1). “What Banning Abortion Travel Looks Like”, Jun 20, 2024, Jessica Valenti, Abortion, Every Day, at < https://jessica.substack.com/
2). “Meet the Coalition of Governors Determined to Protect Abortion Rights for All Americans”, Jun 20, 2024, Belle Taylor-McGhee, Ms. Magazine, at < https://msmagazine.com/2024/
3). “Ballot Tracker: Status of Abortion-Related State Constitutional Amendment Measures for the 2024 Election”, Jun 21, 2024, Anon, Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), at < https://www.kff.org/womens-
4). “Where abortion is on the ballot in November”, May 23, 2024, Sareen Habeshian, Axios, at < https://www.axios.com/2024/04/
5). “A Good Friday funeral in Texas. Baby Halo's parents had few choices in post-Roe Texas”, Apr 6, 2023, Selena Simmons-Duffin, National Public Radio (NPR), includes link to a 3:43 audio version, at < https://www.npr.org/sections/
6). “Listen”, Jun 4, 2024, Past comments about abortion by current Republican candidate for North Carolina Governor Mark Robinson, 30 second campaign ad from Josh Stein Gubernatorial Campaign, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
~~ recommended by dmorista ~~
Introduction by dmorista: Another fine roundup of Abortion Issues by Jessica Valenti in Item 1).' “What Banning Abortion Travel Looks Like”. Item 2)., “ Meet the Coalition of Governors ….”, looks at actions being taken by the Democratic Party Governors of 21 states, the leadership of Washington D.C. and the Governor of Guam to protect Abortion Rights. They might fall somewhat short of the ideal but are in very stark contrast with the cruel and coercive and sneaky machinations of the Forced-Birth / Forced-Pregnancy regimes found in the Fascist leaning Red States. The article lists various initiatives taken in the states that are members of this Coalition. These include providing financial assistance to women to help them in obtaining wanted abortions, passing shield laws to protect abortion providers who work in their states from the legal attacks of the Ultra-Reactionaries such as the convicted swindler Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, and similar scoundrels in Missouri, Alabama and other Red States, stockpiling abortion pills in case of a Supreme Court ruling to outlaw or greatly impede the use of them, and building new clinics to care for the thousands of women who are now fleeing places like Texas for abortion care.
Item 3)., “Ballot Tracker: Status of Abortion ….”, and Item 4)., “Where abortion is on the ballot ….” both provide analysis of the issues in the 11 states where abortion rights struggles and where elections to amend state constitutions are already scheduled or are being demanded by abortion rights movements. In 4 states there will be votes to amend the state constitution, these are Florida, Maryland, Colorado, and South Dakota; and in 3 states the petitions with signatures have been turned in, in all cases with a large margin over the required number of signatures, these are Missouri, Montana, and Nevada. In 3 states signatures are still being gathered, these are Arkansas, Nebraska, and Arizona, and in Pennsylvania a Republican plan that passed through the State Legislature at this point, wants to reduce access to abortion, by stopping any use of pubic funding for abortions.
Reported in Item 5)., “A Good Friday funeral in Texas ….”, is the sad story of yet another forced-pregnancy / forced-birth from Texas. A woman there was forced to carry to term a fetus that had anacephaly (her head was not fully formed) and absolutely no chance of survival. This woman, and her husband, already had 4 children and were also raising a GodChild. They could not afford to leave the Forced-Birth Regime of Texas to go elsewhere for abortion services. In fact, living in a trailer in rural East Texas, they could not afford a funeral and some right-wing Forced-Birth / Forced-Pregnancy service gave some lame help for fundraising but they fell way short. Luckily for the couple after the story was broadcast on NPR listeners to the network sent in $29,000 of funds, more than enough to bury the baby and have some money left over for the other children they are raising.
Finally, Item 6)., “Listen”, a 30 second campaign ad for Josh Stein, the Democratic Party's candidat for Governor in North Carolina, exposes some of the vicious ranting and raving of this particularly crazed Republican, who should never gain access to power in North Carolina or any other state.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What Banning Abortion Travel Looks Like
Click to skip ahead: How They Ban Travel looks at how travel restrictions for those on probation and parole could be applied more broadly. In Comstock News, Dems are finally moving to repeal. Ballot Measure Updates from South Dakota, New York and Arkansas. In the Nation, a ruling against the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and a SCOTUS update. A reminder of what’s at stake in 2024. In Care Denied, a Catholic hospital system is allowing ‘medically-necessary’ abortions in its hospitals. Finally, in Attacks on Data, Texas may stop working with CDC on maternal death count.
How They Ban Travel
I cannot stress enough how important this piece by reporter Candice Norwood at The 19th is. Reporting on a policy briefing from the Prison Policy Initiative (PPI), Norwood writes about what traveling out-of-state for an abortion looks like for someone on parole or probation. The short version is that they need government approval to leave their state—navigating a maze of logistical and financial barriers that make it impossible to get timely care, assuming they can get care at all.
PPI researcher director Wendy Sawyer tells Nowrood they “have to literally go and ask permission from their probation parole officers, or from the court, to cross state lines,” and that “you have to give really detailed information about what your travel plan is.”
In addition to The 19th’s terrific article, I highly recommend reading PPI’s brief itself. It details how even those who get permission to travel will have to deal with serious delays due to fees and logistical coordination. For something like abortion—where how far along you are in pregnancy can determine where you can legally get care or what kind of abortion you can obtain—the difference of a few days means everything.
In effect, this is a travel ban on some of the most vulnerable women in the country. And as is the case with so many other abortion-related issues that disproportionately impact marginalized communities—like criminalization or ‘anti-trafficking’ mandates—what happens to one group today comes for the rest of us tomorrow.
Reading through PPI’s brief and Norwood’s article, I realized that the system in place for those on parole or probation is pretty much exactly how Republicans would implement travel restrictions for any pregnant person: Permission slips and state notifications, bureaucratic red tape that keeps people from getting timely care.
If that sounds like a reach to you, please remember that it was less than a year ago that Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall argued in a legal brief that states have the right to restrict pregnant women’s travel.
He claimed that because the government has a “legitimate interest” in “preserving unborn life,” the state “can burden interstate travel when that burden is reasonable.” (Emphasis his.) What’s a ‘reasonable’ burden on travel? Marshall points to travel restrictions and notification mandates for sex offenders.
Sound familiar?
What also stuck out to me was that some states require those on parole or probation to submit information on where they’re going, when, and—most importantly—why. That kind of reporting is similar to what we’re already seeing from the anti-abortion movement, which is obsessed with data collection and undermining patient privacy.
All of which is to say: We don’t need to imagine what travel bans would look like, because they’re already here. It’s just a matter of how much people care about who is being targeted first.
Comstock News
Better late than never? Democrats are finally moving to repeal the Comstock Act, the zombie law conservatives plan to use to enact a backdoor national abortion ban. This is something abortion rights advocates have been screaming about since Roe was overturned: The Comstock Act, which prohibits ‘obscene’ materials from being sent through the mail, could be used by a Republican White House to ban abortion medication and supplies from being shipped anywhere in the country.
Sen. Tina Smith, who is introduced legislation today, said a Donald Trump presidency could “misapply this 150-year-old Comstock law to deny American women their rights, even in states where abortion rights are protected by state law.”
You may remember that a couple of months ago, NOTUS revealed that some mainstream abortion rights groups had asked Democrats not to take action on Comstock right away. Sources told me at the time that legislative teams at groups like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU were concerned that legislation to repeal Comstock would interfere with their message that this is an essentially dead law.
As I wrote then, that argument doesn’t really hold water once you have SCOTUS justices name-checking Comstock. Conservatives have also been very explicit about their Comstock hopes: it features in their ‘Project 2025’ plan for a Donald Trump presidency, and anti-abortion activists have been trying to use it in local ordinances.
It’s vital that we make sure voters know the danger Comstock poses. A Navigator poll this month showed that 7 in 10 Americans have heard “nothing” about the Comstock Act, but that once informed, 2 in 3 supported changing the law so it no longer applied to abortion.
The poll also reported that most Americans believe if Trump wins, he’ll ban abortion nationwide—including banning abortion medication by mail. That means this is a real opportunity for Joe Biden to talk about Comstock in next week’s presidential debate.
If you just can’t get enough of my abortion analysis, I spoke to Jon Stewart this week about the nightmare that is post-Roe America:
Ballot Measure Updates
We have good news and bad news on ballot measures today, so let’s start with the good news: New York’s Equal Rights Amendment is back on the ballot. Last month, a judge ruled that the ERA—which includes protections for abortion patients—couldn’t be on the ballot because of a procedural error. (Democrats accused Republicans of forum shopping to get the issue in front of an anti-abortion judge.)
But this week, appellate judges restored the proposed amendment to November’s ballot. While the ERA won’t explicitly protect the right to abortion, it bans discrimination against abortion patients—which advocates say will protect abortion rights in effect.
I told you Monday that an anti-abortion group in South Dakota had filed a legal challenge against the pro-choice amendment making its way to voters. Life Defense Fund claims that abortion rights group Dakotans for Health broke “petition circulatory laws.”
South Dakota Searchlight has an explainer on the lawsuit, along with some vital information on the legal nitty gritty that anti-abortion activists are using to keep voters from having a say. This comes on the heels of anti-abortion activists in the state calling voters who signed the petition and pressuring them to withdraw their signatures while pretending to be government officials.
There’s a reason South Dakota conservatives are getting desperate: a recent poll found that the pro-choice measure has a near-20 point lead.
Speaking of Republicans trying to stop voters from having a direct say on abortion rights: In Arkansas, the Republican-led House passed a resolution opposing a pro-choice ballot measure, urging voters not to support the amendment. The bill claims that the Arkansas Abortion Amendment would legalize “abortion on demand,” endanger parental consent laws, and “jeopardize the constitutionality of public health and safety requirements.”
If you want an update on the status of all abortion-related ballot measures, check out Ballotpedia.
In the Nation
The Supreme Court didn’t announce their ruling in the EMTALA case this morning, but there’s a chance they’ll do so tomorrow. Remember, this is the case that will determine whether states can deny women life-saving abortions in hospital emergency rooms—which is a sentence that I can’t believe I have to write.
When a ruling does come down, Abortion, Every Day will have a live-chat going for paid subscribers who want to commiserate, share information or simply not be alone in what I suspect will be a shitty moment. (Maybe I’m wrong! I hope so!) AED will also host a live-chat during the first presidential debate next week, so be on the lookout for emails with those links. Make sure you’re signed up to join the conversation:
This is frustrating: This week, a federal judge ruled that employers in Louisiana and Mississippi don’t have to give abortion patients unpaid time off. The lawsuit is part of a conservative outcry over the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act; Republicans and anti-abortion groups are pissed off that the EEOC said the federal law requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for pregnant workers, including those who get abortions.
U.S. District Judge David Joseph, a Donald Trump appointee, ruled that the EEOC participated in “semantic gymnastics,” and that abortion isn’t a “medical condition” that employers have to accommodate. His decision only applies to the two states and anti-abortion groups who brought the suit, but there’s an ongoing challenge seeking to permanently strike down the EEOC’s guidance.
I don’t think I need to tell you how cruel this is. Again, we’re talking about unpaid time off for people who need to recover from a medical procedure. For a reminder of how important this law is for abortion patients, check out this Associated Press piece reporting on Mylissa Farmer: She had to travel to Illinois for a life- and health-saving abortion after being denied care in Missouri and Kansas.
Farmer, who worked as a sales representative, was pressured by her supervisor to return to work throughout her whole ordeal—even though her doctor recommended she take two weeks off to recover. Because Farmer was terrified of being fired, she returned after just two days.
“At these lower paying job levels, I don’t think a lot of people realize you are very easily replaced in these types of situations,” she said.
Quick hits:
Karen Finney writes at CNN about Republican attacks on birth control and beyond;
Cosmopolitan highlights queer people’s abortion stories;
Vanity Fair on Lizz Winstead’s new abortion rights documentary, No One Asked You;
And Ms. magazine on the Reproductive Freedom Alliance of pro-choice governors.
2024
In case you need a reminder of what’s at stake this November, check out this quote from Kristi Hamrick, a strategist for the anti-abortion extremist group, Students for Life:
“In a Trump White House, there’d be an immediate clearing of the weaponized HHS, FDA, EPA, that would be day one, and that we would have people who actually prioritize women’s life and health over the abortion industry interests. With the right people in the right agencies, we can have people who are preemptively, proactively protecting women’s lives and health and addressing the harms of these pills.”
I want to be clear about what she’s saying here. Anti-abortion groups know they don’t need a national abortion ban—they just need to change up the heads of key agencies. With a new FDA head, for example, they can repeal access or approval for abortion medication—which accounts for 63% of all abortions. A new DOJ lead would use the Comstock Act to outlaw the shipping of anything related to abortion or birth control. And if you want to know about what she means by the EPA, read at your own risk.
Care Denied
This is interesting: Catholic health system Bon Secours will now allow “medically necessary abortions,” setting it apart from other religious institutions that only allow life-saving abortions. With no firm guidelines on what constitutes a life-threatening pregnancy, doctors in anti-choice states—regardless of their institution—have been struggling to provide their patients necessary care.
A letter from parent company Bon Secours Mercy Health says, “we will back our physicians and clinicians as they do what’s medically necessary and best for our patients.”
A spokesperson for the health system—which manages hospitals in Virginia, Ohio, South Carolina and Kentucky—says, “while the legislative environment is complex, our mission compels us to provide compassionate care for all.”
In January, AED reported on data showing Catholic health systems are fueling the U.S. maternal mortality crisis:
Attacks on Data
If you’re a regular reader, you know I write a lot about the anti-abortion movement’s attacks on data and science—specifically how they’re trying to sow distrust in maternal mortality data. Essentially, they’re preemptively claiming you can believe those numbers because they know abortion bans are killing women.
Well, things are coming to a head in Texas, where the state may stop participating in the federal program to count maternal deaths. Yes, seriously.
Eleanor Klibanoff at The Texas Tribune reports that Texas approved $6 million for the creation of a program that would allow the state to track its own maternal deaths, removing itself from the CDC system that every other state uses.
Related: It was just last month that anti-abortion extremist Ingrid Skop was appointed to the Texas maternal mortality committee. This is a woman whose ‘research’ has been retracted by publishers, who claims abortion is never necessary to save women’s lives, and who believes abortion bans never hurt women.
Most relevant, Skop argues that maternal mortality statistics can’t be trusted because they’re undercounting deaths caused by abortions: She wants maternal death statistics to include women who die by suicide after having an abortion, even when there’s no connection.
So we have one of the nation’s leading anti-abortion activists on the maternal mortality committee, and the state poised to leave the federal program that tracks maternal deaths. What could go wrong?!
Luckily, it’s clear that there are OBGYNs and other experts on the committee who are raising the alarm. Committee chair Dr. Carla Ortique flagged concerns about the state leaving the CDC program this week, suggesting that they stay put—even if that means using federal and state data systems at the same time. (It also appears that the rest of the committee is concerned abut being painted with a broad brush because of Skop’s national profile.)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Meet the Coalition of Governors Determined to Protect Abortion Rights for All Americans
The Reproductive Freedom Alliance is a nonpartisan coalition of 23 governors determined to protect abortion rights and reproductive health.
Just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health in June 2022, the clock began ticking for women in states harboring abortion bans and trigger laws that, upon Roe’s reversal, would be allowed to take effect. One by one, antiabortion states instituted a patchwork of polices that could make the procedure all but inaccessible depending on your state and your zip code.
It was because of her zip code that one patient, who wished to remain anonymous, drove four hours from Sparks, Nevada (a suburb of Reno), to San Francisco in early April to have an abortion.
She had made the decision to terminate her pregnancy after learning her baby would suffer a severe abnormality, but because her life was not at risk, doctors in Reno refused to perform the abortion—even though it’s legal in the state.
She had the choice of making the eight-hour drive to Las Vegas, where the total cost of the abortion would be double what she would have paid had a local provider been available, or drive four hours to San Francisco. Not only was the Bay Area city much closer, but she had learned that California would reimburse her for all her expenses, including gas, lodging and the cost of the procedure.
She said the decision to terminate was hard as well as very emotional.
“I was just standing in front of the [San Francisco] clinic door bawling my eyes out,” she told Ms. “I couldn’t say a word. And the doctor came out and took me inside and just let me cry for a while. She just let me cry.”
This type of nonjudgmental and supportive abortion care is what a growing number of states across the U.S. are offering in the wake of Dobbs for people like her—patients denied abortion services in their own state for myriad reasons.
In California, one of the most protective states providing legal abortion, more than $200 million was allocated in fiscal year 2022-2023 to support women seeking abortion services as well as abortion providers.
“We thought we needed to assure Californians that we had their back, that they could get the reproductive healthcare they need,” said Julia Spiegel, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) senior policy adviser for reproductive rights.
California has done more than allocate dollars and resources. The state has passed numerous laws since Dobbs to protect abortion access, including measures to limit the ability of antiabortion states to enforce their abortion restrictions on women who travel to California for the procedure. Just three days after the Supreme Court decision, the governor issued an executive order to protect California providers from out-of-state investigations, extraditions and prosecutions. Then, in the 2022 midterm elections, less than five months after Roe was overturned, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 1, explicitly enshrining the right to abortion in the state constitution.
Seeking to have a much broader impact, Newsom convened a nonpartisan coalition of 23 governors determined to protect abortion rights and reproductive health. Called the Reproductive Freedom Alliance, the coalition’s executive committee—comprised of California, New Mexico, Illinois, North Carolina and Massachusetts meets frequently to help set the group’s trajectory. Spiegel said the alliance won’t allow itself to get distracted by the enormous scope of work and the ongoing attacks on reproductive freedom.
“The most immediate one in terms of time frame is the mifepristone case before the Supreme Court. But there are many others,” Spiegel said. “You saw the IVF case out of Alabama. We are following the Idaho litigation about the travel ban for minors. There are so many different kinds of threats. … We have to stay on top of all of them.”
Many states, like California, are seeing a surge in patients traveling from other states to seek abortion services. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy orÏganization supporting reproductive health and rights worldwide, nearly one in five U.S. patients are now leaving their own state for abortion services.
In Colorado, New Mexico and Illinois, where the right to abortion is protected, the influx has been more sizable as nearly every neighboring state is hostile to abortion.
“We’re seeing not just a large number of women coming from surrounding states that are adjacent to us, but also from as far south as Texas,” Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) told Ms. “If you look at the map in terms of where someone could turn from a state where it is illegal, or it’s been nearly banned altogether—if you go south from Illinois, it’s basically all antiabortion states.”
Pritzker said he is proud of what Illinois has done to support abortion rights, including repealing the state’s trigger law in 2018 and passing the Reproductive Health Act in 2019 in anticipation of a Roe reversal. The law establishes the fundamental right to reproductive health, including the right to have an abortion. The state has also stockpiled medication abortion and made it available to its clinics in advance of any legal roadblocks, as well as expanded the types of healthcare workers who can perform abortions, such as nurse practitioners. And state Medicaid funding for abortion is provided for low-income women.
“Altogether, the message that has been sent to people across the country about our state is that we will protect your fundamental freedoms,” Pritzker said. He adds that members of the alliance rely on each other for best practices and new ways to protect reproductive rights—a value New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) said cannot be overstated.
“It shows the alignment of Democratic governors who are very clear about women’s health, public health and the fact that the Dobbs decision is a complete violation of long-held constitutional rights—fundamental rights for women and their families,” she said.
While the alliance allows the governors to speak with one voice and leverage any number of ideas and strategies, Lujan Grisham notes that each state operates within its own unique space and reproductive landscape. For New Mexico, that means reinvesting in women’s health.
“That’s why I am building a clinic in the southern part of the state,” Lujan Grisham said. “We need more primary care clinics that have the full range of services for women. [Currently] we don’t focus on good care. We don’t focus on good prenatal care. We don’t focus on maternal well-being postpartum. All that gets enhanced by virtue of fighting for women’s right to have the right care at the right time.”
In North Carolina, another member of the alliance’s executive committee, the political landscape has challenged Gov. Roy Cooper’s (D) efforts to protect abortion rights and reproductive freedom. While the governor has issued executive orders to prevent out-of-state investigations and extradition of abortion providers, for example, last year he was not able to stop the GOP-controlled Legislature from overriding his veto of a 12-week abortion ban after Democratic lawmaker Tricia Cotham switched parties and voted for the ban.
“We had a number of Republicans who had promised their constituents they would protect women’s reproductive freedom. Yet they went back on that promise, and by that one vote women’s rights had been curtailed, and women’s lives had been endangered,” Cooper told Ms. “And what we are concerned about is the fact that Republicans have said that this 12-week abortion ban is not enough—that after the next election, they will come back and go for more.”
Jenny Black, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, said the abortion bans are not only confusing for patients but they have also made these women’s already difficult situations more challenging.
“More than half of our patients have small children at home. They are thinking about the families they already have and how to make their resources go further. And they simply cannot travel for three days at a time and leave children at home,” Black said. “So they are talking about missing work. They are talking about having their kids miss school and come with them, and what to do with their kids while they have their appointment. It means finding overnight accommodations. It means paying for gas, and sometimes preventing them from making rent at home.”
Black said the attacks on access by antiabortion lawmakers have been constant, and it is impossible to overstate the value Cooper has brought to this fight.
“He has vetoed every anti-choice bill that has come across his desk. And it is a core value that he has demonstrated time and again that he will fight for. I am eternally grateful for his fighting spirit,” Black said.
But because of North Carolina’s term limits, Cooper will not be running for governor in November. He said it is critical for people to understand that reproductive freedom is on the ballot this election.
“Your zip code should not determine your constitutional rights. But that is what we got with the Dobbs decision,” Cooper said. “And the people—not only in North Carolina, but the people across this country—want reproductive freedom, whether they live in red states or blue states.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ballot Tracker: Status of Abortion-Related State Constitutional Amendment Measures | KFF
Ballot Tracker:
Status of Abortion-Related State Constitutional Amendment Measures for the 2024 Election
Last updated on June 21, 2024
Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, voters in 6 states have weighed in on constitutional amendments regarding abortion, and the side favoring access to abortion prevailed in every state. In 4 of these states – California, Michigan, Ohio, and Vermont – measures amending the state constitution to protect the right to abortion were approved by voters and in the other 2 states – Kentucky and Kansas – measures seeking to curtail the right to abortion failed. In 2024, up to 11 states may have abortion measures on their ballot seeking to either affirm that the state constitution protects the right to abortion or that nothing in the constitution confers such a right. There are two routes a measure may be placed on the ballot: citizen initiative and legislative referral.
—Legislatively-referred measures are introduced and approved by lawmakers before they appear on the ballot for citizens to vote on.
—Citizen-initiated measures are written by citizen groups and are placed on the ballot if they receive enough signatures.
The map below shows in which states abortion-related constitutional amendment measures are confirmed or under consideration for the 2024 election.
For more background information on abortion related ballot initiatives, please see our brief Addressing Abortion Access through State Ballot Initiatives.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Election 2024: What states have abortion on the ballot in November
Florida this spring joined other states that have successfully, or are aiming to, put abortion on the ballot for voters in November — a winning issue for Democrats in the post-Roe era.
The big picture: The Florida Supreme Court's tumultuous rulings on abortion have posed enormous questions for the future of access in the South, as the U.S. has shifted to a scattershot model of bans and protections since 2022.
- The Florida situation — where women will face a six-week ban starting May 1 through at least year's end — is a post-Dobbs novelty in its own right.
- "We haven't seen this setup yet in which people will be living under a very strict abortion law and then head to the polls to vote on essentially overturning that," Laurie Sobel, associate director of women's health policy at KFF, told Axios.
- At least 11 other states have either greenlighted or are seeking to approve ballot questions on abortion. Iowa, Pennsylvania and Maine also have attempted to get abortion measures on ballots, but hurdles make it unlikely.
Florida
The state Supreme Court ruled that voters in Florida will have a chance this November to enshrine abortion access until fetal viability — around 24–28 weeks of pregnancy — in the state constitution.
Yes, but: Before abortion rights appear on Florida ballots in November, a six-week ban on the procedure will take effect next month.
- The Florida Supreme Court cleared the way for a statewide ban on most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy — a move that will drastically reduce access to the procedure for those in Florida and also people in neighboring states.
Maryland
The Maryland Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment would add a new article to the state constitution's Declaration of Rights to guarantee the right to reproductive freedom, defined to include "the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy."
- Abortion is currently legal in Maryland until viability. It's legal after viability if the woman's life or health is endangered or there is a fetal anomaly.
South Dakota
Organizers in South Dakota collected enough signature to get an abortion rights measure on the ballot in a state where the procedure is currently banned, except to save the life of a pregnant person.
- "Amendment G" would provide a trimester framework in the state constitution for regulating abortion.
- The amendment would hold that during the first trimester, the state would be prohibited from regulating a woman's decision to have an abortion. During the second trimester, the state would be able to regulate abortion but "only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman."
- During the third trimester, the state would be able to regulate or prohibit abortion, except "when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman's physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman."
- The measure is expected to face pushback and legal challenges in the conservative state. Opponents have until June 17 to file a challenge to the measure.
Colorado
While abortion is protected in Colorado under a 2022 law, voters will decide whether to strengthen the protections in the state constitution.
- A coalition of abortion rights advocates said they collected the number of signatures required to qualify Proposed Initiative 89 for the November ballot. The measure would enshrine the unfettered right to access abortion in the state constitution and remove the current prohibition on using taxpayer dollars to pay for the care.
- The Colorado Secretary of State's office confirmed in May that the measure will be on the ballot.
- If approved, it would allow roughly 1 million local and state government employees and people on Medicaid to use insurance to cover abortion services.
Meanwhile, anti-abortion advocates did not collect enough signatures to get the Colorado Life Initiative on the ballot. The measure sought to ban all types of abortion services without exception, prohibit certain birth control and allow prosecution for murder.
Litigation Pending
New York: Voters were to decide whether to amend the state constitution to add language related to pregnancy and personal freedom. But a state judge ruled in May that the measure cannot move forward because of a procedural error made by lawmakers during an earlier round of approval.
- New York Attorney General Letitia James appealed the ruling.
Zoom in: While not explicitly about abortion, the Equal Protection of Law Amendment is designed to ensure people can't be denied rights based on their "pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy," along with other classes like ethnicity, disability, age, sex and sexual orientation.
- The ballot measure, if back on the ballot and approved, would add protections from future threats in a state where abortion is already legal up to 24 weeks post-fertilization.
- "Embedding these protections within our state constitution insulates us from the political winds that seek to ban, eliminate or reduce access to abortion care through changes to the state law," according to New Yorkers for Equal Rights, the coalition pushing to pass the amendment.
Abortion amendments proposed for the 2024 ballot
Arizona: The Arizona Supreme Court in April upheld a near-total abortion ban, with exceptions only to save the mother's life. The state's high court agreed in May to delay enforcement for another 90 days.
- Democrats and abortion rights advocates are garnering signatures for a ballot measure that would permit abortions up to the point of fetal viability, around 24 weeks of pregnancy, which had been Arizona law before the end of Roe.
- Organizers announced they've exceeded the required signature threshold, and it now needs to be certified. The Arizona Secretary of State's office said they'll know if it will be on the ballot on July 3.
Arkansas: Arkansans for Limited Government are pushing for an initiative that would establish a right to abortion within the first 18 weeks of pregnancy and in cases of rape, incest, fatal fetal anomalies, and to protect the physical health and life of the pregnant person.
- Arkansas' attorney general approved the wording of the proposed ballot measure in January after rejecting two previous attempts from the group.
- Advocates have until July 5 to gather nearly 91,000 signatures from registered voters.
Missouri: The state effectively banned abortions after Roe was overturned.
- The proposed amendment would have the Missouri Constitution provide the right to reproductive freedom, defined as "the right 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."
- If passed, the state legislature would be allowed to enact laws that regulate abortion after fetal viability.
- Proponents said they exceeded the number of signatures they needed to collect by May 5. The Missouri Secretary of State's Office did not immediately respond to Axios' inquiry on whether the measure will be on the ballot.
Montana: Democrat-aligned groups are working to put a state constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights on Montana's ballot. They have until June 21 to collect more than 60,000 valid signatures.
- The proposed amendment would prohibit "the government from denying or burdening the right to abortion before fetal viability."
- Though Montana is a conservative state, voters rejected a 2022 measure meant to restrict some abortion rights.
Nebraska: Voters in the state may have several different measures relating to abortion on the ballot. Abortion is currently legal in the state up to the 12th week of pregnancy.
- The Right to Abortion Initiative would add an amendment to the state constitution to establish a right to abortion until fetal viability. It needs nearly 125,000 signatures by July 5.
- The Prohibit Abortion Procedures and Drugs Initiative would prohibit abortion procedures and drugs except in cases to preserve the life of the mother. A violation would be considered a felony. The measure needs more than 87,000 signatures by July 5.
- The Nebraska Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment would prohibit abortions after the first trimester unless necessitated by a medical emergency or unless the pregnancy is a result of sexual assault or incest. The measure needs nearly 125,000 signatures by July 5.
Nevada: The Nevada Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment would protect the right to an abortion in a state where the procedure is already legal up until 24 weeks of pregnancy.
- Following a challenge on the scope of the amendment, the state Supreme Court ruled on April 18 that the language of the petition meets Nevada's legal requirements for a ballot measure.
- But organizers, in the meantime, started gathering signatures for a narrower version of the measure that just protects abortion access. They have the more than 102,000 valid signatures required by June 26, per Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, but the signatures still have to be certified.
- If the measure gets on the November ballot and passes, it will have to be voted on again in 2026 before it can be added to the state constitution due to Nevada law.
- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No comments:
Post a Comment