File photo of an ultrasound. (Getty Images.)

State lawmakers in Ohio want to prohibit local governments from using public dollars in support of abortion. They’re casting a wide net.

Legislation sponsored by state Rep. Josh Williams, R-Sylvania, bars public funds from being given directly or indirectly to an organization that provides abortions that aren’t necessary to protect the life of the mother.

In addition, the bill prohibits funding going to any group providing services for people seeking such abortions like transportation, housing or wage reimbursement. Williams’ measure also takes an apparent swing at public employees by explicitly including paid time off as a prohibited expenditure.

The bill uses a claw back provision as its enforcement mechanism. If a municipality expends funds in violation of the act, the state would reduce its share of the local government fund appropriation. Dollars withheld under the law would then be directed to a new fund supporting crisis pregnancy centers.

Williams’ bill requires local governments to report relevant spending on a monthly basis. If they don’t report — or don’t report accurately — they risk losing their entire local government fund appropriation.

Proponents

In the House Government Oversight committee, the usual representatives of the anti-abortion movement showed up to testify in favor of Williams’ bill.

Will Kuehnle from the Catholic Conference of Ohio argued, “In no circumstance should state dollars, even by subsidy, bring about the termination of a human life.”

He highlighted programs like one in Columbus granting half a million dollars to support women seeking abortions by reimbursing travel and childcare costs rather than the procedure itself. The appropriation was made with federal dollars from the American Rescue Plan, and it was approved by Columbus City Council shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade triggering Ohio’s earlier 6-week abortion ban to snap into effect.

In his sponsor testimony, Williams cited initiatives in other cities as well — all backed by federal rather than state dollars, and none of which paid for medical procedures.

Kuehnle insisted if the city wants to offer assistance like paying for travel it should be spending that money supporting mothers rather than people seeking abortions. He argued in many circumstances, people seek an abortion because they’re not receiving some critical service from their community.

“What this bill seeks to do is to take every dollar that we can give to a woman in need and make sure that’s where it’s going,” he said.

Notably, while the measure punishes cities for supporting services connected to some abortions, it doesn’t actually provide services to pregnant people or young parents. Although some crisis pregnancy centers provide things like diapers, their primary mission is to discourage abortion.

Emma Martinez from Ohio Right to Life criticized the same Columbus grant and cast her organization’s support for Williams’ bill in moral terms.

“This legislature has drafted numerous laws that not only protect taxpayers from paying for abortions, but also that protect taxpayers’ conscience rights,” she argued.

And Nilani Jawahar from the Center for Christian Virtue emphasized the legislation’s punitive approach to local governments.

“This legislation is simple,” she said. “Counties and municipalities may spend their money as they please, but if they receive state funds for a specific purpose and they choose to spend it funding elective procedures, they are demonstrating to the state that they do not need that money, and therefore the state has a right to withhold it and direct it to where it may be put to better use.”

Skeptical Democrats

The measure’s proponents were met with pushback from the committee’s Democratic members.

State Rep. Latyna Humphrey, D-Columbus, emphasized unintended consequences. Cutting off funds to entities that provide elective abortions risks cutting off access to other healthcare services those organizations provide, like screening for sexually transmitted infections.

“You all understand that health care is a necessity, specifically in communities where there are health care deserts.” Humphrey pressed Kuehnle. “So I understand you all don’t believe in abortions, but entities like Planned Parenthood and others do provide health care services outside of that.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Dani Isaacsohn, D-Cincinnati, asked Jawahar how lawmakers could square the bill’s approach with Ohio voters’ support for protecting reproductive rights in the vote for Issue 1.

“What I’m asking is, how would you summarize the will of the voters as expressed in Issue 1 last year?” he said. “What did the voters express with Issue 1’s passage last year?”

After a bit of back-and-forth Jawahar replied, “I’m not here to talk about the will of the voters, I’m here to talk about this bill and why we support it.”

Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.