PLINO

Pro-Life In Name Only?

In my February newsletter, I discussed the shifting landscape of Ohio conservatism. The battle is no longer simply between conservatives and the left, as a new faction of Republican candidates has emerged. These individuals prioritize personal gain at the expense of their colleagues' trust, the principles and values of their constituents, and even their own moral integrity. Specifically, I was referring to the twenty-two (22) Republican House Representatives who voted with thirty-two (32) Democrats to elect the next Speaker of the House, breaking from the Republican caucus. If you are not familiar with these representatives, you can read my article here.

Rep. Jason Stephens, who controversially took the House Speaker position from Rep. Derrik Merrin, opposed HJR6, a measure aimed at increasing the voter approval required for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments from 50% to 60%. This change could have potentially thwarted a future pro-abortion measure. However, Stephens chose not to bring the 60% proposal to the floor, effectively preventing Republicans from putting it on the ballot. As a result, pro-abortion lobbyists seeking to enshrine abortion rights into the Ohio Constitution have successfully initiated a ballot measure, which will appear on the November ballot and only require approval by the current 50% threshold.

Upon realizing that the Stephens 22 representatives were not committed to supporting Pro-Life legislation and instead intended to obstruct it, voters sought assistance from the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee Members (board of directors for the Ohio Republican Party). They inquired whether the Committee could take steps to prevent candidates who only pretended to be pro-life for electoral gain from receiving party endorsements and funding in the future. 

Our constituents contacted us and demanded a robust and meaningful pro-life resolution that went beyond mere lip service and held candidates accountable to a constitution with pro-life as a core value of the Ohio Republican Party. They were repulsed by Republican candidates like Rep. Sara Carruthers, who has openly advocated for abortion. Furthermore, they believed that the Ohio Republican Party should not blindly bestow its endorsement power upon the highest-ranking member of the Ohio House (Jason Stephens) and Senate, especially given Stephens' failure to allow a proposed change to be considered, which could have possibly stopped the pro-abortion ballot initiative.

Following feedback from several county GOP leaders and voters, my colleagues - Stephanie Kremer (District 12), Chris Maurer (District 29), and I - crafted a Pro-Life Resolution in support of the RNC's resolution, which affirmed the Republican National Committee's commitment to life and accepted their challenge to encourage state legislators to adopt the strongest Pro-Life measures possible.

We reached out to Chairman Alex Triantafilou and followed the procedures outlined in our bylaws to ask for a Special Meeting. The objective of this meeting was to discuss and vote on a Pro-Life resolution that would consider a "Constitution of Core Values" that would provide a meaningful and binding adoption of articles that would hold candidates accountable. 

On February 9th, we submitted the resolution to the Committee via email and requested input and suggestions from ALL members. In the weeks leading up to the Special Meeting on March 10th, we extended invitations for Zoom meetings and/or phone conversations to discuss any concerns or modifications. We also informed the Committee that we were receptive to amendments related to exceptions. Nonetheless, we emphasized that we considered a constitution (a binding document) with penalties necessary for candidates who do not align with Republican values (that prioritize the sanctity of human life).

Arguments Against the Resolution

When we initially began our efforts to pursue a Pro-Life resolution for the ORP, we had hoped it would be a no-brainer. Although not everyone may share the same opinions on every topic, we thought that there were certain principles and values that define the Republican Party. We saw this as an opportunity to strengthen enthusiasm for the party and its candidates by passing a resolution that would unite the party and unequivocally demonstrate our commitment to safeguarding life.

Regrettably, instead of receiving strong support, we were met with resistance and a series of objections as to why we should NOT attempt to pass a Pro-life resolution that includes a binding ‘Constitution of Core Values’ and a means of holding candidates accountable. Here are the top five arguments we encountered during this process. If you would like to skip ahead to reason #5, ultimately, we found this to be the primary reason why the resolution lacked support among the Chairman and many committee members.

Argument #1:  

We can’t adopt a resolution with a ‘constitution’ because doing so would require amending the bylaws. 

Counter: To address this concern, we created a document titled "Is an Organization's Constitution different from their bylaws?" which clearly explains that these are two distinct documents serving different purposes. While a constitution lays out an organization's principles and core values, bylaws are more detailed and specific and provide guidance on daily operations. Additionally, a constitution holds higher authority than the bylaws and requires a 3/4 majority of the Committee to adopt, whereas bylaws can be amended with a 2/3 majority.

Argument #2: 

We can’t adopt the resolution because it should go to the Platform Sub-Committee to be deliberated upon and eventually incorporated into the state party’s ‘Life Plank’. 

Counter: After speaking with the Chair of the Platform Sub-Committee (who is a co-sponsor of our resolution) and several members of the sub-committee, they made it clear that the ‘Life Plank’ would not be ready for some time. Additionally, a party’s “Constitution” serves a different purpose than a party’s platform. While a party’s constitution is its foundational document that establishes the party’s core values and principles, a party’s platform outlines its policy positions on specific issues, like taxation, education, etc. and may evolve over time to reflect changing circumstances. 

Argument #3: 

We should just wait until our next meeting to present the Pro-Life resolution. 

Counter: The proposed Pro-Life resolution was submitted to the Committee in response to the announcement that there will be a constitutional amendment on the ballot to enshrine abortion in the Ohio Constitution. We believe the time for the Party to take a strong and meaningful stand on Pro-Life is NOW, not later. Furthermore, the SCC bylaws allow for members to bring forth resolutions and to call for Special meetings in between regular meetings. 

Argument #4: 

If we adopt a firm stance in support of Pro-Life, there is a risk of jeopardizing our ability to defeat the abortion ballot initiative. This could also result in moderate and independent voters aligning with the Democratic Party and voting to embed abortion into the Ohio Constitution.

Counter: We would argue that catering to moderates is how we have ended up with Democrats running as Republicans and infiltrating the party in an attempt to redefine the core values and principles of Republicanism. What we have seen within the leadership of the party is a deviation from core Republican principles. This has resulted in a fracturing of the party. We believe that we can rebuild our momentum by uniting around our core principles and values, such as this critical issue of Pro-Life. 

Argument #5:

The resolution with the 'Constitution of Core Values' cannot be passed due to the presence of a mechanism for holding candidates accountable, as we do not have the necessary 3/4 majority of the 66 members to vote in favor of it. If this resolution fails to pass, it could be seen as a failure to support Pro-life and result in embarrassment for the party.

The final argument proved to be a significant hurdle for moderate-leaning Republican SCC members, including Chairman Alex Triantafilou and Gloria Martin Kirker (District 14). When Chairman Triantafilou was presented with the resolution, he expressed concern that the Committee might not have the necessary votes (50 out of 66) to pass it, which could make the party appear weak on the issue of Pro-Life. Kirker echoed these concerns verbatim.

Although Kirker had initially discussed potential amendments with the sponsors, she never submitted them. Later on, it was discovered that she had been actively collaborating with Chairman Triantafilou and other members to undermine the sponsors and co-sponsors of the resolution and replace it with her own substitute resolution, which was the RNC resolution that she had modified to weaken some of the strongest Pro-Life language. 

In response, we sought the advice of two parliamentarians to determine if such substitutions were permissible at Special Meetings. We found that according to Robert's Rules of Order (which the Committee has adopted in its bylaws), Special Meetings require notice and limit the discussion to the specific issue for which the meeting was called.

In a letter to the Committee, we urged the Committee to follow Roberts Rules and consider only the Pro-Life resolution for which the meeting was called and shared the opinions of two parliamentarians who stated that a substitute resolution submitted as an amendment with the purpose of ‘defeating our motion’ should be ruled out of order by the Chairman. The proper action would be for the Committee to discuss the resolution for the purpose of which the meeting was called and for members to simply vote ‘NO’ on the resolution if they didn’t want it to pass. We also shared a list with the Committee of over 200 individuals, pro-life organizations, and pastors who had signed on in support of our proposed Pro-Life Resolution. 

On the evening prior to the March 10th Special Meeting, we sent a letter in good faith to Chairman Triantafilou. The letter urged him to adhere to our bylaws and Robert's Rules, and to make it clear to the committee that any alternative resolutions, presented via amendment, with the aim of invalidating the purpose for which the meeting was called, should be deemed improper and not recognized.

On March 10th, Despite our best efforts to uphold the purpose of the Special Meeting, our attempts were thwarted by the Chairman in collaboration with Gloria Martin Kirker. It quickly became apparent that the meeting had been scripted. When Kirker proposed to substitute her resolution for ours as an amendment, I raised a 'Point of Order,’ Unfortunately, the Chairman disregarded my objection, and Kirker was permitted to theatrically read through the entire two pages of her revised RNC resolution. This violated Robert's Rules of Order from the beginning by failing to address my point of order.

Link to view meeting here.

Kirker's proposal was not relevant to the purpose of the meeting and should have been deemed inappropriate. The resolution we presented required a binding commitment with a Constitution of Core values to ensure that candidates were held accountable. In contrast, Kirker's proposal lacked a constitution, was non-binding, and had no means of enforcing candidate accountability.

Nevertheless, the Committee approved the improper substitute resolution by secret ballot, despite our request for a roll call vote to allow voters to see how their elected and appointed members voted. The Chairman denied our request, citing that our bylaws did not make provisions for roll call voting, which is not a valid reason to prevent it. Article VII of our bylaws states that Robert's Rules of Order govern all committee proceedings not specifically covered by the Permanent Rules. Therefore, any procedures not explicitly outlined in the bylaws must follow Robert's Rules of Order, which does not prohibit roll call voting and outlines the procedures for conducting such a vote in Section 45 of the 12th edition. 

Outcome of the Vote

There are 66 members on the Committee (one male and one female member representing each of the 33 senate districts).  

Sixty members attended the meeting by Zoom or in-person. Six members were absent from the meeting. They were: Gina Campbell (District 1), Jo Ann Davidson (District 3), Ron Maag (District 7), Mark Wagoner (District 11), Debbie Carr (District 27), and LeeAnn Johsnon (District 30). 

Thirty-six people voted for the improper replacement of our resolution by a substitute resolution. Fifteen people voted against the replacement resolution. Nine people opted to abstain (they did not vote either way). It is important to note that the Chairman failed to appoint members to watch over the vote count - most votes came in by email and approximately 12-15 were cast in-person. 

Although the Committee agreed to table further discussion on the substitute resolution until the next scheduled meeting, our efforts are far from over. We will persist in proposing amendments to the resolution, including recognition of the Heartbeat Bill and a provision to hold candidates and elected officials accountable to Pro-Life principles. We urge voters to continue voicing their opinions to State Central Committee members, demanding that these amendments be incorporated into the substitute resolution in order to ensure that the Ohio Republican Party stands firm, with no exceptions to the principle of Pro-Life!

Please contact your Republican State Central Committee members and urge them to adopt a mechanism that holds candidates accountable for their Pro-Life beliefs, rather than allowing them to simply pay lip service to the cause. This will help ensure that their Pro-Life stance is reflected in concrete actions rather than just words.