"Columbus recognized a need to put safety and access to essential abortion care ahead of potential surveillance and criminal prosecution of patients by passing a resolution to de-prioritize the enforcement of laws that criminalize access to safe reproductive healthcare procedures and services."

Witness @gdanielsohio.bsky.social from @acluohio.bsky.social explains to Columbus City Council the myriad reasons that Flock and other automated license plate readers are entirely inappropriate in our communities.

Happening now: Columbus residents on our @abortionforward.org are joining hundreds our friends and neighbors to oppose the use of Flock during a special hearing of Columbus City Council:

Join Abortion Forward for an unforgettable evening as some of Ohio's most talented drag performers take the stage for Rouge Against the Machine - a celebration of self-expression, resilience, and the fundamental right to make decisions about our own bodies. TIX: abortionforward.org/drag/

Apply: https://abortion-forward.breezy.hr/p/1c4fdddc00f4-digital-content-creator

We have Pride in Ohio! Volunteer with us: abortionforward.org/take-action/...

Committee Chair Stephen Huffman asked if House Bill 347 contains any false information. Dr. Celano is quick to point out that the mandated "information" in the bill is indeed false and goes against the best practices from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Dr. Annalise Celano: "The relationship between physician and patient is sacred, and the state should not be inserting themselves into that relationship. My patients deserve real information – presented on their timeline – so that they can decide if and when they choose abortion."

"While the burden of additional wait periods impacts all individuals seeking abortions, the people most disproportionately impacted are those of the hard working average Ohioan. As someone who works directly with this population, the 24-hour wait period creates significantly more barriers to care."

Dr. Elise Berlan: "The information about 'abortion reversal' and mental health harms of abortion that HB 347 would require physicians to share with their patients are false. Abortion reversal is not a thing - it has not been shown to be able to be done safely."

Our Deputy Director @jmiracleoh.bsky.social: "A state-mandated 24-hour waiting period will harm patients by creating additional barriers to care and increasing costs of the procedure."

Sen. @bethliston.bsky.social: "Can you speak to the testimony from bill supporters who say they need more information to have informed consent?" @daniellefirsich.bsky.social: "I find it insulting that I am somehow incapable of informed consent. That idea is both paternalistic and infantilizing."

House bill 347 "is a direct violation of the Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment, as demonstrated by the August 2024 statewide preliminary injunction filed by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas." — @ppaohio.bsky.social's @daniellefirsich.bsky.social

"For someone without paid leave, living in a rural county, arranging childcare, or navigating an unsafe relationship, that '24-hour waiting period' can mean multiple days or weeks of hardship, additional cost, and unnecessary mental and emotional strain." — Myia Rucker, @ohwomenalliance.bsky.social

Sen. Ingram: "Do you believe this bill is an attack on the Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment?" Witness Jordyn Close: "Absolutely, yes."

Witness Jordyn Close is presenting expert testimony in opposition to HB 347: "As a Reproductive Justice organization, @ohwomenalliance.bsky.social believes that self-determination includes complete bodily autonomy, and abortion bans like this are a direct attack on our constitutional freedoms."

First witness is interested party Robert Hood, PhD, MPH. He's not testifying against the bill, but instead presenting scientific research on 24-hour waiting periods and medical misinformation. (Spoiler: Science exposes the harm in the bill!)

HB 347 testimony starting now. Check our thread below for updates:

All of these arguments ignore the fact that their mandatory 24-hour waiting periods all start the clock at the first appointment that a patient has with a provider. In reality, the patient is able to take as much time as they feel they need before or after that consultation. The law isn't needed.

Rep. @bethliston.bsky.social asks the witness why she doesn't think a mandatory 24-hour waiting period is needed for all kinds of health care.

Next witness says Ohio lawmakers have a legal right to impose a mandatory 24-hour waiting period on abortions... ...except they don't. This restriction on abortion care has already been blocked by a court. It's a clear violation of the Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment in the state constitution.

Sen. Catherine Ingram asks what information the witness believes is lacking that a mandatory waiting period would allow for. (Spoiler: waiting periods don't increase information.)

Next witness says that abortion patients deserve informed consent. What she isn't saying is that today — without a mandatory 24-hour waiting period law — abortion patients have full informed consent. This bill doesn't add any value to the doctor-patient relationship.

Both witnesses have emphasized their opinion that an abortion is a "stressful" decision. Just wait until they hear about how stressful parenting is...

Second witness is another person who just doesn't like abortion and doesn't think people should get one. This is not a justification for blocking someone from accessing reproductive health care.

The chair stops the witness and says that it looks like her testimony would take 20 minutes, so now they're limiting all witnesses on this bill to 3 minutes.

Happening now: Proponent testimony on a bill that would attempt to restore Ohio's already-blocked 24-hour waiting period on abortion care. The first witness starts with a bunch of lies right off the bat... Live video: ohiochannel.org/live/ohio-se...

More info and apply: abortion-forward.breezy.hr/p/1c4fdddc00...

We're joining partners from across Ohio in opposing House Bill 113. Chair Brenner is using his position to perpetuate views that are rooted in implicit bias and systemic racism. We object.

Rep. Mathews is struggling to answer a question about why their bill shouldn't apply across the board to many kinds of telehealth options. The bill sponsors are trying to restrict abortion care without accidentally crafting actual health care policy that might trigger opposition from hospitals.