Measures that would protect abortion access are on track to appear on the ballot in 10 states in November, but abortion opponents are engaged in last-ditch legal maneuvering to try to prevent voters from weighing in on the proposals.
In Republican-dominated Missouri, for example, the state Supreme Court ruled this week that a constitutional amendment to legalize abortion up to the point of fetal viability must be put before voters — issuing its decision less than three hours before a constitutional deadline to finalize the ballot.
The day before, Missouri Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft had decertified the measure in a bid to quash it. Anti-abortion state lawmakers and activists had sued Ashcroft last month, alleging his initial certification of the ballot measure was invalid because it failed to meet all legal requirements.
“This fight was not just about this amendment,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement. Her group led the effort for the ballot measure. “It was about defending the integrity of the initiative petition process and ensuring that Missourians can shape their future directly.”
In Nebraska and South Dakota, two other states where Republicans dominate state government, last-minute legal battles have created uncertainty about whether abortion access measures will stand even if voters approve them.
And in Florida, GOP officials used a state website to warn people against voting for a ballot measure that would expand abortion rights, while state police have shown up at the homes of people who signed the ballot measure petition to confirm that they actually signed it. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said police are investigating possible fraud, but abortion advocates argue the real goal is to intimidate voters. Republicans also control both chambers of that legislature.
The 10 states with abortion protection measures on the ballot are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York and South Dakota. In eight states, the measures were initiated by citizens who had to gather hundreds of thousands of signatures and navigate bureaucratic red tape to get them in front of voters. In two other states, Democratic-controlled Maryland and New York, legislators placed the measures on the ballot.
In several states, anti-abortion activists have tried to remove the measures from the ballot by arguing that they are overly broad, or that the citizen groups behind them didn’t fully comply with state requirements.
Missouri state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman and state Rep. Hannah Kelly, both Republicans, along with two other anti-abortion plaintiffs, filed the lawsuit that wound up before the Missouri Supreme Court.
“The Missouri Supreme Court turned a blind eye and ruled Missourians don’t have to be fully informed about the laws their votes may overturn before signing initiative petitions,” the plaintiffs said in a joint statement shared by Kelly.
Nebraska voters will see dueling constitutional amendments on the ballot: One would establish the right to abortion up to fetal viability, while the other would ban nearly all abortions in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.
But whether Nebraskans will get to vote on them depends on three lawsuits currently before the Nebraska Supreme Court, two of which target the abortion rights amendment. The third was filed by abortion rights advocates, asking the court to either allow both amendments on the ballot or neither of them. Nebraska Republican Secretary of State Bob Evnen must decide by today whether to certify the ballot.
A lawsuit over South Dakota’s abortion amendment goes to trial later this month, and isn’t expected to finish before early voting begins. An anti-abortion rights group sued in June to block the ballot question, challenging the validity of the petition’s signatures.
The proposed amendment, which would limit how and when the state can regulate abortion, will appear on South Dakota’s ballot regardless of the trial’s outcome because the case wasn’t decided by the Aug. 13 certification deadline. But if the court later rules the signatures invalid, it would nullify the results of the vote.
“These last-minute efforts are part of a relentless campaign to make it harder for voters to weigh in on an issue they care deeply about and that can permanently alter their lives,” said Alice Clapman, senior counsel for voting rights at the Brennan Center for Justice, a voting rights group based at the New York University School of Law, in an email to Stateline.
“In states under one-party control, like Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota, abortion opponents are trying to close off the only remaining avenue voters have to reform their laws,” she wrote.
In Florida, the state health agency launched a “Florida is Protecting Life” website earlier this month that says Florida’s abortion amendment “threatens women’s safety” and warns voters, “Don’t let the fearmongers lie to you.” The site makes several other unsubstantiated claims, including that the amendment would lead to unregulated and unsafe abortions.
Asked about accusations that leadership misused public funds to launch the site, the agency defended the website in a statement: “Our new transparency page serves to educate Floridians on the state’s current abortion laws and provide information on a proposed policy change that would impact care across the state.”
But amendment advocates have decried the use of public money. Natasha Sutherland, communications director for Floridians Protecting Freedom, an organization behind the ballot measure, called it a “state-sponsored and taxpayer-funded political ad.”
“Florida politicians are trying to take away our power to decide our future, which is why they are weaponizing a state agency and using taxpayer dollars to undermine the democratic process and threaten the freedoms of every Floridian,” she told Stateline in an email.
Florida agency director Jason Weida said in a statement on the social platform X — shared by the agency’s account — that the page was launched “to combat the lies and disinformation surrounding Florida’s abortion laws.” The agency also released a video this week directing people to the site.
Meanwhile, the Florida Department of State is reviewing thousands of signatures that were collected to get the amendment on the ballot, despite the signatures being verified by local supervisors months ago.
Last month, the Florida Supreme Court sided with the state in allowing language on the ballot that abortion-rights activists say improperly inflates the amendment’s projected costs.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court dismantled the federal constitutional right to an abortion in June 2022, voters in half a dozen states, including conservative Kansas and Kentucky, have voted to protect abortion access. So far, voters have not defeated any abortion rights ballot measure.
A majority of likely Florida voters said they’d vote for the abortion rights measure there, according to a poll released last week by The Hill and Emerson College Polling. Fifty-five percent said they would vote yes on the amendment, while 26% plan to vote no, with 20% unsure. Nearly two-thirds of Arizona voters said they’d vote for Arizona’s constitutional amendment to establish the right to an abortion up to fetal viability, according to a Fox News poll in August.
Clapman said chances of passage vary by state, based on factors including public opinion, the state’s current abortion policy and how the ballot measures are worded.
“Although voters in South Dakota, Missouri and Florida tend to be relatively conservative on abortion issues,” she said, “they also may be particularly motivated to support abortion rights because they’re currently living under abortion bans and are seeing and experiencing the dire effects of these bans.”
–Anna Claire-Vollers, Stateline
Faster than expected says
Forced birth is not pro life. There are plenty of stories of moms who unfortunately didn’t have viable fetus but were forced to birth them and watch them die. I think they should be able to sue the gop for pain and suffering!
Sherry says
Thank you Faster than expected. . . The idea of suing the GOP for pain and suffering is not something I had ever consider before. I wonder if the ACLU has.
LoumeD says
The aborted babies should also be able to sue for pain and suffering..but of course they cannot because they are dead.
Laurel says
LoumeD: Why do “pro lifers” not consider the lives of women and girls?
jake says
For the record, there are six states, NJ, Vermont, Colorado, Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington DC, that allow day or birth abortions (unlimited), tell me how this is right. So, “Faster than expected”, or “Sherry”, tell me how this is acceptable.
FlaglerLive says
Jake, one of our more frequently withheld or banned commenters, is again peddling disinformation and must be missing the timeout room (it’s been a while). For a corrective, see: “Abortion “Until the Day of Birth” Is Almost Never a Thing.”
Wow says
“Protecting life” might include better health care, banning assault rifles and providing adequate mental health services. Apparently the “right” is not interested in any of these “life protecting” measures. Until they do I will assume their issue with abortion has nothing to do with life protection and more to do with punishing and shaming women.
Atwp says
Men trying to tell women to do with their bodies. Why are men telling women what to do with their bodies is beyond me. Me and half of the population can’t have babies, let the women make a decision about their bodies. The world will be a better place to live.
The Sour Kraut says
We continue to march towards a totalitarian state. Our founding fathers must be turning on their graves.
Angry Floridian says
Abortion opponents are small thinkers. This issue is not black and white. Not everyone is a fightned young lady who wants to end a pregnancy to choose a life and career instead of ending up with a life long commitment that you are not ready or competent for nor could not financially support a child.
A lot of abortions are for those who find out their child will endure a life of physical suffering due to a genetic accident or defect which occurs during the embryo/fetal stage of maturation. I would not chose to see my child suffer in pain whether for a few minutes in taking that first breath or to live existence in this manner. I would rather stop the development of these cells before they became a viable infant. I cannot imagine any parent who would chose this for their child. To do so would be cruel, and inhumane.
Then we have child abuse/insest, and rape. Why do people think it is okay for a child less than 16 have a baby. In some instances 11 or 12 years old. Physically dangerous and in some of these cases. Definitley emotionally abusive to a person who is a child themselves. Maybe it was an abusive father or uncle who did this to them. You get to relive that moment again and again.
In the case of rape where that horrible experince happened one time andyou are unfortunate and become pregnant. The nightmare continues you need to carry that life that a vile human forced on you and then you must take care of the child for life. Why does anyone think this is okay? You get to relive that day of the rape every single day/hour for the rest of your life. Yes we have the day after pill but abortion opponents don’t like that either.
Now back to the parents who do not want a child or find themselves not ready emotionally or financially able to support a child. I was in this position back in college. I did get pregnant at the age of 20. I did not have a way to support the child and was not particulary in love with my partner that I thought marriage would be a good idea. I was in love when we slept together. I never thought for once that I wanted to abort this fetus. It is just not who I am or something I could live with. So I said no to abortion. No my child did not have a good life. I did end up marrying my partner because that was how I was brought up in the 70s. Children need both parents. Bad choice on the marriage part. He was lazy alcoholic who made a horrible father/husband. He became abusive later on after my son was born. My upbringing insisted I stay in this abusive marrage. My support system of which included my parents advised me since I made the bed I must now lie in it and endure the marriage. No matter what I had to go through I had to stay because of the kids. I went on to have 2 more children. I stayed in this horrible marriage for 15 years. If I had to do it again, Iwould have had my son and said no to the marriage. Back in the 80s single parenthood was frowned upon.
Withthe techology we have today we can now find out if the fetus has a medical condition not compatible with life. We get to choose to not carry the pregancy further to save our future child from physical pain. We have instances where women miscarry and the tissue does not pass and can cause in some instances life threatening hemorrhage or infection. Especially when a D&C would save her life. If not obtained in time,consequences could be death or the loss of female reproductive organs if this condition is ignored too long. Or the parents who discover at a later ultrasound of a horrible genetic condition that this future child will have a life of pain once it takes its first breath here on earth. This is a medical issue and not an abortion issue. This would mean a medical procedure is required to save the women’s life or prevent further suffering on pregnancies not compatible with life. Abortion opponents feel this pregnancy should be carried to birth no matter what the circumstances.
We have the uneducated making medical decisions where they do not have the comprehention or education to fully understand the body’s function to determine medical issues from abortion. Yes judges are pretty smart, some of our law makers are as well. But the limitation is that knowledge is in their field of education. Physicians and scientists were not consulted on any of these matters when the abortion laws were determined. Only law makers, priests and the general public. 30% perhaps without education beyond high school.
Would you visit your congressman if you had a ruptured appendix for help?.. For the sake of this argument what if you could only have life saving surgery if the congressman/judge deem it medically necessary? (Well that is for another topic of conversation we have our medical insurance who decides this).
Tony Mac says
Once again, Republican legislators practicing medicine without a license. When was the last time you ever hear of a doctor refusing to treat a male because he feared he might be committing a crime? When the Supreme Court voted to vacate Roe, they violated not only a woman’s right to choose her healthcare, they also violated a man’s input into such a decision. Three of the new Court Justices lied to the Senate committee vowing that Roe was “settled law”. Yet when the Federalist Society called, they answered despite a potential perjury charge. They simply don’t care about the rule of law unless it favors their actions. It’s time for a serious change —