Policy Pulse 4.30.26

House Bill 835 has recently been introduced in the Ohio General Assembly. It seeks to legalize Oregon-style assisted suicide in Ohio. While the proposal is unlikely to gain traction in the current legislature, its backers have launched ana aggressive public relations campaign to build support, with favorable coverage appearing in Ohio newspapers. To help you better understand what’s at stake, we’ve prepared an overview called "Compassion Requires Care, Not Killing, explaining the issue, presenting arguments against it, sharing more information about the bill and outlining effective ways to oppose it.

As next steps, we encourage you to take action:

• Invite a GCRTL speaker to your church, school, or organization to present on end-of-life issues - including the “Faithful at the End of Life” program and a powerful new documentary from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition examining Canada’s MAiD program, Both are offered at no cost and now booking for the fall;
• Contact your State Representative and respectfully ask them to oppose HB 835. You can easily identify and message your lawmaker through our provided link. Please remember that submissions become part of the public record, so do not include confidential information; and
• Consider a donation so that we can maintain the current work that we are doing and also expand to take on this new challenge. Our team, and our budget, are pushed to their limit, and yet we have increasingly more to cover: we need your help. Making a one-time gift of $25, a monthly gift of $5, or by registering for our banquet, are all powerful ways you can partner with us in this work.

 
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin, a case arising from actions taken by Matthew Platkin against a New Jersey pregnancy help center. Platkin, the New Jersey Attorney General, had issued a subpoena seeking donor information and internal records as part of an investigation into alleged deceptive practices, prompting the center to raise serious concerns about free speech and donor privacy. While the case does not directly address abortion policy, it focuses on whether the center can challenge the state’s actions in federal court before enforcement occurs.

In a unanimous decision, the Court allowed that challenge to move forward, recognizing that compelled disclosure of supporters may raise significant First Amendment issues. The ruling does not settle the underlying dispute but ensures that pregnancy help centers can defend their constitutional rights in court.