Ohio bill targets abortion medication despite 2023 reproductive rights vote – Cleveland.com

Analysis of Ohio House Bill 324 and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Overview of House Bill 324

Ohio House Bill 324, titled the “Patient Protection Act,” was passed by the Ohio House on November 19 and is currently under consideration by the Senate. The primary provisions of the bill include:

• Mandating the Ohio Department of Health to identify all medications with an adverse effect rate exceeding 5%.
• Imposing specific restrictions on the prescription and dispensation of these identified medications.

1. A requirement for in-person follow-up visits for patients prescribed these drugs.
2. A prohibition on dispensing these medications through mail-order services.

Impact on SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The bill presents significant challenges to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all. By restricting access to medications and telehealth services, the legislation could negatively impact public health outcomes.

• Access to Essential Medicines: The broad criteria for restriction (adverse effects >5%) could encompass a wide range of commonly prescribed and essential medications, including SSRIs, blood thinners, diabetes treatments, and antibiotics.
• Healthcare Accessibility: The ban on mail-order dispensing and mandatory in-person visits creates substantial barriers to care, undermining efforts to ensure universal health coverage and access to quality essential healthcare services.

Implications for SDG 5: Gender Equality

The legislation directly impacts SDG 5, which includes the target of ensuring universal access to sexual and reproductive healthcare and rights. The bill is reported to be a targeted measure to restrict access to abortion medication.

• Reproductive Health Rights: By limiting access to medication abortion, the bill curtails reproductive freedom and autonomy, disproportionately affecting women and hindering progress toward gender equality.
• Contradiction of Public Mandate: The measure is noted as an attempt to legislate against the outcome of a 2023 public vote in which 57% of Ohioans affirmed support for reproductive freedom.

Contribution to SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

House Bill 324 threatens to exacerbate health disparities, working against the objectives of SDG 10, which calls for reducing inequality within and among countries.

• Disproportionate Impact: The proposed restrictions would place a greater burden on marginalized and vulnerable populations, including:
  • Individuals in rural communities with limited access to healthcare facilities.
  • Persons with disabilities or mobility issues.
  • Low-income individuals who cannot afford transportation or time away from work for in-person appointments.
• Widening Healthcare Gaps: By making it more difficult for certain populations to access necessary medical care, the bill risks widening the gap in health outcomes and deepening existing inequalities.

Challenges to SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The legislative process and substance of the bill raise questions related to SDG 16, which promotes effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. The bill is framed as a challenge to democratic processes and institutional accountability.

• Institutional Accountability: The legislation is viewed as an attempt by lawmakers to subvert a recent and decisive public vote on reproductive rights, raising concerns about the responsiveness of institutions to the will of the electorate.
• Inclusive Decision-Making: The act of legislators intervening in medical access in a manner that contradicts public consensus challenges the principle of ensuring responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article’s central theme is access to healthcare. It discusses Ohio House Bill 324, which would restrict access to various essential medications, including “SSRIs, blood thinners, diabetes meds, and antibiotics,” and limit healthcare delivery methods like telehealth. This directly relates to ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality: The article explicitly states that the bill is “not really about ‘protecting patients’ but about banning abortion medication.” This connects the issue to gender equality by focusing on reproductive rights and women’s access to essential sexual and reproductive health services, which are critical components of this goal. The reference to the “57% of us voted for reproductive freedom” further emphasizes this link.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article calls on citizens to “speak up to your local representatives” and asserts that “Democracy only works when we all participate and hold our leaders accountable.” This invokes the principles of SDG 16, which focuses on building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions and ensuring responsive and participatory decision-making. The author questions whether the legislature is acting in a way that is representative of the public’s will.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.7: “By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes.” The article’s focus on the bill’s intent to ban “abortion medication” directly relates to this target concerning access to reproductive healthcare.
   • Target 3.8: “Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.” The proposed restrictions on a wide range of medications and the ban on “mail-order dispensing” and telehealth for certain drugs directly challenge the goal of ensuring access to essential medicines and healthcare services.
2. Under SDG 5 (Gender Equality):
   • Target 5.6: “Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights…” The article’s argument that the bill is an attempt to “undo” the vote for “reproductive freedom” by banning abortion medication directly aligns with this target.
3. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The author’s call for citizens to “hold our leaders accountable” and the reference to the 2023 vote, where “57% of us voted for reproductive freedom,” suggest that the proposed legislation is not representative of the public’s decision, thus relating to the need for responsive decision-making.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

While the article does not cite official SDG indicators, it provides information that can serve as qualitative or proxy indicators for measuring progress:

• Indicator for Targets 3.7 and 5.6: The existence and status of legislation like “House Bill 324” serves as a direct indicator. Its passage would represent a negative progression away from ensuring universal access to reproductive health services. The specific provision to “ban abortion medication” is a measurable legislative action against these targets.
• Indicator for Target 3.8: The article implies an indicator related to the accessibility of essential medicines and services. A measure could be the number and type of medications (“SSRIs, blood thinners, diabetes meds, and antibiotics”) subject to new restrictions or the proportion of the population affected by bans on specific healthcare delivery methods like “telehealth” and “mail-order dispensing.”
• Indicator for Target 16.7: The article provides a quantitative indicator of public will: the “57% of us voted for reproductive freedom in 2023.” This percentage can be used to measure the responsiveness of political institutions. A legislative bill that directly contradicts such a clear public mandate indicates a lack of representative decision-making.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: cleveland.com