Frequently Asked Questions

Petition Drive

Short answer: 385,247. Long answer: State law requires that a voter initiated ballot initiative to amend the constitution collect signatures in the amount of 10% of those votes cast for governor in the most recent election. For the year 2012 that means we must collect about 385,000 signatures. However, since many signatures may be obsolete or invalid, we need to gather 15-20% beyond that or about 450,000 signatures.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ohio_signature_requirements

In order for the proposed Personhood Amendment to make on the November 2012 ballot, all signatures need to be turned in by early July. Fortuanately, Ohio doesn't have a time limit on collecting signatures so, if the deadline is not met, the collected signatures can be used for getting the amendment on future ballots.

The three page petition is not illegal as long as you have the A.G. certification on the front page. We only have the five page petition online now for several reasons: if someone can get nine signatures, they can get ten. It also lowers printing costs, as we won't need a page 1 and page 3 for ever nine signatures, but for every 27 signatures.

There is no deadline in Ohio for collecting signatures for a ballot initiative. This means that signatures will never expire. However, it's important to complete the signature drive as quickly as possible because signatures will become invalidated as people move, etc.

Some churches would like to promote the Personhood Amendment, but are concerned about legal issues and IRS regulations. There is nothing in federal law, state law or IRS regulations that prevent churches from promoting legislative issues, ballot issues or constitutional amendments. Many churches are have already promoted the Personhood amendment to their congregations and collected signatures. If you're church would like to get involved, please visit our Churches page.

For a thorough legal analysis surrounding church involvement in political and justice issues, you can reference this document from the ACLJ.
http://media.aclj.org/pdf/040317_fed_campaign_finance.pdf  

Objections

We agree that legal personhood should be established at the federal level and we support a human life amendment to the Constitution that does just that. However, the absence of legal personhood protections at the federal level does not prevent a state from establishing legal personhood. In fact, since all ruling authorities are required by God to protect the innocent, each state has an obligation to provide legal protection to every human being, including unborn children.

Within the Roe v. Wade decision itself is an admission that the entire foundation for the case and the final decision to deny legal protection to unborn children would collapse if the personhood of the unborn child could be established.

"[Texas] argues that the fetus is a ‘person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case (or Roe's case) collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed by the 14th Amendment."

It was even agreed by pro-abortion attorney Sarah Weddington, that a state could establish the legal personhood of the unborn child and directly challenge her legal case. Justice Potter Stewart, stated during oral arguments, "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protections of the 14th Amendment, you would have an almost impossible case here, would you not?" Weddington replied, "I would have a very difficult case."

Establishing the legal personhood of unborn children in the state of Ohio would actually be the most direct challenge that could be offered to Roe v. Wade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81NrWq3p5Ag