Opinion

Donald Trump's plan to "protect" women in action: Two dead, another arrested for miscarriage

Amanda Marcotte
Fri, November 1, 2024 

Donald Trump; A woman crying Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images

Donald Trump's favorite word when talking about abortion bans is "beautiful." When asked in June on Fox News about the states passing abortion bans after his Supreme Court nominees overturned Roe v. Wade, Trump declared "it’s a beautiful thing to watch." He claims to be women's "protector," and recently told women that they "will no longer be thinking about abortion" if he gets elected because women's "lives will be happy, beautiful."

We were reminded again this week of what Trump's "protection" of women looks like in the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the 2022 Supreme Court decision that ended nearly half a century of abortion rights, which was only possible because Trump made good on his 2016 promise to appoint justices who opposed Roe v. Wade. On Wednesday, ProPublica reported on the deaths of two Texas women who were denied miscarriage care at the hospital because that standard of care for failing pregnancies is banned under Texas's draconian abortion law. The Washington Post also reported this week about a Nevada woman who was charged with manslaughter after mourning a miscarriage on Facebook.

While one of the two deceased women in Texas is still unknown, the family of Josseli Barnica spoke to ProPublica. The 28-year-old mother was pregnant with her second child when she miscarried at 17 weeks. Unable to remove the dying fetus, due to Texas law, doctors stood by helplessly while Barnica got sicker from infection over days and finally died. The case sounds much like two from Georgia, where 28-year-old Amber Thurman and 41-year-old Candi Miller passed away, unable to get post-abortion care because of that state's ban. In Nevada, 26-year-old Patience Frazier was arrested after miscarrying a fetus she named "Abel." Authorities claimed she had deliberately aborted her pregnancy, but medical experts say her method — eating a bunch of cinnamon — cannot induce a miscarriage.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

Despite being the person most responsible for the deaths of Barnica, Miller, and Thurman, Trump continues to call himself a "protector" of women, telling a Wisconsin crowd Wednesday he will "protect" women "whether the women like it or not." To normal people, using the posture and language of a violent threat when claiming to "protect" women is confusing. But with Trump, it makes a sick sort of sense, beyond even his history as a serial sexual assailant. In the MAGA parlance, "protect" is a dog whistle for their true intentions for women: domination.



The word reflects a larger tendency of Trump and his followers to see women not as people, but as property of men, especially powerful white men. As journalist Kelly Weill recently argued, in the MAGA worldview, the family is regarded as "a sexualized project of male domination." In this view, women are to be "protected" from outsiders who would rape them, but only because it's a property crime against their male owner. But a father or husband has free rein to dispose of his female property as he will. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson articulated this repeatedly by arguing that sexual abuse of minors isn't really serious if the father has married them off to the rapist first.


“I'm just telling you that arranging a marriage between a 16-year-old and a 27-year-old is not the same as pulling a stranger off the street and raping her. That's b—t,” Carlson said.... The criminal charges that Carlson called “b—t” stemmed from the case of a 14-year-old girl, whom [Warren] Jeffs had forced into marriage with an adult cousin. The girl testified that her husband frequently raped her, and that she survived multiple miscarriages.

MAGA doesn't care about women and girls who die because of abortion bans. Those who die from illegal abortions are viewed as rejecting patriarchal authority and deserving of that death. But even in the cases of those who miscarry and are denied medical care, there's not much concern. That makes sense if you view women less as people and more as property. A woman who miscarries and needs medical care is, in this worldview, much like a malfunctioning appliance. It's just as well to toss it out and get another that won't need as much maintenance.

In these four cases, the women also fall out of the narrow zone of "protection" Trump imagines because of their racial identities or class status. Miller and Thurman were Black and Barnica was an immigrant from Honduras. Frazier, as the Washington Post documented, was impoverished and frequently homeless. The deputy who arrested her had known her from around town, and compared Frazier to "her own mother, who she said often left her five children to fend for themselves in a drug-ridden neighborhood."

But even middle-class white women should know they aren't safe. A number of such women — such as Amanda Zurawski and Kate Cox of Texas — have spoken about their own horrifying experiences being denied care for failing pregnancies, which left Zurawski so badly injured she will likely never give birth. Better-off white women are certainly valued more in the MAGA worldview, but they are still objects judged by how well they serve the patriarchal system. By failing to be "good" at pregnancy, they are seen as malfunctioning and undeserving of care. By speaking out, they have turned into rebellious women who are condemned for their boldness. Anti-abortion leaders relentlessly demonize these women, calling them liars or worse.

Trump continues to deny he wants a national abortion ban, but the safe bet is that, if he wins in November, there will be a national abortion ban. First of all, Trump lies constantly about everything, so his denials on this front are worth nothing — more important is his unwillingness to commit to vetoing any abortion ban a Republican Congress would pass. But even if Republicans don't control Congress, Project 2025 outlines a plan to ban abortion pills through the back door, by revoking their FDA approval. Even if Trump wins, he will lose the majority of female voters, probably by a wide margin. He's a spiteful misogynist, and banning abortion nationwide will simply feel like his "revenge" on women who rejected his "protection."

Abortion access in Michigan: Legal now, but election may have long-term impact

Jenna Prestininzi, Detroit Free Press
Fri, November 1, 2024 


The U.S. Supreme Court's historic reversal of Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, eliminated national abortion rights and left a patchwork of state abortion laws across the country, many of which are considering protections this week.

In Michigan, abortion is legal, while abortion bans or pre-Roe era restrictions are in effect in 21 states, the New York Times reported.

While abortion is not on the ballot in Michigan, which passed state constitutional protection in 2022, abortion access is on the ballot in 10 states this month.

Here's what to know about the laws in Michigan, which could be impacted if Donald Trump wins the presidential election and Republicans advance anti-abortion legislation, or if Kamala Harris wins the presidential election and Democrats advance abortion rights legislation.

More: Can you vote straight ticket in Michigan? What to know on voting in 2024 election
Where do Kamala Harris and Donald Trump stand on abortion access?

Vice President Harris has pledged to legalize abortion access nationwide if elected and opposes a national abortion ban, according to her campaign website.

As president, Trump appointed three conservative justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, who then voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. Trump supports abortion access being decided on a state-by-state basis and opposes a nationwide abortion ban, USA Today reported.

Does Michigan have an abortion ban?

No, abortion access is currently guaranteed under the state Constitution in Michigan.

Voters passed a ballot measure in November 2022 enshrining abortion rights under state Constitution.

Then, in November 2023, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer repealed state laws and regulations restricting abortion rights in the state, including an unenforced 1931 state law that previously criminalized actions by nurses and doctors who aided in abortions.
Is medication abortion legal in Michigan?

Yes, medication abortion is legal in Michigan. Most health care providers offer abortion medication.

More: Your guide to the most interesting — and consequential — races in all 50 states
Are in-clinic abortions legal in Michigan?

Yes, in-clinic abortion procedures are legal under state law in Michigan.
Where is abortion access on the ballot this November?

While abortion access is not on the ballot in Michigan this election, it will be in 10 states. Voters in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York and South Dakota will decide the future of abortion access in their states, USA Today reported.

Contact Jenna Prestininzi: jprestininzi@freepress.com.

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: What to know about abortion access in Michigan ahead of election


Contested state supreme court seats are site of hidden battle for abortion access

Carter Sherman
Sat, November 2, 2024

A person holds a sign during a pro-abortion rights rally on the second anniversary of the supreme court ruling to overturn Roe v Wade, in West Palm Beach, Florida, on 24 June.

Photograph: Marco Bello/AFP/Getty Images

Abortion will be on the ballot in 10 states on Tuesday, and it’s one of the top issues in the presidential contest between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. But it is also key to less publicized but increasingly contested races for seats on state supreme courts, which often have the last word on whether a state will ban or protect access to the procedure.

This year, voters in 33 states have the chance to decide who sits on their state supreme courts. Judges will be on the ballot in Arizona and Florida, where supreme courts have recently ruled to uphold abortion bans. They are also up for election in Montana, where the supreme court has backed abortion rights in the face of a deeply abortion-hostile state legislature.

In addition, supreme court judges are on the ballot in Maryland, Nebraska and Nevada – all of which are holding votes on measures that could enshrine access to abortion in their state constitutions. Should those measures pass, state supreme courts will almost certainly determine how to interpret them.

Indeed, anti-abortion groups are already gearing up for lawsuits.

Related: ‘This is too serious to drown out’: six US voters on what they’re most anxious about

“We’re all going to end up in court, because they’re going to take vague language from these ballot initiatives to ask for specific things like funding for all abortions, abortion for minors without parental consent,” said Kristi Hamrick, chief media and policy strategist for the powerful anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, which is currently campaigning around state supreme court races in Arizona and Oklahoma. “Judges have become a very big, important step in how abortion law is actually realized.”

In Michigan and Ohio, which voted in 2022 and 2023 respectively to amend their state constitution to include abortion rights, advocates are still fighting in court over whether those amendments can be used to strike down abortion restrictions. Come November, however, the ideological makeup of both courts may flip.

Spending in state supreme court races has surged since Roe fell. In the 2021-2022 election cycle, candidates, interest groups and political parties spent more than $100m, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. After adjusting for inflation, that’s almost double the amount spent in any previous midterm cycle.

In 2023, a race for a single seat on the Wisconsin supreme court alone cost $51m – and hinged on abortion rights, as the liberal-leaning candidate talked up her support for the procedure. (As in many other – but not all – state supreme court races, the candidates in Wisconsin were technically non-partisan.) After that election, liberals assumed a 4-3 majority on the Wisconsin supreme court. The court is now set to hear a case involving the state’s 19th-century abortion ban, which is not currently being enforced but is still on the books.

It’s too early to tally up the money that has been dumped into these races this year, especially because much of it is usually spent in the final days of the election. But the spending is all but guaranteed to shatter records.

In May, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and Planned Parenthood Votes announced that they were teaming up this cycle to devote $5m to ads, canvassing and get-out-the-vote efforts in supreme court races in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas. Meanwhile, the ACLU and its Pac, the ACLU Voter Education Fund, has this year spent $5.4m on non-partisan advertising and door-knocking efforts in supreme court races in Michigan, Montana, North Carolina and Ohio. The scale of these investments was unprecedented for both Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, according to Douglas Keith, a senior counsel in the Brennan Center for Justice’s Judiciary Program who tracks supreme court races.

“For a long time, judicial campaign ads often were just judges saying that they were fair and independent and had family values, and that was about it. Now, you’re seeing judges talk about abortion rights or voting rights or environmental rights in their campaign ads,” Keith said.

By contrast, rightwing judicial candidates are largely avoiding talk of abortion, Keith said, as the issue has become ballot box poison for Republicans in the years since Roe fell. Still, the Judicial Fairness Initiative, the court-focused arm of the Republican State Leadership Committee, announced in August that it would make a “seven-figure investment” in judicial races in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas.

Balancing the federal bench

Abortion is far from the only issue over which state courts hold enormous sway. They also play a key role in redistricting, LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights and more. And with the US Congress so gridlocked, state-level legislation and its legality has only grown in importance.


This is the most direct way in which Texas voters can have their voices heard on this issue
Gina Ortiz Jones, leader of Find Out Pac on state supreme court seats

For years, conservative operatives have focused on remaking the federal judiciary in their ideological image – an effort that culminated in Donald Trump’s appointments of three US supreme court justices and has made federal courts generally more hostile to progressive causes. Now, the ACLU hopes to make state supreme courts into what Deirdre Schifeling, its chief political and advocacy officer, calls a “counterbalance” to this federal bench.

“We have a plan through 2030 to work to build a more representative court,” said Schifeling, who has a spreadsheet of the supreme court races that will take place across eight states for years to come. (As a non-partisan organization, the ACLU focuses on voter education and candidates’ “civil rights and civil liberties” records.) This cycle, the organization’s messaging has centered on abortion.

“Nationally, you’re seeing polling that shows the top thing that voters are voting on is the economy. But these judges don’t really influence the economy,” Schifeling said. “Of the issues that they can actually influence and have power over, reproductive rights is by far the most important to voters.”

Abortion rights supporters are testing out this strategy even in some of the United States’ most anti-abortion states. In Texas, where ProPublica this week reported two women died after being denied emergency care due to the state’s abortion ban, former US air force undersecretary Gina Ortiz Jones has launched the Find Out Pac, which aims to unseat three state supreme court justices.

Justices Jane Bland, Jimmy Blacklock and John Devine, the Pac has declared, “fucked around with our reproductive freedom” in cases upholding Texas’s abortion restrictions. Now, Jones wants them out.



Related: How a rightwing machine stopped Arkansas’s ballot initiative to roll back one of the strictest abortion bans

“Why would we not try to hold some folks accountable?” Jones said. “This is the most direct way in which Texas voters can have their voices heard on this issue.” (There is no way for citizens to initiate a ballot measure in Texas.) The Pac has been running digital ads statewide on how the Texas ban has imperiled access to medically necessary care.

However, since state supreme court races have long languished in relative obscurity, voters don’t always know much about them and may very well default to voting on party lines in the seven states where the ballots list the affiliations of nominees for the bench. Although the majority of Texans believe abortions should be legal in all or some cases, nearly half of Texans don’t recall seeing or hearing anything about their supreme court in the last year, according to Find Out Pac’s own polling.

“This conversation that we’re having in Texas, around the importance of judicial races, is new for us as Democrats,” Jones said. “It’s not for the Republicans.”

The 10 states where the right to an abortion is on the ballot in 2024

Clarissa-Jan Lim
Sat, November 2, 2024 

An abortion rights advocate during a protest outside of the Supreme Court on June 24, 2024.

Voters in 10 states, including the battleground states of Arizona and Nevada, will be weighing proposed abortion amendments on their ballots this year, deciding whether or not to protect the right to an abortion in their state constitutions.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade and exacerbated the country’s hodgepodge of abortion laws. But in the years since, voters in multiple states have broadly approved ballot measures to expand and secure abortion rights while striking down proposals to restrict abortion access. Political candidates have also found abortion rights to be a winning topic with constituents.

This year, with 10 states set to vote on abortion ballot measures and a slew of high-stakes races, Democrats are hoping that the popularity of abortion rights will translate into wins for the policy — and their party. Meanwhile, Republicans in several states have tried hard to strike down the proposals before voters can get to the polls.

Here’s where voters will decide on abortion rights on Election Day.

Arizona

A citizen-initiated ballot measure in Arizona would protect the right to abortion and prevent the state from restricting access to the procedure until around 24 weeks, or when a fetus can survive outside the womb. The proposal is likely to pass; a New York Times/Siena College poll from September found that 58% of likely voters said they support the amendment. The measure’s passage would undo a current state ban on abortions after 15 weeks, with no exceptions for rape or incest.
Colorado

In Colorado, one of a handful of states that does not restrict abortion for adults, voters will vote on a measure to enshrine abortion protections in the state constitution. The measure would also lift a ban on using public funds for abortion services, potentially allowing Medicaid or government employee health insurance plans to pay for the procedure.
Montana

Voters in Montana will decide on whether to affirm a 1999 state Supreme Court ruling that protected the right to abortion up until fetal viability. State courts have blocked several anti-abortion bills in the past, citing the 1999 ruling, and abortion rights advocates are hoping to enshrine that right in the state constitution.
Nevada

Abortion in Nevada is already legal until six months, but voters in the battleground state will vote on whether to enshrine that standard in the state constitution. If passed, Nevadans will have to approve the ballot question again in 2026 to formally amend the constitution.
Florida

In spite of a raft of challenges from Gov. Ron DeSantis and other state Republican officials, Florida Amendment 4 is set to appear on the ballot in the Sunshine State. Residents will vote on whether to protect abortion access up until fetal viability, or around 24 weeks. If passed, the amendment effectively undoes the state’s six-week ban. DeSantis has warned that the passage of Amendment 4 would represent “the end of the pro-life movement.”
Nebraska

Nebraska is the only state with competing abortion amendment proposals on the ballot this year. One measure would protect abortion until fetal viability, or “when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.” The other would essentially codify the state’s current ban in its constitution, barring the procedure after the first trimester with exceptions for medical emergencies, rape or incest.



If voters approve both measures, whichever of the two gets more votes will be the one that makes it into the state constitution, according to The Associated Press.
Maryland

Maryland, like Colorado, does not impose any restrictions on abortion throughout the duration of a pregnancy. With an abortion rights measure on the ballot this year, voters will decide whether to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in their state constitution.
Missouri

An amendment to allow the state of Missouri to regulate abortion only after fetal viability, “except to protect the life or health of the woman,” will be on the ballot. The measure’s passage would effectively repeal the state’s near-total ban on abortion.
New York

New Yorkers will vote on a measure to expand the state’s Equal Rights Amendment to add protected classes to include “pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy,” effectively preserving the right to an abortion in the state.

Despite Democrats’ dominance in New York and the state’s historically liberal reputation, the measure is not certain to pass. The ballot proposal does not include plain language to explain that it would protect abortion and LGBTQ rights. Democrats pushed to include such language, but a judge declined to compel the state Board of Elections to do so. New York Republicans, who have gained ground in recent elections, have used the measure’s technical language to inaccurately frame it as dismantling parental rights and expanding trans rights for minors.
South Dakota

South Dakotans are set to vote on a proposal that would allow abortion throughout the first trimester, would permit “regulation” by the state that is “reasonably related” to a pregnant person’s health in the second trimester, and would allow “regulation or prohibition” in the third trimester, with exceptions.

This article was originally published on MSNBC.com

Battles over abortion access fuel US state supreme court races

Nate Raymond
Fri, November 1, 2024 


The second anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, in Washington

(Reuters) - Elections for seats on state supreme courts that once drew little attention have become prominent abortion battlegrounds since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision reversing its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized the procedure nationwide.

That ruling essentially moved the fight over reproductive rights to the states, clearing the way for 13 conservative states to ban abortion and legislatures in others to severely restrict it. It also prompted voters in four states to approve initiatives enshrining abortion rights in state constitutions, with similar measures on ballots in 10 states this year.

State supreme courts have the final word on interpreting state constitutions and new constitutional amendments, significantly raising the stakes for elections to their benches - something that in the past drew far less attention and fewer voters than presidential and other races higher on the ballot.

Advocates on both sides of the abortion issue are targeting judicial races in Michigan and Ohio, two of the 33 states nationwide in which supreme court seats are on the ballot in the Nov. 5 election either through competitive elections or votes to retain appointed jurists.

Advocacy groups are also pouring money into races in states including Montana and North Carolina, where both parties are laying the groundwork for future electoral battles to tilt the courts' makeup, and Arizona, where two Republican-appointed justices who upheld a 1864 abortion ban hope to retain their seats.

"As the U.S. Supreme Court continues to undo federal protections, state supreme courts are going to get more and more on lots of groups' radars," said Deirdre Schifeling, the American Civil Liberties Union's chief political and advocacy officer.

Her group, which has been litigating against state abortion restrictions, has sunk $5.4 million into elections in Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina and Montana to tell voters which judicial candidates support abortion and civil rights.

Planned Parenthood Votes, the political arm of the reproductive healthcare and abortion rights group, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee jointly committed in May to spending at least $5 million on state supreme court races in those four states plus Kentucky and Arizona.

Conservatives are spending millions of dollars countering those efforts, with the Republican State Leadership Committee's Judicial Fairness Initiative targeting judicial elections in Michigan, Ohio, Montana, North Carolina, Arizona and Texas.

In Montana, where the state's high court ruled in 1999 that the state constitution protects abortion rights, Republicans are throwing their support behind two candidates, Cory Swanson and Dan Wilson, whose opponents, Jerry Lynch and Katherine Bidegaray, say they agree with the abortion ruling's reasoning.

IDEOLOGICAL BALANCE AT STAKE

The 2024 contests come a year after record-breaking spending in recent state supreme court races in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where the focus on abortion rights helped fuel Democratic victories. Liberal Janet Protasiewicz won a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the most expensive state supreme court race ever, costing more than $50 million.

In Ohio, six candidates are vying for three seats on the state's supreme court, with Democrats seizing on abortion rights to try to retain two seats they currently hold and claim a third in an open contest. Should they do so, they would flip the ideological balance of a court that currently has a 4-3 Republican majority.

"Extremist judges put Ohio at risk, threatening our freedom and access to abortion," the narrator in a television ad sponsored by Democratic incumbent Justices Michael Donnelly and Melody Stewart and Democratic candidate Lisa Forbes says.

They are campaigning on the issue even after Ohio voters last year approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion rights. Ohio's Republican state attorney general post-amendment is still defending abortion restrictions in court.

In Michigan, where voters also enshrined the right to abortion into their state constitution, two seats are in play in an election that is nonpartisan, but whose candidates are nominated by the Democratic and Republican parties.

Currently those backed by Democrats have a 4-3 majority on the court. The Democratic candidates, incumbent Justice Kyra Harris Bolden and University of Michigan law professor Kimberly Ann Thomas, are significantly outspending Republican rivals Patrick William O'Grady and Andrew Fink, according to campaign finance reports.

SPEAKING ABOUT 'VALUES'



Douglas Keith, a senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice who tracks judicial elections, said campaigning by candidates on partisan issues, including abortion rights, marks a change from how would-be justices in the past "would talk about how they believed in fairness and justice and family values, and that would be about it."

Democratic North Carolina Justice Allison Riggs, a former civil rights lawyer, is among those talking about abortion as she vies for a full eight-year term following her 2023 appointment by the state's Democratic governor to fill a vacancy created by another justice's resignation.

Her opponent, North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, describes himself as "an originalist and a textualist," referring to legal doctrines conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court have relied upon in recent rulings expanding gun rights and curtailing the right to abortion.

Riggs said it's important voters know her own "values" as Democrats fight to keep control of her seat so they can potentially regain a majority over the next two elections on a court that now has a 5-2 Republican majority.

"I'm not promising how I will vote, but I have a lived experience of what it means to control my own body and make my own healthcare decisions," Riggs said.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Deepa Babington





Here’s Every State Where Abortion Laws Are on the Ballot

Stephanie McNeal
Fri, November 1, 2024 


Channing Smith/Getty Images

It’s clear that, for many people, abortion law and reproductive rights after Roe v. Wade are consequential issues compelling them to vote in the 2024 general election.

But while voters across the US will be able to weigh in on the issue indirectly by who they choose for president, voters in 10 different states will have a more direct opportunity to show how they feel. Ballot measures are proposed laws that voters decide to pass or not pass during an election, and this year, 10 states have measures about abortion on the ballot.

The states where voters will be able to weigh in on abortion rights vary. Some, like Colorado, are already among the most progressive areas in the country on the issue and want to turn their current laws into Constitutional amendments to shore them up ahead of a potential Donald Trump presidency. Others, like Missouri, are letting voters decide whether or not to roll back extremely restrictive bans on abortion that were passed after the fall of Roe.

Below, you can find Glamour’s primer on each ballot measure, what it will change or not change, and the current status of abortion laws in each state. As the ballot measures are decided on election night, come back to this page for a running list of which passed, and which did not.

TOPSHOT-US-politics-RIGHTS-abortionSAUL LOEB/Getty Images
Arizona Proposition 139

The laws surrounding abortion in Arizona post-Dobbs are complex. But in the 2024 election, voters will have a chance to (somewhat) change that by choosing whether to enact Proposition 139. It states that Arizonans will have the “fundamental right” to abortion before the point of fetal viability.

Now, fetal viability, of course, is complicated, as there’s no clear date upon which a fetus suddenly becomes “viable” (in fact, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology “strongly discourages” using this language in abortion legislation because of this). According to the proposition, though, this term conveys the point at which “in the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus.”

Currently in Arizona, abortion is legal up to 15 weeks of pregnancy, and is allowed after the fact if there’s a “medical emergency.” So Prop 139 would not only allow abortions later in pregnancy, when many fetal anomalies are first detected, but would enshrine reproductive rights into law.

Colorado Amendment 79

Colorado has been among the most liberal states in the nation when it comes to reproductive rights; it’s one of a handful that doesn’t put a restriction on abortion at any stage. But now, the state is taking a step to enshrine those rights into its Constitution.

Amendment 79 would make the right to an abortion a recognized guarantee, ensuring that the government can “not deny, impede, or discriminate against the exercise of that right, including prohibiting health insurance coverage for abortion.” It also would repeal an amendment from 1984, which stops public funds from being used for abortions.

Since the measure is an amendment to the state Constitution, it will require 55 percent of the vote to pass.

Florida Amendment 4

Floridians are going to have the chance to substantially restore reproductive rights in their state on Election Day with Amendment 4, which would make abortion legal up to the point of viability.

The amendment would further protect the right to choose by stating that “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion” under these circumstances in the future. Past the point of viability—which again, is an imperfect measure—abortion would also be legal in cases where it is necessary to “protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”

The amendment would be a huge win for advocates, as Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature enacted a near-total abortion ban earlier this year. The current law bans abortions after six weeks of gestation, a.k.a. two weeks after a missed period and before many women even know they are pregnant. It doesn’t include exceptions for rape or incest. It also makes it a felony for doctors if they are charged with performing an abortion outside of these narrow legal parameters. Therefore, if Amendment 4 passed, it would not only restore abortion rights for Floridians, but supporters also are intending that it would ensure they would be protected in the future.
Maryland Question 1

Like Colorado, Maryland’s amendment on abortion rights is more of a preventive measure rather than a mandate that will enact sweeping change. That’s because the state similarly does not restrict abortion at any gestational age, making it another of one of the most progressive places in the country for reproductive rights.

However, advocates in Maryland introduced the amendment to ensure that these rights can never be tampered with. “With reproductive rights under attack, we must amend our state Constitution to ensure politicians can never undermine our rights in the future,” organizers of the amendment said.


If passed, the amendment will enshrine in the state’s Constitution that every person has “the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one’s own pregnancy.”

Missouri Amendment 3

Amendment 3 in Missouri had a 18-month fight to even appear on the ballot. In September, the state’s Supreme Court ruled that the amendment, which would strike down Missouri’s current abortion ban and legalize the procedure until fetal viability, could be taken to voters after a challenge from pro-life activists and lawmakers. They had argued, according to St. Louis Public Radio, that the initial petition for the measure was invalid.

Now Missouri voters will decide whether they want to restore reproductive rights in the state or stick with its current ban, which restricts the procedure in nearly all cases. The only exception is for “cases of medical emergency,” which the law does not further define.

The state was one of the first to nearly totally ban abortion post the fall of Roe, with its “trigger law” going into effect the same day.
Montana CI-128

In Montana, voters will also have the chance to further enshrine current law on abortion by amending their state’s Constitution. CI-128 would make it constitutionally protected for people to “make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion.”

The measure also draws the line at fetal viability, saying the state cannot enact any restrictions on the procedure before that milestone, and further says the state cannot restrict abortions if the life of the pregnant person is at risk.

The measure wouldn’t change much on the ground in Montana, where current law already allows for abortion up to the time of fetal viability. But advocates say it’s an important step to make sure those protections never go away. “This is an exciting opportunity to secure our rights for generations to come,” the ACLU of Montana stated.
Nebraska: Initiative 434 and Initiative 439

Nebraskans have perhaps the most unique ballot regarding abortion on Election Day: They will cast their votes on two competing measures on the issue.

The first, Nebraska Initiative 434, would essentially keep things as is. Currently, Nebraska bans abortions after 12 weeks of gestation, and the measure would amend the state’s Constitution to state that “unborn children shall be protected from abortion in the second and third trimesters.” It does include an exception for the health of the pregnant person or rape and incest.



The second, Nebraska Initiative 439, would also amend the state’s Constitution but would restore reproductive rights further into pregnancy. It states that pregnant people would have a “fundamental right to abortion” up until the time of viability, or when the life or health of the patient is at risk. If you’re wondering what happens if voters vote yes on both measures, the one with the most votes overall will win.
New York: Proposal 1

New York voters have the chance to enshrine abortion rights into law as part of a larger measure to ensure women will be treated fairly under the law.

Proposal 1, or the state’s Equal Rights Amendment, proposes amending the state Constitution to add several protected classes to the clause that now protects against discrimination based “on race, color, creed, or religion.” The new version would also ban discrimination based on “ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” Enshrining these protections into law would have the effect of protecting reproductive freedom in the state, which currently allows for abortions up to 24 weeks, and at any time if your health or pregnancy is at risk.

It’s an interesting approach to enshrining abortion rights into law, especially because the amendment doesn’t use the word “abortion.” Proponents say that wording the law in this way is meant to be a protection against any sort of federal anti-abortion law that could hypothetically arise, according to The City.
Nevada: Question 6

In Nevada, voters will get a chance to amend their state’s Constitution to protect reproductive rights under slightly different wording.

In its ballot measure, the right to abortion care up to fetal viability is referred to as an “individual’s fundamental right,” one which the measure says will allow “an individual to make their own decision.” It also would allow an individual to get an abortion to protect their own health or life.

Nevada abortion law hasn’t changed since Roe was overturned and is currently allowed up to fetal viability, which it defines as 24 weeks. Similar to some of the other measures, this would fortify current law rather than create anything new.
South Dakota: Constitutional Amendment G

In South Dakota, abortion is currently banned with very limited exceptions, and if medical professionals are charged with unlawfully performing the procedure, they could face the risk of being charged with a felony. But now, voters have the chance to change that.

Constitutional Amendment G is not as progressive a measure as some of the others being considered in other states, as it only codifies the right to an abortion within the first trimester, during which, it states, the procedure may not be regulated. During the second trimester, abortion may be regulated but “only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman,” while in the third, abortion may be regulated or banned except for when the pregnant person’s health or life is at risk.

If passed, the Argus Leader reported, the amendment would invalidate the current abortion ban, which went into effect the same day Roe was overturned.