I suspect that the report in ThinkProgress was not being entirely open with the truth.
Just after that bit about ‘sneaking’ the matter into this Bill, was this sentence:
Anti-abortion group Ohio Right to Life previously said the bill would not stand up to a constitutional challenge.
Now, just how could this anti-abortion group have ‘previously’ made a comment, unless the provision was already in there in time for them to comment on it?
I haven’t looked into exactly when the stages of the bill went through and with what language but clearly this wasn’t such a shocker as the writer would like to suggest.
Aside from that, I agree with you on the issue of laws containing things that are unconnected but personally, I see child care as starting in the womb (just try insisting to a happy expectant mother that what she is carrying is not her child), so a law covering child care seems relevant enough to me in covering care prior to birth. I realise that is not the position of an abortionist, who would say that until birth the mother is just carrying a bunch of meaningless cells.