The fact that the state whose governor said today that he would propose a federal agency to spread Judeo-Christian values across the world was also the state to vote, once again, to defund Planned Parenthood is not surprising.
The Ohio House of Representatives this evening joined the Ohio Senate, which had previously voted to defund Planned Parenthood back in October. The House's vote went 62-30, right along with party lines. It previously emerged from committee on an 8-4 vote. Seven of those votes came from Republicans; one came from Democrat Bill Patmon, one of the bill's sponsors.
It's similar to the Senate bill and Kasich has previously said he supports the idea.
The endgame here would be to move federal funding allocated by the state to women's healthcare centers that do not provide abortions. Only 3 of Planned Parenthood's 28 locations in Ohio provides abortions. Supporters of the bill claim there are some 280 other possible recipients who can provide similar services. Opponents point out Planned Parenthood was the most efficient and best at providing them already. The funds already couldn't be used for abortions, of course, but the goal here is to punish Planned Parenthood for providing abortions. As our previous coverage notes: Many Ohio politicians aren't even sure what the other healthcare centers in their districts would be able to provide the same services.
Of course, the bill's sponsors don't want to say that it's about Planned Parenthood. Sponsor Margaret Conditt (R) blithely said, “People in the media refer to this bill as the defund Planned Parenthood bill, but there is no mention of any particular abortion provider in this legislation." (Via WCPO)
Kristina Roegner, another Republican, suggested in unsupported hyperbolic terms that the bill isn't dangerous to women; abortion is dangerous to women: “I just get sick and tired of hearing a bill like this is a war on women. As a woman and a mother of 3 daughters, I can stand here and confidently say that the real war on women is abortion.”
Senate supporters previously stated in more blanket fashion that the bill wasn't about women's healthcare at all despite pending approval that would shift resources specifically designated to fund women's healthcare.
As Cleveland.com points out (without explicitly saying so),
Lakewood's own Nickie Antonio summed it up best from the House floor: "This is about ideological opposition to a woman's right to choose — let's call it what it is — by legislators who think they have the right to make a woman's personal health care decisions."