The Honorable Representatives of the State of Ohio
Ohio Statehouse
78 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215

Ohio is poised to join the ranks of states legalizing marijuana use in some fashion. This is the first bill of its kind in Ohio.  It is a substantial step for our state and deserves our attention.  The bill is moving quickly and appears ready to pass on its first go.

But, what does the Republican Liberty Caucus of Ohio (RLCOH) think of the bill? Should it be important to us? Our groundbreaking Ohio Liberty Index finds us scoring all kinds of legislation in order to rank sitting legislators on their liberty votes. Truth is, every piece of legislation is important to us, even the ones we don’t rate.  It’s rare that we don’t rate legislation because we can’t reach a “yay” or “nay” consensus.  Rather, there’s only so much time our all-volunteer organization has, so we only pick the most substantial legislation to rate.

Ultimately, we believe in eliminating government involvement in the peaceful private affairs of individuals. Thus, full repeal of any marijuana criminalization is the desired outcome. We could very well hold out for that. But, what does that do to the thousands of Ohioans who could experience relief from severe pain by using cannabis now? Are they to suffer until we get it right? Would you want your aging mother to live in pain until we were able to live free? What does that do to the thousands of people who choose to break the law for that relief? Are we to make criminals out of them? Hasn’t the war on drugs cost us enough already?

We have lots of work to do to achieve the government’s proper role in marijuana use, but this bill can be a step in the right direction. The best football teams move the ball downfield on every play. Not every single play can be a touchdown. This bill presented quite a challenge for us. On the one hand, we see it as a much necessary step in the right direction. On the other, we have some significant objections to the bill. We’re conflicted to say the least.

First, it grows the government and delegates the authority to make law to an appointed controlling board. This unelected board can decide who is fined and goes to jail.  We believe legislator and not appointed bureaucrats should have this authority. We are asked to rely on appointees with varied levels of immunity to carry out our will.

Secondly, it leaves out a large number of patients who can’t afford to purchase much needed medication. Only licensed dispensaries would be legalized and home grow is forbidden. There is a potential open door for veterans and the indigent to seek relief, but at what cost? Are the taxpayers to foot this bill? In the case of veterans, it is the responsibility to Ohio to take care of its own until the federal government does so, but what about others?  We believe we should forego a new welfare program by allowing people to cultivate marijuana for themselves or for a sick family member.

Bottom line?          

We could rate this bill a “nay.” But, we’d be punishing legislators for advancing a bill that is moving the ball downfield. We don’t want to do that.

We could rate this bill a “yay.” But, we’d be promoting a bill that is contrary to our core values. That is also something we also don’t want do.

Ultimately, our conflict led us to abstain from rating House Bill 523. We’d like for legislators to get it right. We fear, however, that their desire to get out in front of a citizen-led ballot initiative will prevent that. After decades of inaction, it’s taken the threat of a grassroots effort to force a shoddy bill onto the floor.

As much as we would like our legislators to do the right thing, we find ourselves in favor of a ballot initiative to overcome the shortcomings of our elected officials. Where legislators get it wrong, we can get it right as a collective body of voters. While we find admitting that fact displeasing, we’re confident that Ohioans can do the job legislators won’t.

                                                                                            Michael Newbern
                                                                                            Chairman, Legislative Committee
                                                                                            Republican Liberty Caucus of Ohio

Charita is a victim of sexual abuse and has never been able to completely overcome her rape. Joanna is a transgendered woman who has been using gender-specific public accommodations as a woman for 15 years. Could it be that the latest partisan battle surrounding gender-specific public accommodations is making things worse for both Charita and Joanna? Should we force Charita to feel unsafe or Joanna to become a criminal? As happens far too often, one government authority passes a law prompting another authority to pass a law, and we all lose in the process.

Every individual deserves both personal dignity and an expectation of privacy when accommodations are gender-specific. Both are possible when we stop looking to government force as the answer to every problem facing society.

Charlotte, North Carolina should be able to defend the rights of every minority, but shouldn’t be so cavalier with the privacy rights of the majority.  North Carolina should defend the safety and privacy of all its citizens, but shouldn’t criminalize groups of people for simply living an honest life to the best of their ability.

Some in Ohio are clamoring for laws like those in either Charlotte or North Carolina as a state. We at the Republican Liberty Caucus of Ohio (RLCOH) believe neither should be our model. If government feels compelled to act (and it isn’t clear to us that it needs to), the RLCOH would find it much more palatable to see legislation that:

-Punishes any person who impersonates the opposite sex with the intended purpose of committing a crime (No obvious males going into women’s changing rooms based on a simple transgendered assertion in order to assault, photograph, or otherwise infringe on privacy).

-Affirms the right of each individual to use the gender-specific accommodations reflecting their identity so long as a reasonable person would find it plausible the individual’s biological gender matches their chosen identity (protects the transgendered from discrimination while prohibiting exposure of opposite sex genitals in a gender-specific accommodation).

·         Notice this legislation neither affirms nor prohibits the identification of LGBT as a protected class.

·         Notice this legislation respects that peaceful individuals can make bathroom choices on their own and don’t need government help.

·         Notice this legislation does not force businesses to do anything to accommodate new legal restrictions.

·         Notice that gender-specific accommodations are not required, but that where they are employed, there is a recognition of privacy expectations and that  gender norms should be respected.

We believe most of society’s problems can be solved through more freedom, not less. We also believe that protecting citizens from unwanted force is a legitimate role for government.  Most importantly, just because you are a lawmaker, that doesn’t mean you should try to solve every societal problem with a law.

– by Mike Newbern, Chairman, Legislative Affairs Committee

We all want informed voters. I know I personally lament the idea of someone voting in an election without sufficient knowledge. As the chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Ohio’s (RLCOH) Legislative Affairs Committee, I take pride in knowing that am part of a team of folks that work to provide information to voters.

We provide what I consider to be very valuable information — an assessment of a sitting legislator’s record on liberty issues.

I think it’s important for voters to understand how we arrive at these ratings. It’s not an arbitrary process. In fact, we put considerable amount of effort in the development of our system and working it.

It all centers around our position on legislation. How do members of the general assembly work to introduce bills that restore our party’s founding principles? And, how do they vote on legislation?

We put bills into three general categories: budget, size and scope of government, and restoration/preservation of liberty. We issue positions supporting a “yes” vote on legislation that decreases our government’s budget, limits or reduces the size and scope of the government, or restores/preserves individual liberty. Conversely, we issue a position supporting a “no” vote on bills that do the opposite.

Some bills are cut and dried. House Bill 407, for example, is one such strightforward bill. Our debate on this bill was short. The committee voted unanimously to issue a “yes” position on a bill we categorize as an individual liberty issue. The bill requires law enforcement agencies who use body cameras to adopt a written policy on their use and make this policy publically available.

Some bills, however, aren’t so simple. Senate Bill 254 is one of the bills that presented a significant challenge for us. We labored over this bill for more than one meeting, considering several factors before coming to a decision.

I’d like to share that process specific on SB254 with you because it demonstrates how the RLCOH is providing a service for liberty voters that doesn’t exist elsewhere .

SB254, in short, would require abortion providers to inform recipients of the waste disposal methods available to them and would also require that they make certain methods available.

First, we needed to understand its impact on our state’s budget. Does it change how government funds are utilized? Does it increase or decrease government liability? Since we could not find how it did either of those, we determined the budgetary impact of the bill was negligible.

We also wanted to know how it impacted the size and scope of the government. While violation of this law does impose first degree misdemeanor as punishment, it did not establish any new agency or place the burden of enforcement on the government. Therefore, we did not see any impact on the size and scope of the government.

Lastly, did it impact individual liberty, the right that we all should enjoy to do with our property and live our lives as we choose so long as we are not violating that very right others also enjoy? The purpose of this bill is to require that abortion providers inform recipients of the options available to them. Furthermore, it requires the provider pay the cost of the disposal. It became very clear to us that this piece of legislation does indeed change how one chooses to manage his or her property and business affairs.

We also needed to understand what impact this bill would have on currently available disposal methods. The two methods addressed in the legislation are interment (the burial or entombment of fetal remains) and cremation.  SB254 did nothing to impact the legality of those two methods. However, it did restrict disposal to those two methods.

Now, we must decide on our position. Do we support a “yes” or “no” vote on this bill? This part wasn’t as easy. Even in our small committee, we are made up of folks from many sides of the debate covering a wide spectrum of opinions and values. We are human like everyone else and feel the pull of our feelings on abortion and other controversial issues.

There is, however, one opinion we share — so long as two parties who interact with each other cause the other party no harm, the government only exists to resolve contract disputes.

Is an abortion provider harming the recipient by not providing information on the methods available for disposal? Is an abortion provider harming the recipient by disposing of the fetal remains in a manner consistent with other methods currently in practice for disposal of bio-waste? Is an abortion provider harming the recipient by not offering internment or cremation as methods of disposal?

The short answer is “no.”

To better understand, we discussed this issue in terms of a bakery. Is a bakery harming its customers by not informing them while chocolate donuts are not on display in the counter that they are actually baking and will be available shortly? Is a bakery harming its customers by not offering chocolate at all? Should a bakery be required to offer more costly chocolate donuts at its expense, which it will ultimately pass on to all customers regardless of the flavor they choose?

Once again, the short answer is “no.” If a customer wants chocolate donuts and the bakery doesn’t display them, it’s the responsibility of the customer to inquire. Should the bakery not offer chocolate donuts, the customer is free to leave and find one that does. If a bakery decides not to offer chocolate donuts to its customers, its customer base will respond accordingly by rewarding the bakery with business or taking its business elsewhere.

It is the responsibility of an abortion recipient to understand the disposal methods available and make an informed provider choice. If a recipient desires a specific method of disposal and the provider is willing to accommodate that desire, then it is the right of the recipient and the provider to enter into a contract as such. This bill places the burden of information on the provider, mandates that the provider offer internment and cremation as disposal methods, and limits the available disposal methods to internment and cremation.

We could support a bill limited in scope to cover only facilities receiving government funding to provide abortion services. Since we are all part owners in the government, we do have the authority to determine how its money is spent. However, this bill offers no differentiation between private entities receiving no government funding and fully funded public health facilities.

Therefore, we must issue a “no vote” position on Senate Bill 254 and urge members of the general assembly to vote accordingly.

Why take so much time to explain our thought process on this single bill?  The voters of Ohio need to understand the great lengths the RLCOH take to provide an incredible service not seen anywhere else.  You can see the end result of all our bill positions and how legislators rank on the Ohio Liberty Index at RLCOH.org/oh-legislators.

Test Body

NEW RLC-MI LOGO!