Backers of legal abortion have upper hand as voters will face issue in 10 states
Backers of legal abortion have upper hand as voters will face issue in 10 states
Polls and campaign financial reports find pro-life activists lagging
Supporters of legalized abortion appear to have a strong advantage as voters in 10 states in November will be deciding the issue, marking the first time in history that abortion will have been on the ballot in so many states simultaneously. As abortion is the issue that has most galvanized American Christian evangelicals for nearly a half-century1, the elections could help determine how many evangelicals will cast ballots this November, possibly having an effect on the presidential and down-ballot races.
The abundance of abortion plebiscites became a likelihood with the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson U.S. Supreme Court decision, which tossed Roe v. Wade and left abortion as an issue to be decided individually by states. Since then, voters facing the issue in other states have generally sided in favor of allowing the practice, and anti-abortion forces hope to reverse that trend.
Polls in nearly all the 10 states suggest that voters will likely support plans to legalize or give constitutional support to the practice. And in each of the states other than South Dakota, backers of legal abortion have overwhelmingly raised more campaign money than the opponents.
All of the measures on the November ballots would in someway strengthen the legal framework for allowing abortions; some propose to modify state constitutions while others take a statutory approach. Some would radically change current practices, while others merely reaffirm what is already being done. Here is a quick at the proposals on ballots:
Arizona
Proposition 139, the Right to Abortion Initiative, would amend the state’s Constitution to prohibit the state from interfering with a fundamental right to abortion before the point of fetal viability, defined as the time that a fetus would survive outside the womb without taking extraordinary medical measures.
Under current law, abortion is legal for up to 15 weeks since the last menstrual period. It remains legal beyond that point in case of a “medical emergency,” defined as a situation where an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother or to prevent a major, irreversible impairment.
The amendment appears likely to pass. A Fox News poll of registered voters in August found 73 percent support.
At last report, the leading organization backing the measure had spent about $13.5 million in the campaign, while opponents had spent less than $0.5 million.
Colorado
The Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative would enshrine the right to abortion in the Colorado Constitution and remove an existing provision that prevents the use of public funds for abortions other than those needed to protect the life of the mother or her unborn child.
The proposed amendment also would require that the state to “not deny, impede, or discriminate against the exercise” of abortion, including the imposition of restrictions on insurance companies paying for abortions.
Colorado already permits abortion without restriction as to length of the pregnancy. One of the main effects of the amendment would be to allow state and local governments to include abortion in their health insurance plans.
As a constitutional amendment, the initiative requires a 55 percent yes vote to pass.
Supporters of the measure have an overwhelming advantage in campaign funding. At last report, the main organization in support had spent $5.7 million, while three organizations in opposition had spent nearly $21,000.
Florida
One of the most closely watched initiative fights is taking place in Florida, where polls suggest that a pro-choice constitutional amendment has majority support but could struggle to get the 60 percent supermajority vote needed for passage.
The Right to Abortion Initiative, also known as Amendment 4, would protect the right to an abortion before viability, or later if needed to protect the mother’s health. The amendment does not define viability; it also would authorize the patient’s healthcare provider to determine when an abortion is necessary to protect her health.
Florida currently has a six-week abortion ban, meaning that approval of the initiative would represent a substantial change in state law.
Credible polls conducted during August showed the measure having support ranging from 56 to 61 percent, although the large number of undecided voters in the poll suggest that the amendment is well within reach of obtaining the 60 percent threshold.
Backers have a strong advantage in campaign funding, having raised $42.6 million at last report compared with $3.8 million for opponents.
Maryland
The right to an abortion is already protected by statute in Maryland, but the proposed Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment would put that protection in the state constitution. Specifically, the proposal establishes a right to right to reproductive freedom, defined to include “the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy.”
Current law allows abortion until viability, or later if the woman’s life or health is endangered over if there is a serious fetal anomaly.
The measure was placed on the ballot with unanimous Democratic support and overwhelming Republican opposition.
At last report, supporters had amassed over $568,000 in their campaign war chest, while opponents lagged far behind with about $83,000.
Missouri
The Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative would amend the Missouri Constitution to protect the right to reproductive freedom, which is defined as the right to “to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.”
Viability is defined as the “significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.” Abortions could be allowed if the fetus is viable to protect the mother’s life or physical or mental health.
Currently, Missouri has one of the strongest abortion bans in the country. Abortion is allowed only to protect the life of the mother or to prevent irreversible physical harm to her.
At last report, supporters of the amendment had raised $5.5 million, compared with about $200,000 by opponents.
Polling has been sparse. One poll in early August found support from about 52 percent of likely voters compared with 34% in opposition.
Montana
Montana is one of the reddest states to allow abortion where it hasn’t been forced to by courts; the proposed Right to Abortion Initiative would protect the right to abortion by amending the state’s Constitution.
The proposal would enshrine the “right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion” up to the point of viability. Viability is defined as “the point in pregnancy when, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.”
Abortions could be allowed after viability when it is “medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.”
The measure also prevents other types of government interference with a pregnancy unless there is a compelling government interest in doing so. A “compelling” interest is defined as one that “clearly and convincingly addresses a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk to a pregnant patient and does not infringe on the patient’s autonomous decision making.”
At last report, supporters have the amendment had spent nearly $8 million in campaigning with about $4 million remaining in funds raised. Opponents had spent nearly all of the $29,000 they had raised.
Nebraska
Nebraska has two conflicting abortion means on the ballot to amend the state Constitution. One, known as the Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment, would prohibit abortions after the first trimester, or about 12 weeks into a pregnancy. The other, the Right to Abortion Initiative, would protect the right to an abortion through fetal viability, generally considered to be about 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
The 12-week limit coincides with current state law.
In effect, the decision facing voters is whether abortion should be legal during the first trimester only, or for about the first two trimesters.
According to an NPR news report, if both measures pass and the governor determines that there is a conflict between them, the one with more votes will be adopted.
Although the trimester plan allows for abortions later in pregnancy than some state bans, it has the support of Nebraska right-to-life groups including the Nebraska Catholic Conference and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. The Right to Abortion initiative has the support of groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood.
Nevada
The Right to Abortion Initiative would add a section to the Nevada Constitution to protect the right to an abortion up to the point of fetal viability. Viability is defined as “the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the patient's treating health care practitioner, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.”
The amendment would not significantly affect current state law, which allows abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
There has been little polling on the measure, although a Fox News poll in August found 75 percent support among registered voters.
At last report, leading opponents had not reported campaign donations or expenditures. Supporters reported raising about $4.65 million.
New York
Unlike the 10 other measures on state ballots, the Equal Protection of Law Amendment in New York does not directly control abortion. Instead, it add language to the New York Bill of Rights saying that people cannot be denied rights based on “ethnicity, national origin, age, and disability” or “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.”
The measure has been generally supported by abortion-rights supporters in part because of fears that governments might discriminate because of decisions people have made about abortions. In general, however, backers have promoted the broad civil-rights protections in the amendment rather than focusing on abortion.
The measure, known formally as New York Proposal 1, was referred to the ballot by the state’s Legislature.
Proponents have a strong edge in campaign fundraising. At last report they had raised $2.75 million compared with $275,000 for the opposition.
South Dakota
The Right to Abortion Initiative on South Dakota’s ballot is unusual in that it directly uses the logic of the Roe v. Wade decision, setting up a trimester framework for recognizing the right to an abortion in the state Constitution. It would prohibit state regulation of a pregnancy during the first trimester, take steps to protect the woman’s health (but not prevent abortion) during the second trimester, and allow lawmakers to regulate or prohibit abortion in the third trimester.
South Dakota currently has one of the strictest abortion laws in the country, allowing the procedure only to protect the life of the mother.
South Dakota is the one state where backers and opponents of a measure are fairly evenly matched in their campaign financing. At last report, the leading anti-abortion group had a slight edge, raising nearly $370,000 compared with backers’ $349,000.
Major news media haven’t reported any credible polling on the measure since June, when a pair of polls found majority support for the amendment.
At the time of the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, while many evangelicals opposed abortion, it was not a major political issue. Some conservative denominations, including the Southern Baptist Convention, rejected blanket condemnations of its practice. It wasn’t until the growth of the Moral Majority in the 1980s that the issue became a galvanizing one for evangelicals.