Connect with us

Ohio

Ohio Gov. DeWine signs bill banning spousal rape into law

Published

on

Ohio Gov. DeWine signs bill banning spousal rape into law


COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine has signed a bill into law Friday that bans all forms of spousal rape. Up until now, drugging and sexually assaulting your partner wasn’t a crime as long as they had a ring on their finger.

Former Democratic state Rep. Jessica Miranda and state Rep. Brett Hillyer (R-Uhrichsville) introduced House Bill 161, which makes it clear that all sexual assault is prohibited — no matter marital status. The bill allows victims to testify against their spouse, as well.

“We have just rewritten history,” Miranda told me. “Decades in the making, Ohio’s journey to close the spousal rape loophole reaches the finish line. I am so proud to have used my personal story of surviving sexual violence to usher in this necessary change.”

Miranda, a survivor of child sexual abuse, spent her time in the legislature as the face of the fight against sexual and domestic violence. She recently left her position in the House to become the Hamilton County Auditor.

Advertisement

Hillyer, an attorney, consistently sponsors bipartisan legislation.

“An individual does not lose the right to dignity and protection under the law simply by saying ‘I do’ at the altar,” Hillyer told me. “I will continue to spearhead efforts that make Ohio safer and a place where all can flourish in the vein of safer communities and healthier families. My career in the General Assembly has been to fight for public safety and this is another step in that direction.”

Both chambers finally passed her bill in late April. It was nearly unanimous — with only one lawmaker voting no. State Rep. Bill Dean (R-Xenia) said it could cause problems in a marriage.

The bill will go into effect 90 days after DeWine files the legislation with the secretary of state’s office.

It was legal?

Advertisement

Twenty years ago, Ohio outlawed “forcible” spousal rape — but lawmakers left in a provision that says purposely impairing your spouse’s mental state with alcohol or drugs or waiting until they are unconscious to assault them is legal.

A woman who suffered for a decade because the law didn’t see her abuse as rape cried with joy as she talked with us, reacting to the vote.

Survivors rejoice as Ohio lawmakers vote to make it illegal to drug, rape spouse

Advertisement

Survivors rejoice as Ohio lawmakers vote to make it illegal to drug, rape spouse

“No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the following applies…” according to section 2907.02 of the state’s Revised Code.

Other than drugging and then raping, a spouse can “have sex” with their partner if the victim is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition — or due to advanced age. Also, a spouse can “have sex” with their child bride, as the law doesn’t count sex with a kid less than 13 years old as rape.

The exceptions to the sex offenses that currently apply are rape, sexual battery, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, gross sexual imposition and sexual imposition.

Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.

Advertisement





Source link

Ohio

Lorain woman killed, three children injured in Ohio Turnpike crash in Elyria (UPDATED)

Published

on

Lorain woman killed, three children injured in Ohio Turnpike crash in Elyria (UPDATED)


Advertisement

`
const PAYWALL_HTML2 = `

Subscribe For Unlimited Access

Advertisement

You have exceeded the number of free articles available each month.

Thank you for supporting quality local journalism

Our award-winning coverage would not be possible without you.

Sign in here

Advertisement


if you are already a subscriber for unlimited access to breaking news, sports, photos, videos and our e-edition on your phone, tablet or desktop.

Click here
 for our new subscriber specials.

`.trim();
const PAYWALL_HTML3 = `

Advertisement
To continue reading SUBSCRIBE.
Already a subscriber? LOG IN.

`
const PAYWALL_HTML4 = “
function ensureCss() {
if (!document.head) return;

const existing = document.querySelector(‘link[data-paywall-css=”1″]’);
if (existing) return;

const link = document.createElement(‘link’);
link.rel=”stylesheet”;
link.type=”text/css”;
link.href = CSS_HREF;
link.setAttribute(‘data-paywall-css’, ‘1’);
document.head.appendChild(link);
}

function hasSubInfo(el) {
// Only replace once the widget already contains .subInfo
return !!(el && el.querySelector(‘.subInfo’));
}

function applyTo(el) {
if (!el || el.dataset.paywallReplaced === ‘1’) return;
if (!hasSubInfo(el)) return; //



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Ohio

Licking County real estate transfers for June 1-5, 2026, hit $865,000

Published

on

Licking County real estate transfers for June 1-5, 2026, hit 5,000



Real estate transfers in Licking County, Ohio, range from $85,000 to $865,000

The following are property transfers recorded in Licking County from June 1-5, 2026.

Advertisement

First name indicates the seller; second name represents the buyer

Buckeye Lake

  • 502 Providence Lane; Cohagen, Christopher C and Lori A; Adams, Jeffrey L and Boyce-Adams, Jo Anna; 6/1/2026; $511,000
  • 131 Cranberry Lane; Smart, Amy and Kidwell, Kevin K; Sew and Minor, Christian; 6/1/2026; $262,000

Etna Township

  • 116 Cameron Drive SW; Ray, Erica L; Darjee, Sanjay and Laxmi and Dil; 6/2/2026; $412,000  
  • 119 Kraner St. SW; Adkins, Zane and Amy; Culbertson, Brenton Howard; 6/1/2026; $368,500
  • 160 Dusky Willow Drive; Willow Reserve LLC; Martin, Alaina K; 6/2/2026; $290,940

Granville

  • 119 Derwyn Del Way; Lifer, David C and Julia H; Martin, Michael and Lisa; 6/1/2026; $865,000
  • 39 Victoria Drive; Acton, Wendy S and Paul J; Cannon, Matthew Evan and Zywica, Natalie Nicole; 6/2/2026; $835,000

Granville Township

  • 49 Alberry Drive; Halliday, Lucas and Breayne; Howe, Jason and Kathryn; 6/2/2026; $570,000

Harrison Township

  • 102 Whirlaway Loop; Rice, Dawn (Trustee); Bope, Maria and Shane; 6/2/2026; $420,000

Heath

  • 1306 Kacey Court; Fischer Homes Columbus II LLC; Owens, Blake Andrew and Taylor Marie; 6/2/2026; $437,779
  • 805 Fieldson Drive; Flowers, Ingrit; Harder, Noah C; 6/2/2026; $250,000

Hebron

  • 802 Cumberland Meadows Circle; Lines, Marlene S; Gerhart, Jamie A and Ralph W Jr; 6/2/2026; $232,000

Johnstown

  • 101 Bigelow Drive; McGovern, Matthew S and Jennifer L; Sanford, Jessica; 6/2/2026; $442,500

Liberty Township

  • 5844 Nichols Lane Road NW; La Jeunesse, Garth E and Debra; Nesselroad, William Heath and Annie; 6/1/2026; $629,000
  • 7211 Northridge Road NW; Devault, Robert E Jr and Joann; Esbenshade, Travis M and Lowe, Shelby M; 6/1/2026; $495,000

Newark

  • 2110 Overlook Way; D.R. Horton-Indiana LLC; Tarsha, Michele A; 6/1/2026; $433,335
  • 1162 Taylor Ave.; Heath Fluid LLC; Anglada, Gabriel P and Salina T; 6/1/2026; $200,000
  • 32 Postal Ave. W.; Palmisano, Phil; Moore, Dominic Michael and Miksich, Paige Elizabeth; 6/1/2026; $198,900
  • 75 Gay St.; Velez, Marcos A; Camell, Campbell; 6/1/2026; $155,000
  • 655 Evans St.; TNL; McRada Properties LLC; 6/1/2026; $145,000
  • 63 Wallace St.; FDA Peachtree LLC; Burns, Amber L; 6/2/2026; $86,500
  • 404 10th St.; Synergy Group Properties LLC; Busy Boys Restoration LLC; 6/2/2026; $85,000

Reynoldsburg

  • 8447 Rodebaugh Road; Collins, Carol J; Thorpe, Kimberley Lynn and Henry, Steven; 6/2/2026; $340,000



Source link

Continue Reading

Ohio

Court orders Ohio restrictions on kids’ use of social media restored

Published

on

Court orders Ohio restrictions on kids’ use of social media restored


COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio’s law requiring children under 16 to get parental consent to use social media apps must be restored, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

The decision comes as a blow to NetChoice, which has won court victories against identical digital identification laws in other states, including Arkansas, Louisiana and Georgia. The trade group representing TikTok, Snapchat, Meta and other major tech companies said the Ohio decision went against “clear national consensus” and that it intended to keep fighting.

“An unconstitutional law protects no one, and we remain focused on ensuring the First Amendment rights of Ohioans are protected,” said Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.

Netchoice brought suit against Ohio’s law in 2024, arguing that it was overly broad, vague and represented an unconstitutional impediment to free speech.

Advertisement

The Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit’s panel disagreed. In a 2-1 decision, it found that the law was not unconstitutional and sent it back to a lower court to have a block on the law’s enforcement vacated.

“At bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement,” Judge Eric Clay wrote in the lead opinion. “That requirement constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them.”

Judge Alice Batchelder concurred, writing that “a statute is not vague just because it has a wide berth.”

Known as the Social Media Parental Notification Act, the Ohio law was part of an $86.1 billion state budget bill that Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law in July 2023.

The administration pushed the measure as a way to protect children’s mental health, with then-Lt. Gov. Jon Husted, now a U.S. senator, saying at the time that social media was “intentionally addictive” and harmful to kids.

Advertisement

The law requires companies to get parental permission for social media and gaming apps and to provide their privacy guidelines so families know what content would be censored or moderated on their child’s profile.

Sign up for Morning Wire:
Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Advertisement

Republican Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson called Thursday’s ruling “a win for Ohio families.”

“The court agreed that parents –- not social media companies –- should get a say in what kids see online,” he said in a statement. “We have an obligation to keep our children safe, and today, the most dangerous place for our kids is the internet. This decision gives parents the tools to be involved and provide oversight.”





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending