St. Louis, Mo., Aug 27, 2024 / 06:00 am (CNA).
With all eyes on the U.S. presidential matchup on Nov. 5, activists across the country have been mobilizing for more than a year to place abortion-related ballot measures in front of voters.
The efforts come after the 2022 repeal of Roe v. Wade, which returned to the states the power to legislate on abortion, resulting in nearly half of states enacting strong protections for babies in the womb.
Several of the proposals in front of voters threaten current pro-life protections. At the same time, in other states that do little to protect unborn babies, the proposed measures would make abortion even more widely accessible.
Voters in 10 states will see abortion-related questions on their November ballot, and the majority of those will be proposed constitutional amendments to expand abortion. One state — Nebraska — is in the unusual position of having two competing abortion-related ballot measures, one pro-life and one pro-abortion. One other state, Arkansas, was previously set to vote on a pro-abortion measure before the secretary of state disqualified it.
See CNA article for full interactive map.
Here’s everything you need to know about these ballot initiatives.
Arizona
Arizona voters will be allowed to decide whether to add a so-called “right to abortion” to the state constitution, meaning the state will not be able to restrict abortion until the point of “viability,” at approximately 24 weeks of pregnancy.
On April 3, Arizona for Abortion Access PAC surpassed the required number of signatures to get its initiative, Proposition 139, on the November ballot. If approved by the people, the amendment would invalidate the state’s law protecting unborn life up to 15 weeks as well as most of the state’s other pro-life laws.
In late July, a judge ruled that the phrase “unborn human beings” may not appear in the measure put before voters — a ruling the Arizona Supreme Court later reversed. And in early August, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Julian rejected a series of claims by Arizona Right to Life that signers of the petition were misled.
Colorado
Advocates on both sides of the abortion debate circulated dueling ballot proposals for 2024, but only the pro-abortion measure managed to get enough signatures to appear on the ballot.
The pro-life initiative, which would have been added to the state statutory code, would stipulate that a living human child “must not be intentionally dismembered, mutilated, poisoned, scalded, starved, stabbed, given toxic injections known to cause death, left to die of the elements for lack of warmth or nutrition,” or otherwise killed. It failed to meet the required number of signatures before the April 18 deadline.
The pro-abortion measure, meanwhile, would affirm state laws that are already in place that allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. It would amend the state constitution to say that the government “shall not deny, impede, or discriminate against the exercise of the right to abortion, including prohibiting health insurance coverage for abortion.”
Florida
The pro-abortion group Floridians Protecting Freedom successfully gathered enough signatures to place its Right to Abortion Initiative constitutional amendment on the November ballot.
The proposed language of the measure would add a right to abortion before the point of “viability” to the state’s constitution if 60% of voters approve. It would also allow for abortions later in pregnancy if a woman’s doctor deems it necessary to end the life of her child.
The Florida attorney general in October 2023 had asked the state Supreme Court to block the effort, arguing that the initiative “does not satisfy the legal requirements for ballot placement.”
The court’s justices ruled in April that the measure could appear on the ballot.
In Florida, abortion is currently illegal after six weeks of pregnancy with limited exceptions.
Maryland
The proposed Maryland Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment would cement an abortion “right” in the state’s constitution and make it impossible for pro-life laws to be enacted. The amendment was added to the ballot by the state Legislature, based on a supermajority vote in both chambers (60%).
Maryland currently places no gestational limits on abortion. Parental notice is required for a minor to have an abortion.
Missouri
Amendment 3, which was certified to appear on the November ballot after garnering thousands of signatures, would “prohibit any regulation of abortion, including regulations designed to protect women undergoing abortions and prohibit any civil or criminal recourse against anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant women,” according to the secretary of state’s office.
Missouri law currently protects unborn babies throughout all of pregnancy with the only exception being cases of “medical emergency.”
The Missouri Catholic Conference, which advocates policy on behalf of the state’s Catholic bishops, called the measure “an extreme constitutional amendment that legalizes abortion at any stage of pregnancy with no protections for the preborn child, even when the child is capable of feeling pain.”
Montana
Ballot Issue No. 14, if passed, would amend the Montana Constitution “to expressly provide a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion,” according to the secretary of state’s office.
The initiative would guarantee the right to abortion before fetal viability, enshrining a 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling that held that pre-viability abortions fall under a constitutional “right to privacy.”
The Montana measure would “prohibit the government from denying or burdening the right to abortion before fetal viability,” prohibit the government from “denying or burdening access to an abortion” when a doctor determines it is necessary to protect the woman’s “life or health,” and would “prevent the government from penalizing patients, health care providers, or anyone who assists someone in exercising their right to make and carry out voluntary decisions about their pregnancy.”
On March 21, the Montana Supreme Court overturned the state attorney general’s block of the measure, holding that Attorney General Austin Knudsen “erred” when his office determined that the proposed pro-abortion ballot measure was “legally insufficient” to be placed on the ballot in this year’s election.
Montana’s Catholic bishops issued a joint letter in May denouncing the proposed pro-abortion constitutional amendment, calling the initiative an attack on the “recognition of the infinite dignity enjoyed by all persons” that fails to respect “life as a precious gift from God and recognize our sacred duty to nurture and protect every human life.”
Nebraska
Nebraska is currently the only U.S. state where voters will consider two conflicting ballot measures related to abortion in November. One proposal would constitutionally enshrine the state’s current pro-life protections, and the other would enshrine a constitutional “right” to abortion.
The proposed “Protect Women and Children” amendment would amend the state constitution to outlaw abortion “in the second and third trimesters” except in cases of medical emergencies or when the baby is the result of rape or incest. Nebraska’s current state law restricts abortion after roughly 12 weeks.
Meanwhile, the pro-abortion ballot measure would enshrine in the state constitution the “right” to have an abortion until the point of viability or later to protect the health of the pregnant woman.
Because the Nebraska measures are mutually exclusive and cannot both be added to the constitution, the measure with the most “for” votes will be added.
Nevada
Nevadans will vote on a measure in November that would codify already-existing state laws into the state constitution that allow for abortion up to roughly 24 weeks into pregnancy.
The pro-abortion group leading the initiative, Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, submitted 200,000 signatures in May, nearly twice what they needed. The Nevada secretary of state’s office certified the ballot initiative in late June.
In Nevada, a simple majority vote in two consecutive elections is required for state constitutional amendments, so it must be approved in 2026 as well.
New York
A proposed “Equal Rights” amendment to the New York Constitution would bar discrimination based on “pregnancy outcomes” or “gender expression.”
On May 7, a New York state court blocked the proposal from reaching the ballot, citing procedural errors. A unanimous appellate court decision on June 18 reversed the lower court ruling, placing the measure back on the ballot.
South Dakota
The South Dakota secretary of state confirmed in May that a pro-abortion amendment would appear before voters on the November ballot.
The measure would establish “a constitutional right to an abortion” and allow the fatal procedure through all nine months of pregnancy. Signature-gathering was spearheaded by the pro-abortion group Dakotans for Health.
Abortion is illegal in South Dakota barring exceptions to save the mother’s life.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I was always against SCOTUS transferring the abortion responsibility to the states. It has been proven to create a patchwork of chaos. So called RED STATES have varying “penalties for abortion. Sixteen states currently BAN or allow abortion with exception when the mother’s life is threatened or no exceptions at all. Like Idaho and Oklahoma. I believe there should be a national abortion “law” that has exceptions for the life of the mother. I have a larger concern. How can we place suspect politicians in charge of managing that edict?
It hasn’t proven to be a patchwork of anything.
Just look at the US map of red and blue states. A woman, in many cases in a red state like Texas and Idaho, has to seek out a state that allows abortion when her doctor tell her that her life is threatnned. If a national abortion bill would be fashioned to allow exceptions, the field would be levelled.
“Life of the mother” is a myth Morgan. Feticide is not a medical treatment for anything. As Catholics we really should become a little more informed on this sort of propaganda. I’m not picking on you Morgan because I think you sincerely believe those myths. And so do many other Catholic folks.
Removal of an affected fallopian tube, early induced delivery, etc. are medically ethical options when both the mother & child would die without intervention. Those do not directly target the child to destroy it as feticide does.
Mrsc. I want the life of ever innocent child to be safe and healthy.
You say that there is NO situation where where the mother’s life if in danger. Show me where that medical decision is invalid.
When I read the unfortunate case of Lauren Millir of Dallas it was not a “myth”. She is the mother of two and she was pregnant with twins. She had wanted to have a large family. Read the fox4news article and you will see her medical dilemma.
https://www.fox4news.com/news/texas-abortion-law-lauren-miller-testimony
Likewise, I am not directing my concerns at you. I only strive to get the facts.
God bless.