of both anti-abortion and anti-trans narratives is the shared belief that biological sex and gender are fixed concepts and that a natural patriarchal hierarchy exists, justifying policy restrictions that limit bodily autonomy and punish any person who doesn’t fit squarely in the gender binary. 

With the Ohio ballot measure coming, anti-abortion organizations are aiming to mislead Ohioans with virulent misinformation by employing rhetoric taken directly from the anti-trans playbook. 

Myth: The abortion ballot measure would effectively allow abortion “up to the time of birth” or “late-term abortions.”

• In their piece for National Review, Severino and Scaturro fearmongered that the proposed amendment “effectively permits abortion at any stage of pregnancy up to the time of birth.” The two Judicial Crisis Network executives also falsely suggested that the law would “strike down health protections” for abortion-seekers, such as “requirements that a qualified physician perform them.”
• Right-wing blog Townhall quoted several members of the conservative American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists to spread confusion about the effects of the ballot measure, if it were to be enacted. One quoted AAPLOG member falsely claimed that the ballot measure would allow “abortion at full-term, when babies can feel pain and survive outside the womb” — a misleading and inaccurate description of late in pregnancy abortions. Another anti-choice OB-GYN was quoted fearmongering about “late trimester abortions” and the mental health ramifications of abortion care. 
• The anti-abortion outlet LifeNews echoed messaging from Ohio Right to Life suggesting that a state constitutional amendment on abortion would “prohibit any legal restrictions on abortion, forcing abortion to be legal until birth.” The article went on to sow distrust in the abortion advocates who collected signatures in support of the ballot measure, who LifeNews alleged knowingly accepted fraudulent petition signatures. 

Fact: The proposed ballot measure allows for post-viability abortion restrictions with exceptions for when a pregnant person’s health may be in danger. 

Though the constitutional amendment would protect most abortions in Ohio if approved, language in the ballot measure provides that “abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability.” However, the amendment clarifies that no such bans may be applied to pregnancies that risk the health of a pregnant person. As noted by the Ohio Capital Journal, warnings from conservative groups about the ballot measure permitting late in pregnancy abortion are part of an extended campaign by anti-choice advocates to make these extremely rare abortions appear more common. Medical groups such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guide its members to avoid inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric like “late-term abortion," which “has no clinical or medical significance.”

Myth: The ballot measure’s language would also allow gender-affirming care for minors.

• The Washington Examiner alleged that the proposed amendment’s broad language could extend to gender-affirming care. In the article, Washington Examiner claimed that the ballot measure “does not include age limitations and refers to ‘reproductive decisions’ generally, which include but are ‘not limited to’ procedures like abortion. Many opponents say the measure has the high potential to expand into gender transition procedures for children.” 
• The Daily Signal quoted Amy Natoce, press secretary of anti-abortion group Protect Women Ohio, who claimed that the proposed amendment would “permit minors to undergo sex change operations.” In the article, Natoce alleged, “The ACLU paid out-of-state signature collectors to lie to Ohioans about their dangerous amendment that will strip parents of their rights, permit minors to undergo sex change operations without their parents’ knowledge or consent, and allow painful abortion on demand through all nine months.”
• Breitbart quoted Logan Church, director of CatholicVote Ohio, who alleged that the proposed amendment would allow minors to seek gender-affirming care without their parent’s permission. In his statement, Church said that the amendment would “cut parents out of their child’s most important and life-altering health decisions – including abortions and sex change operations.” 

Fact: The ballot measure has no mention of gender-affirming care.

The protections outlined in the ballot measure are solely related to reproductive care. In the Ohio Capital Journal, Equality Ohio Executive Director Alana Jochum said that the right-wing myth of the amendment involving gender-affirming care is “implying that life-saving healthcare is something nefarious.” Jochum continued on to say that anti-abortion groups opposing the amendment are “once again dragging precious children, their families, and their health care providers into a conversation that has nothing to do with them.”

Myth: The ballot measure would erase parental notification for all gender-affirming care and abortion care for minors, which could in turn “pressure” children into receiving abortion.

• On Twitter, anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America argued that the “radical abortion amendment” would remove parental notification and basic health & safety standards for women: The group tweeted that Ohio’s “radical abortion amendment” would “eliminate basic health & safety standards for women” and “remove parents from the picture,” adding that “abortion activists have explicitly opposed parental rights & even parental notification.”
• In an online statement, Ohio Right to Life alleged that the ACLU is promoting the ballot measure to “enable a minor to be pressured into an abortion or even a sex change operation.” Ohio Right to Life CEO Peter Range continued on to say that “the ACLU just misled ​​hundreds of thousands of Ohioans about their intention to push unlimited abortion and sex change surgeries for minors in our state.” 
• On Christian Broadcasting Network News, Greater Columbus Right to Life Executive Director Beth Vanderkooi called the ballot measure “anti-parent," “anti-life,” and “far too extreme.” Vanderkooi continued, ”If they are successful, we are going to see an elimination of parental rights. So, the involvement of parents before children make life-altering decisions – like having an abortion or participating in gender therapy.”

Fact: “Reproductive coercion” and “anti-coercion policies” have been amplified by right-wing and anti-abortion groups to fearmonger about abortions’ harm to pregnant people.

A 1990 study conducted by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute claimed that 30% of women “have an abortion because someone else, not the woman, wants it,” which has been weaponized by anti-abortion groups as quantifiable data toward their claims of abortions’ danger to pregnant people. However, an updated study from the Guttmacher Institute found that less than 2% of those surveyed reported that their main motivation was because someone else wanted them to have an abortion. Even so, multiple states have considered implementing “anti-coercion policies,” a fight led by anti-abortion groups which would make the criteria for being able to access abortion care more restrictive. Public health experts who support abortion rights have said that abortion-centered anti-coercion laws make abortion care less accessible and ignore the more salient issue of domestic and sexual violence in favor of promoting anti-abortion misinformation.