ProgressOhio

A provision in Ohio law, R.C. 2907.03(A)(5), banning consensual sexual conduct between a stepparent and his or her adult stepchild is constitutional because it bears a rational relationship to the state's legitimate interest in protecting the family, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today. The court's 6-1 decision affirming a ruling of the 5th District Court of Appeals was authored by Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger. Paul Lowe of Stark County was indicted by a grand jury on a felony count of sexual battery for engaging in consensual sex with Amanda Halter, the 22-year-old daughter of Lowe's wife. When the Stark County Court of Common Pleas denied Lowe's motion to dismiss the charge, he entered a plea of no contest and was convicted of sexual battery and designated as a sexual offender. Lowe appealed, arguing that the provision in Ohio's “incest” statute, R.C. 2907.03, barring consensual sex between an adult stepparent and stepchild was unconstitutional. The 5th District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. Lowe appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.    Read More »

Gov. Ted Strickland asked the 6th District Ct. of Appeals to drop his name from the state's effort to defend a bill that would restrict the use of the abortion drug RU-486. Strickland does not want to pursue reversal of a federal district court ruling that the state's ban on the use of RU-486 was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals upheld the district court's finding to the extent that the law did not have an exemption for cases in which women would be at greater risk through surgical abortions.

On the flip side, Attorney General Marc Dann will continue to defend the law on appeal without the Governor's name.

The law in question makes it illegal for doctors to prescribe mifepristone (RU-486) after the seventh week of pregnancy. Under federal guidelines, the drug cannot be prescribed after 56 days, or eight weeks, of pregnancy. The law requires an FDA-recommended dosage that has since been determined to exceed what is needed to induce abortion.

The Akron Beacon Journal reported that according to the Ohio Department of Health, 4,700 of the 34,128 abortions conducted in the state in 2005, the last year for which statistics are available, were done by non-surgical methods. In that year, 57.3 percent of all abortions in the state were conducted before 9 weeks of gestation. Data was not kept on abortions between 7 weeks and 9 weeks.

Before providing a link to the GOP announcement about this legislation, I want to emphasize that, for Ohio-oriented news that I know I don't usually see elsewhere first, please be sure you're reading Bill Sloat's The Daily Bellwether. Fisk it like you might fisk any other blog (he took the buyout from the PD last fall), but absolutely don't miss it if you want to see original and primary source blogging. Agree or disagree with what he has there, but, again, he is blogging about Ohio-related stories that others aren't.

And so it was that I read this post of Bill's and then went to the GOP announcement to find this: 

On Tuesday [tomorrow], [State Senator, R-Cuyahoga Falls, Kevin] Coughlin will introduce a resolution that would place the issue of eminent domain before voters statewide. He hopes that in doing so, Ohioans will support an amendment to the constitution that would ensure the state has the authority it needs to govern the use of eminent domain. The bill Senator [Tim] Grendell [R-Chesterland] will sponsor is intended to be the vehicle by which the General Assembly will establish the uniform standards to apply statewide.

Coughlin noted that because of the home-rule provision in the constitution, municipalities set their own standards for eminent domain proceedings and there is no consistency for property owners between one community and the next.

“I believe Ohio voters want the opportunity to support private property rights at the ballot box,” Coughlin said. “Eminent domain should be used sparingly and only when it benefits the public as a whole. Our laws should reflect that and leave no wiggle room for government to abuse its power.”

“From Lake Erie to the Ohio River, all Ohioans deserve to have their private property rights respected and protected,” Grendell said. 

Okay - so, standardization is becoming a four-letter word, yes?  Or is it?  Sometimes it's hard to figure out. Does it depend on how the legislation is drafted and how it looks after it goes through committee and amendments and reconciliation between both houses of the legislature?

Or are we firmly against anything that erodes home rule?

I'm asking because I'm not sure.  I'd like to know more about how people feel about this topic. What do we believe actually would be best, if we can agree on common interests - which, the way Coughlin is couching this legislation, seems to be what he's trying to appeal to?

The 137-page Ohio Supreme Court complaint was filed February 2nd (Link) in the form of a mandamus action by House Speaker Jon Husted (R-Kettering) and Senate President Bill Harris (R-Ashland) on behalf of the General Assembly.

The complaint challenges Governor Strickland’s veto of (SB 117 ), a lead paint bill passed in the late December lame-duck session that also limited punitive damages in consumer protection suits. The complaint also challenges Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner’s action of returning the bill filed by former Governor Taft who intended to let the bill become law without his signature. Governor Strickland requested the return of the bill that had been journalized by former Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. The complaint seeks a court order directing Secretary of State Brunner to correct an office journal that indicates the bill was vetoed and to require Brunner to distribute a copy of the act so that the Legislative Service Commission can codify the law.

While asserting that the merits of SB117 are not the issue (even though it offers protections to businesses against punitive damages in consumer complaints), the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, NFIB/Ohio, Ohio Chamber of Commerce and Ohio Council of Retail Merchants issued a statement applauding the lawsuit as “absolutely necessary to uphold the state Constitution and to protect the integrity of the legislative process”. (Roll of the Eyes is in order).