10 states will vote on abortion on Election Day. Here’s a look at each

 

CNA Staff, Oct 24, 2024 / 16:15 pm (CNA).

Voters in 10 U.S. states will have the opportunity on Nov. 5 to change their state’s laws on abortion, and Catholic leaders are strongly urging all citizens to vote to protect life.

Several of the state ballot proposals in front of voters threaten current pro-life protections, particularly a number of proposed constitutional amendments to expand abortion.

At the same time, in other states that do little to protect unborn babies, proposed measures would make abortion even more widely accessible than it is already.

One state — Nebraska — is in the unusual position of having two competing abortion-related ballot measures, one pro-life and one pro-abortion.

Here’s an updated look at each state voting on abortion this year, with information about what Catholic leaders have said in those states as the vote approaches.

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 an informational pamphlet about the measure — a ruling the Arizona Supreme Court later reversed in August.

The Arizona Catholic Conference, representing the state’s bishops, in late August, released a statement expressing “strong opposition” to Proposition 139, saying that despite its claims to be “moderate in nature,” the language of the proposal would make Arizona “one of the most extreme states in terms of abortion.”

“If passed, this initiative threatens to enshrine a constitutional right to virtually unrestricted abortion in Arizona. What makes a constitutional amendment especially grave is that our own Arizona legislators could lose the ability to regulate abortion in any meaningful way, leaving us with the potential for what would likely become nearly unrestricted abortion,” the Arizona bishops wrote.

“The proposed amendment, among other things, would likely remove most safeguards for girls and women that are currently in place at abortion clinics, permit a minor to obtain an abortion without parental involvement or permission, and allow for painful late-term abortions of viable preborn children.”

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.

Colorado is already one of the most permissive states in the country for abortion and is well known as a haven for late-term abortionists. The pro-abortion measure, Amendment 79, would enshrine in the state constitution the state laws already in place that allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

Specifically, 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.”

The Colorado Catholic Conference is strongly urging all people to vote no on Amendment 79, noting that among other things, it would open the door for direct taxpayer funding for abortion.

“Abortion clinics are currently unregulated in Colorado, posing a severe health risk to women undergoing the surgical procedure. Amendment 79 will ensure no regulations are ever placed on abortion clinics, even compared to heavily regulated hospitals, because that would be considered ‘impeding’ abortion access,” the bishops wrote.

“This is important considering the number of surgical abortions that occur in Colorado each year — even on healthy mothers with healthy babies,” they said.

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, Amendment 4, 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. In Florida, abortion is currently illegal after six weeks of pregnancy with limited exceptions.

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, however, that the measure could appear on the ballot.

Polling has suggested that the pro-abortion amendment in Florida is poised to fail, with only 46% of Florida voters supporting it as of earlier this month, which is well below the 60% threshold. If it does fail, it will become the first pro-abortion amendment to be defeated at the polls since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Florida’s bishops, calling the proposal an “extremely grave amendment,” said it is an “extreme proposal that legalizes full-term abortion with no protections for the preborn child, including when the child is capable of feeling pain.”

“This proposed amendment to our state constitution would prohibit all restrictions on abortion before viability and create a broad exception that any health care provider could exploit to allow abortion up to birth,” they said.

Maryland

The proposed Maryland Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment, or Question 1, 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 of 60% in both chambers.

Maryland currently places no gestational limits on abortion. Parental notice is required for a minor to have an abortion, but critics say that requirement is easy to circumvent.

The bishops of Maryland say that “a vote against the constitutional amendment is a vote for women and justice” — while acknowledging that “nothing regarding abortion would change in Maryland if this amendment does not pass.”

The amendment, according to the bishops, would divert attention and resources away from efforts that will promote women’s well-being and threaten health care conscience rights; bar or hinder women’s personal decisions and support for pregnancy; and remove flexibility to craft laws that serve residents’ needs and interests, such as safeguards for women’s health, the bishops say.

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.”

The conference has provided a detailed resource page for Missouri voters about the amendment.

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, also known as CI-128, 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, maintaining 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.”

On a resource page about the amendment, the bishops noted that the vast majority of the funding for the pro-abortion amendment has come from organizations outside Montana.

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, Initiative 434, 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, Initiative 439, 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.

Tom Venzor, executive director of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, has called the pro-abortion measure “worse than Roe v. Wade.”

Bishop James Conley of the Diocese of Lincoln recently urged voters to vote against Initiative 439.

Nevada

Nevadans will vote on a measure, Question 6, 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.

The Nevada Catholic Conference is urging all voters to vote no on Question 6, saying that among other things it will remove parental notification, consent, and family involvement from “all reproductive decisions for their minor children, including abortion.”

“Parental consent is required to give a student an aspirin; yet this initiative would allow a minor to obtain an abortion without parental consent,” the bishops note.

In addition, the measure would eliminate the “licensed physician” requirement for performing abortions and substitute “health care practitioner” — which could include nurses, physical therapists, dietitians, and athletic trainers  — which would be “dangerous to women in Nevada.”

New York

A proposed “equal rights” amendment to the New York Constitution, Proposal 1, would bar discrimination based on “pregnancy outcomes” or “gender expression,” effectively enshrining abortion in the state constitution.

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.

The bishops of New York state are urging Catholic New Yorkers to oppose Proposal 1, warning that it would enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution as well as potentially restrict parents’ rights to make medical and other decisions for their minor children, including so-called “gender affirming” procedures.

“This hastily written amendment is presented as a means of banning unjust discrimination against people for a range of characteristics,” said Dennis Poust, executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference.

“However, by singling out both age and gender identity and expression, it opens the door for judges to permit minor children to make life-altering decisions about their bodies without any parental approval or notification,” he added.

“Additionally, it would make it impossible to ever pass even the most commonsense restrictions on abortion.”

South Dakota

The South Dakota secretary of state confirmed in May that a pro-abortion amendment will appear before voters on the November ballot.

The measure, Amendment G, would establish “a constitutional right to an abortion” and provide a legal framework for the regulation of abortion. It would legalize abortion for any reason during the first trimester and allow for the regulation of abortion after that point.

“Any regulation of a pregnant woman’s abortion decision, or of an abortion, during the second trimester must be reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman,” the state secretary of state’s office says. 

“In the third trimester, the amendment allows the regulation or prohibition of abortion except in those cases where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman. Whether an abortion is necessary during the third trimester must be determined by the pregnant woman’s physician according to the physician’s medical judgment.”

Abortion is presently illegal in South Dakota barring exceptions to save the mother’s life.

Michael Pauley, executive director of the South Dakota Catholic Conference, wrote in a September column that the battle over Amendment G “is a serious matter that affects both the common good of the state and the interests of the Church.”

“A ‘no’ vote on G gives these babies a chance to be born. But if a majority vote ‘yes,’ these babies will die. That is the stark choice before us. Only rarely is an issue of such eternal significance placed into our hands,” Pauley wrote.