COLUMBUS, Ohio — A new proposal at the Ohio Statehouse could take money away from local governments that fund abortion access across the state. Issue 1 passed in November, enshrining abortion rights into Ohio's Constitution. 

House Bill 475 looks to affect the bottom line of communities that are spending their own money to help women get abortion access. State Rep. Josh Williams is sponsoring the proposal to withhold state funding from local governments that directly or indirectly support abortion services. 

What You Need To Know

  • House Bill 475 looks to affect the bottom line of communities that are spending their own money to help women get abortion access

  • The proposal would require local governments to report spending to Ohio Auditor of State that could be related to abortion services
  • State Rep. Josh Williams said this proposal is completely constitutional, and does not interfere with Issue 1

  • The proposal is still waiting to be assigned to a committee for proponent and opponent testimony at the Ohio Statehouse

“We don’t want state tax dollars being used to support abortion or abortion services,” said Williams.

Williams said he respects the will of the people and their vote enshrining abortion rights into the Ohio Constitution. However, he said there should be some guardrails on how state and local dollars are used in local communities. The proposal would require local governments to report spending to Ohio Auditor of State that could be related to abortion services. That would include travel expenses and donations to areas that support abortion access.

“After the passage of Issue 1, we simply want to state as a legislature that we will not subsidize those decisions made by local governments under their home rule authority,” Williams said.

The proposal also suggests the funding that would go to the local governments would instead head into an abortion adjustment fund. That money could turn into grants for pregnancy centers across Ohio. Williams suggested the funding could be used for counseling and mental health treatments for patients following an abortion procedure.

However, Jaime Miracle, Deputy Director of Pro-Choice Ohio, said this proposal could be another attack on abortion access statewide. 

“From the day Issue 1 passed, Republicans said that they were going to fight to stop this from happening,” said Miracle. “We’ve seen that time and time again. So, this is just one more example of them trying to go against the will of the people of the state of Ohio, who nearly 57% voted to support abortion access last year.” 

Williams said this proposal is completely constitutional, and does not interfere with Issue 1. Jonathan Entin, a professor of law at Case Western Reserve University said whether this is a wise policy or not, it probably does not violate Issue 1. Entin suggested the proposal is similar to another law that discourages local governments from using traffic cameras. 

“The traffic camera law says that to the extent that a local government gets revenue from traffic camera fines, the state will reduce its aid to that local government,” said Entin. “Dollar for dollar, the same amount as they take in. In fact, this bill could amend the Ohio revised code, the very same part of the Ohio revised code that also deals with traffic cameras.” 

“Issue 1 says that you cannot punish or discriminate against someone who assists someone getting access to reproductive health care,” Miracle said. “And this bill is a direct affront to that.” 

“The reproductive rights amendment does not require the government to act in a positive way to actually promote abortion,” Entin said. “Issue 1 says that the government can’t get in the way, and so what this bill does is to say the government can’t spend money to facilitate abortions.” 

The proposal is still waiting to be assigned to a committee for proponent and opponent testimony at the Ohio Statehouse.