The state’s highest court found that a woman can’t be charged with possession of drugs in Seneca County just because she and her newborn had drugs in their systems.

The Ohio Supreme Court took up the case after Kelly Foreman appealed her conviction on felony drug possession charges, which he was charged with after giving birth in March 2018.

According to court documents, the baby “exhibited symptoms of neonatal-abstinence syndrome” and urine and umbilical cord tissue tests showed the presence of cocaine.

While Foreman admitted to using drugs while pregnant, she said she hadn’t used any drugs in her Seneca County home, and court records showed she was not “in actual or constructive control of any drugs in Seneca County.”

A Third District Court of Appeals said because the drug tests had happened in the county, they determined the venue for the criminal charges.

The ACLU previously argued the case would have far-reaching implications for drug cases in the state, making it possible to be charged with possession for “simply being in Ohio.”

In the state supreme court opinion, the justices acknowledged that “possession” in terms of holding a drug in the bloodstream or urine has not been addressed by the court before. But they said other courts have seen similar cases, and held that the presence of a controlled substance in someone’s blood or urine “does not establish that the person possessed the controlled substance.”

“The reason underlying those conclusions is that when a controlled substance is assimilated into a person’s body, the person loses the ability to control or possess the substance,” Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor wrote in the ruling.

Because Foreman no longer had control of the substance, the high court found that tests proving the presence of cocaine were “insufficient to prove that she possessed cocaine in Seneca County.”

O’Connor also said the court found the prosecution’s side of the case “rather troubling” for the same reasons the ACLU took issue with the conviction in the case.

The court opinion said the argument that possession could be established through urine or umbilical cord testing leads to the possibility that a person could be charged with possession anywhere they test positive in the state, no matter where the drugs were when they were taken.

“For instance,” O’Connor wrote. “Consider a person who ingests cocaine in Ashtabula County and then drives sober to Hamilton County a few days later. By the state’s reasoning, that person could be charged with possession of cocaine in each and every county through which that person traveled, based on the sole fact that some assimilated form of cocaine remained in his system.”

The justices were unanimous in reversing the appeals court decision and vacating Foreman’s conviction in the case.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUBSCRIBE
SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.
DONATE

A new version of a bill to allow personnel to be armed in schools has returned to the Ohio legislature, this time with slight changes that could give school districts more control.

House Bill 99 was quickly presented in Thursday’s Ohio House Criminal Justice Committee, only to have a few provisions in the bill changed before the end of the meeting.

It was initially written to create minimum training standards for teachers and school personnel to come armed on school property and to allow the practice in direct response to an Ohio Supreme Court case trying to fight against it.

It was the second iteration of the bill, which was introduced in the last General Assembly. That bill passed the Senate, but didn’t pass through the House before the GA’s end.

Groups ranging from the Fraternal Order of Police to the Ohio Federation of Teachers spent hours testifying against the legislation, saying the bill was not necessary, but that if it persisted, more training had to be included.

Supporters of the bill said in previous hearings that said more protection was always better, particularly in areas where emergency responders could take more time to get to schools because of their location. But they also said consistent training was an important part of school safety.

Ohio House lawmakers are running back a fight over trans youth in the state. But this time, instead of focusing on school sports, the proposal would prohibit offering minors any kind of gender affirming treatment — from hormones to surgery. The measure, H.B. 454, puts the onus on health care providers by defining that treatment as “unprofessional conduct” for state licensing boards, and making “actual or threatened violations” of the bill grounds for a lawsuit.

Erin Upchurch, executive director of Columbus’ Kaleidoscope Youth Center, calls the bill dehumanizing.

“I feel frustrated and angry and extremely disappointed that people who were voted into office to protect all Ohioans are using their platform and their power to actually attack a really specific portion of our communities,” she said. “It is a gross misuse of power and completely an overreach.”

The bill’s sponsors, Rep. Gary Click, R-Vickery, and Diane Grendell, R-Chesterland, begin by enumerating a series of legislative findings—a laundry list of dubious assertions meant to cast doubt on trans identities and the safety of medical procedures.

“The risks of gender transition procedures far outweigh any benefit at this stage of clinical study on these procedures,” the legislation claims.

Upchurch disputes that, noting national organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics support gender affirming care.

A bill hinging on the downfall of federal abortion rights came into a Senate committee Wednesday with the support of its two Republican sponsors.

Senate Bill 123 is a “trigger” bill that would allow the state to ban abortion with a change in the U.S. Constitution or the overturning of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

The bill criminalizes a physician’s role in an abortion in the state, threatening prison time and the revocation of medical licenses for any doctor participating or promoting abortion. Bill cosponsor state Sen. Sandra O’Brien, R-Ashtabula, said the work against abortions doesn’t stop with just the challenges to Roe v. Wade.

“Overturning Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal,” O’Brien told the Senate Health Committee on Wednesday. “It simply changes the venue of this question from nine unelected Supreme Court justices to the people to enact abortion policy through their elected state legislators.”

Senate Health Committee member Sen. Cecil Thomas, D-Avondale, pushed back on the bill, arguing that calling Ohio a “pro-life state” as O’Brien did, was not supported by data.

“Survey after survey has concluded the majority of Ohioans believe abortions should be legal and that politicians should not be making personal decisions for them about their pregnancies,” Thomas said.

Ohio House Republicans have pumped the brakes on what was once turbo-charged legislation aimed to restrict abilities of employers and colleges to require vaccination against COVID-19.

The House Speaker and top lawmakers introduced the legislation Tuesday afternoon with the intent of the whole House passing it Wednesday. The House Health Committee passed it 11-3 on party lines Tuesday.

However, before a legislative session commenced Wednesday afternoon, the bill drew fierce criticism from the health care and business community, and even anti-vaccine activists who said it didn’t go far enough.

The Ohio Children’s Hospital Association, in a statement on behalf of a wide range of health care businesses and associations, said the bill falls short of what the state needs.

“This bill does not address the concerns expressed by the medical, business and university communities about prior proposals of a similar nature,” the statement says. “Protection of an employer’s rights to make decisions in the best interest of their employees and those we serve cannot be overstated.”

Steve Stivers, a former GOP congressman turned CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, said the bill infringes on the rights of employers.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Hundreds of supporters of a Republican-backed bill that would prohibit employers from requiring workers to receive vaccinations descended on the Ohio Statehouse on Tuesday as lawmakers heard a single additional day of testimony on the closely watched proposal.

While speakers before the GOP-controlled House Health Committee were evenly divided between those for and against the measure, supporters far outnumbered them on the Statehouse grounds.

Hundreds rallied outside ahead of time carrying signs with slogans such as “Enact Vaccine Choice” and “No To Forced Vaccines!”, then crowded into the Statehouse atrium to watch the hearing live on large-screen TVs, applauding speakers who favored the legislation and laughing at those who didn’t.

Just minutes after the committee wrapped up Tuesday, Ohio State University announced it would require all students, faculty and staff to complete the full vaccination process by Nov. 15. President Kristina Johnson pegged the decision to the Food and Drug Administration’s decision Monday to grant full approval to the Pfizer vaccine. Ohio State is one of the country’s largest universities and a major Columbus employer.

What some Ohio lawmakers saw as a wasteful gameshow gimmick, other governors saw as an opportunity.

It took only a few weeks after Gov. Mike DeWine announced the Vax-A-Million for other states to introduce their own vaccine lottery programs. There are cash prizes in Oregon, music festival tickets awarded in Delaware and even custom rifles available for the winners in West Virginia.

“I can’t stand for Ohio to get ahead of us on anything,” the Charleston Gazette-Mail quoted Gov. Jim Justice as saying.

There are nearly a dozen states across the country offering some type of vaccine lottery. In total, these states are offering close to $50 million in prize money along with college scholarships and other prizes.