Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Abortion advocacy group rebrands itself months after voters approve reproductive rights amendment

A crowd gathers in the lawn in front of the Ohio Statehouse to show their support for abortion rights on May 14, 2022.
Daniel Konik
/
Statehouse News Bureau
A crowd gathers in the lawn in front of the Ohio Statehouse to show their support for abortion rights on May 14, 2022.

The abortion rights group Pro-Choice Ohio has changed its name for the second time in a decade. And this name change comes just months after Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment to guarantee abortion and reproductive rights for Ohioans.

The executive director of the former Pro-Choice Ohio, Kellie Copeland, said the new name was chosen for a specific reason.

“We chose the name Abortion Forward to really reflect and be clear that what we are working on is abortion access," Copeland said.

While Issue 1 as approved by voters in November includes a wider range of reproductive rights, Copeland said abortion is the part of it that is under the greatest attack.

“This is the area where over 30 restrictions have been passed since 2011, where we have lost half of our clinics," Copeland said. "This is the area where people have been most harmed by the politicization of reproductive health care."

Copeland said her group will work to repeal those abortion restrictions in state law, such as the 24-hour waiting period.

The group was known as the National Abortion Rights Action League or NARAL Ohio until 2022. The latest name change comes just months ahead of the November election when voters will determine who will control the Ohio Supreme Court. Republican justices control that court now but with three seats on the ballot, that could change.

Democratic lawmakers have been critical of majority Republicans who are not willing to remove limitations on abortion on the books. Republicans, including Attorney General Dave Yost, have argued many of those limitations on abortion are still constitutional. They said it should be up to courts to decide the fate of those restrictions.

Related Content