07/22/2026
Who Is Really the Extremist?
In an obvious case of the pot calling the kettle black, Amy Acton is touting her endorsement by Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly known as NARAL Pro-Choice America, formerly known as National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, formerly known as National Abortion Rights Action League, and originally known as National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws), and labeling her opponent as “extreme.”
I’ll concede that most Americans’ views are somewhere in the middle on the abortion issue, but I think we need to examine what exactly “extreme” means in this discussion.
A consistent pro-life position acknowledges that while some pregnancies occur in very difficult or traumatic circumstances, ultimately there is a second human life involved that must be considered. People may land in a variety of places in these situations, but we know that a life is in the balance. We also know these times are rare when compared to the vast majority of abortions that take place.
The Reproductive Freedom for All position supports any and every reason for an abortion decision. In their view, the mother (wait, no—person) who is pregnant needs no justification for abortion and no limit is reasonable. You didn’t want a boy? Sex-selection abortion is fine. You broke up with your partner and want to punish him? Abortion is fine. You have a TikTok channel and you want to go viral by showing how little you care about the baby within? Abortion is fine.
Reproductive Freedom for All opposes restrictions based on s*x selection, opposes legislation protecting infants born alive after attempted abortions, and backs a right to abortion throughout pregnancy, with no limits. It supports forcing taxpayers to subsidize abortion through Medicaid and federal abortion funds—even when millions of Americans have profound moral objections.
By accepting this endorsement while refusing to identify any abortion limit she supports, Amy Acton has an obligation to tell Ohioans where—if anywhere—she disagrees with the organization.
Does a baby who survives an abortion deserve life-saving treatment? Does a child with a minor birth defect, or potentially Down Syndrome, deserve to be protected? Is it legitimate to say no to a third trimester abortion? Should taxpayer dollars be used to pay for abortions? Voters want to know.
Amy Acton wants to talk about how extreme Vivek Ramaswamy is by holding a pro-life view, while accepting the endorsement of a group that is clearly in the minority on its pro-abortion advocacy. It’s interesting she’s not actually talking about that position though: her quote in the press release says, “As governor, I will protect reproductive freedom so that every Ohioan has access to the reproductive healthcare they need, from contraception to IVF.”
Could someone please tell her that contraception and IVF are not even the discussion?
Acton’s press release attacks Ramaswamy’s endorsement by Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Candidate Fund, noting that they oppose “late term abortion.”
Yes, actually. A massive proportion of Americans and more specifically, Ohioans, oppose late term abortion.
I first thought the “late term abortion” part was a typo. But as I pointed out in a previous post, the decisions of Amy Acton’s Department of Health allowed late term abortion specialist Martin Haskell to continue operating in Dayton, despite his struggle to maintain basic safety standards required by the State of Ohio.
Upon further reflection, I think that’s exactly what she meant.
I’m pretty sure if it boils down to how each candidate feels about late term abortion, that Vivek is going to come out ahead in November – and that’s exactly how it should be.
If Amy Acton wants to make abortion extremism an issue in this campaign, Ohioans deserve a direct answer: Is there any point in pregnancy, or any reason for abortion, at which she believes the law should protect the life of the child?
--Carrie Snyder, Executive Director
