Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Jan
18
If you live in Ohio’s 17th legislative House district, you should be under no illusions that Representative Josh Mandel is a moderate conservative or Republican – he is as committed to the right as the reddest of the red. I reviewed several of his positions here and am adding to that review his continued pursuit of shutting down women’s reproductive choices, as mentioned in the Plain Dealer’s blog post about a rally in which Mandel figured prominently yesterday.
Just three months ago, Mandel was asked about his position on abortion. From the Cleveland Jewish News:
CJN: Where do you stand on abortion, civil rights for gays, and school prayer?
Mandel: While I respect people’s opinions on all issues, I am focused on growing the economy and reversing the exodus of jobs and people from the state. [emphasis added]
I also noted other 127th assembly actions Mandel took on reproductive rights:
On abortion: Mandel is a co-sponsor of HB 280 which would require abortion clinics to:
post the following notice in a conspicuous location in the office or facility that is accessible to all patients, employees, and visitors:
“NO ONE CAN FORCE YOU TO HAVE AN ABORTION. NO ONE – NOT A PARENT, NOT A HUSBAND, NOT A BOYFRIEND – NO ONE.
Under Ohio law, an abortion cannot be legally performed on anyone, regardless of her age, unless she VOLUNTARILY CONSENTS to having the abortion.
Ohio law requires that, before an abortion can legally be performed, the pregnant female must sign a form indicating that she consents to having the abortion “voluntarily” and “WITHOUT COERCION BY ANY PERSON.”
IF SOMEONE IS TRYING TO FORCE YOU TO HAVE AN ABORTION AGAINST YOUR WILL:
DO NOT SIGN THE CONSENT FORM
IF YOU ARE AT AN ABORTION FACILITY, TELL AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FACILITY THAT SOMEONE IS TRYING TO FORCE YOU TO HAVE AN ABORTION.”
Mandel was in Iraq when HB 314, the Ohio Ultrasound Viewing Option Law, was voted on in the House in 12/07. However, he lists the bill as one which he co-sponsored. The restrictions went into effect in 6/08:
Ohio’s Ultrasound Viewing Option Law became effective on June 20, 2008. The new law, H.B. 314, which was sponsored by Rep. Shannon Jones (R, Springboro), requires that, if an ultrasound examination is performed prior to or during an abortion, the abortionist must give the woman an opportunity to view the active ultrasound image of the unborn child and the opportunity to receive a physical picture of the ultrasound image.
“We are delighted that Ohio has adopted this common sense pro-life and pro-woman law”, said Mike Gonidakis, Executive Director of Ohio Right to Life. “Since women sometimes regret their abortions after later seeing an ultrasound of an unborn baby, this law will help some women avoid the emotional trauma of learning the truth about abortion too late. Just as x-rays are commonly shown to patients deciding on surgery, letting a woman see an ultrasound can help her make a more informed choice, and an uninformed choice is no choice at all”, Gonidakis said.
With that as a backdrop, here’s what he had to say at yesterday’s rally:
Since Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in 2007 that he would sign the [Freedom of Choice Act or FOCA] bill if elected, abortion opponents have been concerned about its future.
“He said he would sign it if it crosses his desk,” said Lou Koenig of Parma. “We’re going to make sure it doesn’t.”
State Rep. Josh Mandel, a Republican from Lyndhurst, and Ohio Christian Alliance President Chris Long also spoke against the bill, urging people to call, e-mail and send letters to their congressional representatives. On Saturday, participants filled out postcards to send to U.S. Sens. George Voinovich and Sherrod Brown.
For the record, Brown doesn’t expect FOCA to be on the Senate’s agenda (according to the PD’s blog post).
The continued attempt to curtail reproductive rights cannot stop time and so, on January 22, we will be celebrating the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.
In Ohio, Freedom of Choice Ohio and the National Council of Jewish Women in Columbus are sponsoring a large event to help “protect access to safe, legal reproductive health services.”
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice issued a statement by Reverend Veazey, its CEO, that says in part:
In this economic crisis, which is hitting the most vulnerable the hardest, it is an ethical imperative to serve the common good. In marking the 36th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision on January 22, I call on the faithful to protect the lives of women and children by fighting to ensure that reproductive health care is accessible and that abortion services are safe, legal, and available.
The doubters and dividers have lost no time in demanding that reproductive health services be cut back – in the name of economy and righteousness. Cutting back services is wrong, morally and fiscally. The reality is that the cycle of poverty often revolves around unintended and unwanted pregnancy.
A woman living in poverty is four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth as her higher-income counterpart. The link between family planning and overcoming poverty is well established. Comprehensive reproductive health services contribute to better health for infants, children, and women and improve social and economic opportunities for women and their families.
And, last week, NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation released its annual report, Who Decides? The Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States.
Ohio received an F - which, I imagine should please Mandel, so I’m not quite sure what additional insults he’s interested on having inflicted on women who seek to exercise reproductive rights.
[The report] grades each state on women’s reproductive rights, summarizes related laws, and outlines legislative trends. This year’s release comes days before two key events: the historic inauguration of pro-choice President-elect Barack Obama and the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision, Roe v. Wade.
Some key policy findngs from the report:–In 2008, 23 states enacted 39 pro-choice measures – four of these were Prevention First measures, or policies that help prevent unintended pregnancy.–Colorado, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin enacted Prevention First measures in 2008 that are aimed at improving birth-control access or teaching teens accurate sex education all toward the goal of preventing unintended pregnancy.–In Wisconsin, Gov. Jim Doyle signed into law a bill ensuring that sexual-assault survivors receive information about and have access to emergency contraception (EC) in emergency rooms, making Wisconsin the 14th state to enact such policies.–In 2008, 16 states enacted 24 anti-choice measures.–Oklahoma passed an omnibus bill that allows certain individuals and entities to refuse to provide abortion services, requires women to view ultrasound images before providing abortion care, and prohibits certain health-care professionals from providing abortion services. This was just one of six anti-choice measures Oklahoma enacted in 2008.You can read our release here.And access the online-version of the report here.You can also download the full report pdf here.
Given how Mandel supporters often emphasize how many Democrats they believe live in the 17th district, it’s hard to believe that he believes that his opposition to women’s reproductive choice represents what the district desires.
UPDATE: More evidence of what wasted energy espousing opposition to FOCA is compared to so many needs that could use the voice of a state rep who won in a landslide:
By the way, while Obama was busy not ramping up the culture wars, House Republicans spent the day collecting 105 signatures on a letter they sent to Obama demanding he withdraw his 2007 pledge to sign the Freedom of Choice Act–legislation that he will not be signing because Democrats don’t plan to bring it up for a vote in Congress and it’s not even on the list of top ten priorities the abortion rights community sent the new president. Not that you’d know it from listening to conservative radio or the Catholic bishops…but more on that in a future post. [emphasis added]
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:07 am January 18th, 2009 in Abortion, activism, Civil Rights, Cleveland+, Congress, conservatives, Culture, Debates, Gender, Health Care, Law, OH17, Ohio, Politics, Women, Youth
Comments
9 Responses to “[update] Mandel marches against FOCA & 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
No Jill, he opposes murder. So should you.
No Tom, he opposes a legal medical procedure protected by U.S. law.
And I would not be so arrogant as to tell you what you should or should not believe.
And, I’ll add, Tom – if my state rep wants his constituents to know what it is exactly that he opposes and why he opposes it, he could start by answering a direct question with a direct answer rather than this obvious political finessing with a response that has absolutely zero to do with what the reporter was asking about:
You also shouldn’t beat your child. Is that “arrogant” too? Or is it a problem ONLY because there are laws against it?
Tom, you want to ignore the issue of this post, go for it.
Jill, you continue to publish the quote from the CJN interview. The CJN was looking for the “10 word response” to three questions that are possibly the most polarizing. As a “reporter” I am sure that you would have liked full answers to each individual question, but unfortunately when a candidate does that it gets spliced up and is no longer the words of the candidate.
Jim,
Thanks for reading and commenting.
I just looked over the Q&A – plenty of the answers are more than 10 word responses. But even if the responses were restricted to ten words (in theoretical expectation and understanding, or for real), why aren’t the ten words Mandel chose about “abortion, civil rights for gays, and school prayer”?
There really is no excuse other than political: he did not want to answer the question that was asked.
What exactly do you think got spliced up? Are you suggesting that the CJN had more complete answers from Mandel to that question but edited it all out except of the non-responsive part?
Josh went to law school, although he’s not taken the bar. I would expect that he knows very well what a non-responsive answer is. And that’s what he gave.
I would like full answers not only as a reporter (you can check any number of Meet the Bloggers interviews where I do in fact repeat a question until I get an answer – I developed quite a reputation for that, but that has in fact been my reputation for quite a while) but more importantly, as a constituent of the 17th district.
Jill-
FOCA must be stopped to prevent the legalization of infanticide (aka partial birth abortion). Partially delivering a baby before ending its life is not a right protected under our Constitution.
-GH
http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/1997/1997_S04586.pdf
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/shafer%20smeared.pdf
[...] And, for the record, Mandel’s opposition to supporting legal reproductive health care for women reflects his habit of refusing, when running for office, to answer direct questions and instead, claiming that all he’s interested in is focusing on the goals of whatever his current job happ… [...]