Abortion on the Ballot - We explain the 10 measures that would let voters decide abortion policy in their states.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Abortion on the Ballot​

We explain the 10 measures that would let voters decide abortion policy in their states.​

Sept. 9, 2024, 6:37 a.m. ET
By Kate Zernike


If there’s one thing that captures how the abortion debate has changed in the last two years, it’s ballot initiatives. In the five decades that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, almost every abortion question on state ballots was put there by anti-abortion groups. Now the reverse is true. In the last two years, abortion rights activists won seven out of seven ballot initiatives. So this fall, they’re swinging big, asking voters in 10 states to establish a constitutional right to abortion.

A few of these new measures — in Florida, Missouri and South Dakota — would do something no ballot question has done so far: restore access to abortion where it had been almost entirely banned. Previous ballot initiatives have merely protected access in states where it already existed.

And Democrats have another motivation for the initiatives: to drive turnout for Kamala Harris and the party’s congressional candidates, especially in battleground states like Arizona and Nevada.

Several measures will be tricky to pass. The one in Florida, for instance, requires a 60 percent majority. (The highest margin the abortion rights side has won in a red state is just below that.) In today’s newsletter, I’ll guide you through the ballot questions that would let voters decide abortion policy in their states.

Red-state abortions​

Most of the ballot measures would amend a state constitution to re-establish the right the Supreme Court established in Roe v. Wade: access to abortion until viability, when the fetus can survive outside the uterus. That’s around 24 weeks of pregnancy. After that, the state could limit or ban abortion, except if a medical provider says it was necessary to protect the mother.

The stakes are highest in the states that restricted abortion after the court overturned Roe, and where Republican-controlled legislatures protect anti-abortion policies.
  • A measure in Missouri would reverse a ban, but a legal challenge may strip it from the ballot this week.
  • Florida bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, which is about two weeks after a woman misses her period. At that point, many women don’t yet know they are pregnant. The amendment would restore access for the roughly four million women of reproductive age in the state — and for millions more who once traveled there for abortions from nearby states that ban them.
  • Anti-abortion groups are sponsoring just one measure, in Nebraska. It would ban abortion in the second and third trimester, enshrining a state law that prohibits abortion after 12 weeks. So why offer the constitutional amendment? Because abortion-rights groups have a competing question that would prevent the state from banning abortion before the fetus becomes viable. If both amendments pass, the one with more votes takes effect.

Driving Democratic turnout​

In some places, the ballot amendment won’t really change abortion policy — it just affirms state law. But it could draw more voters to the polls.

  • In Montana, abortion is already legal until a fetus’s viability (or roughly 24 weeks of pregnancy), thanks to a 1999 state Supreme Court decision. But sponsors of this year’s amendment say they need to enshrine that right in the Constitution so lawmakers or justices can’t undo it. And if it drives turnout to re-elect Jon Tester, a vulnerable Senate incumbent, then all the better for them.
  • Democrats have similar ideas about Arizona and Nevada. These are battlegrounds not only in the presidential race but also in the party’s bid to hold its Senate majority. In Arizona, the amendment would overturn a ban on abortion after 15 weeks. But Nevada already allows abortion until viability, so the immediate objective there seems more purely political.
  • The same is true in Maryland, where Democrats hope a ballot measure helps Angela Alsobrooks beat Larry Hogan, a Republican former governor, in this year’s Senate race.
Then there’s the House. To win a majority, Democrats need to net at least four seats. Operatives have identified 18 competitive races across the country where ballot measures could help. The list includes two seats to flip in Arizona and three to hold in Nevada. It also includes two seats they want to win in Colorado, where a ballot measure in November would enshrine current policy, which allows abortion at any time. (That initiative also needs more than a simple majority — 55 percent — to win.)

Political compromises​

The biggest prize liberals see is in blue New York, home to seven competitive House races, five in districts held by Republicans. Abortion is already legal until viability, but a ballot initiative there would go further, establishing an “Equal Protection of Law Amendment” that would bar discrimination based on sex. It doesn’t specifically mention abortion, and Republicans believe its reference to “gender identity” will alienate voters.

Activists went with a narrower option in South Dakota, which would allow abortion restrictions in the second trimester — which begins at 13 weeks, well before viability — betting that would pass in a conservative state. Planned Parenthood declined to support it, saying it didn’t go far enough.

For abortion rights groups, the ballot strategy may be near its end. Only 17 states allow citizens to put amendments in front of voters. If the groups succeed in November, there will be only three states among those — Arkansas, North Dakota and Oklahoma — that ban abortion.
 
Determining the issue on the state level. Exactly as it should be.
My copy of the U.S. Constutiton doesn't mention abortion or anything close to it in Article 1, Section 8 or the Bill of Rights. By definition, it is not a federal issue, which means it's a state issue.

Remember, we were told for two generations it's between a woman and her doctor and it is just a medical procedure. Each of the 50 states gets to make its own decision on medical procedures and if one state won't allow it (and every single state allows abortions when the mother's life is in peril if the baby goes to term, and almost all of them allow abortions when birth defects is an issue or rape and incest are involved) it isn't that hard to go to a state that will.
 
Women would rather starve to death than give up raw dogging.

WHERE WAS ALL THESE SLUTTY RAW DOGGIN' HOES WHEN I WAS A BEAUTIFUL YOUNG MAN?! I Swear, life is such a toilet world disaster. Besides, I don't know why they care so much about abortion; I thought all chicks were into this fad of trying out buttsex and ass-eating now or whatever gross shit kids and drunk single wine aunts do these days. And ya' know those bitches now have nonstop diarrhea from the ozempic, indian food and red wine they consume.
 
Women would rather starve to death than give up raw dogging.
Takes two to tango though. The men want consequence free sex just as much.
It’s pitched to women as life and death with the worst possible cases pushed forward as examples even though nobody is trying to ban that type of case. There’s always exceptions for the life of the mother, and rape and incest. It’s pure amygdala hijacking.
Abortion is far less controversial here in Europe and also more tightly controlled. Most euro countries have something like up to 12-13 weeks (which is when the first set of tests that can detect downs etc) and then life of mother or severe abnormalities only after that. There are very few late abortions done in the uk and they’re all really sad cases of severe foetal damage or where the mother may die.

I was so shocked when I learned abortion up to birth is legal in the states, it was really disturbing. Ditto the selling of organs and leaving babies who survive the process to die. It’s nasty stuff.

So any of the states propose to put European type limits on or is it a really stark choice between bans and a free for all?
 
Hopefully all of these succeed in order to keep down the number of blacks that will go out and commit crimes.
I want to see numbers on this. The people that shouldn't be procreating are usually the ones that would not get an abortion even if you offered to pay them. This is why I have never agreed to abortion as low iq population control (ignoring the fact its morally corrupt in general) because every toothless methhead bitch wants to be "mama bear" and keeps her poor child she's made with Hunter the drug dealer who abuses her. I'd assume blacks do get abortions at a higher rate but because abortion is pushed so aggressively no one stops to think "well what if Sha'quanda wants to keep it?"
Same shit with rape babies. Everyone defaults on "she should abort it, she wants to abort it" which is honestly disgusting that the immediate reaction to a rape baby is "kill it"
 
It’s a done deal that it’s going to be illegal where we were living, not only is it red but it’s famously pro life.

AFAIK IUD’s and hormonal implants are covered under Medicaid, so with a modicum of effort women could help prevent abortion for free.
There’s even non hormonal IUD’s for women that are rightly concerned about hormonal birth control.

Not fighting about this but even though I support abortion within the first 10 weeks, I support states rights and the ability to determine legality based on the state more.

So be it, if someone doesn’t like it move to a pro choice state because that’s what it’s going to be.
 
Hopefully all of these succeed in order to keep down the number of blacks that will go out and commit crimes.
Yeah although they bring haitians and somalians migrants to fill the gap of aborted black babies. But, it's still tempting to troll the abortion clinics to tell them they lack diversity and they need to have more black abortions and watch them reacting shouting "how dare you?".
 
I think for once America should take notes from Europe and establish a term-rule.
First trimester, abortion is allowed, some countries want you to take a counseling session beforehand.
Second and third trimester abortions are only legal if the fetus has heavy deformities or genetic illnesses.

I am catholic, and I find this set of rules reasonable, even though I would morally object to almost all abortions.
It is just weird to see the topic being screeched about in Murica, where some women actually want limitless abortions, even if the baby would actually be able to survive outside the mother's body already.
Only crazy feminist parties are not fine with the term-solution in Europe, and they have little political capital.
 
Abortion is far less controversial here in Europe and also more tightly controlled. Most euro countries have something like up to 12-13 weeks
fighting over abortion has been such a politically and financially beneficial grift for both sides for so long that neither side is willing to adapt reasonable laws. that's exactly why Planned Parenthood is not backing the South Dakota ballot measure to have an abortion limit of 13 weeks, despite South Dakota having one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the US (elective abortions are completely banned, abortions are not allowed in case of rape or incest or physical deformities. abortion only allowed in cases where the mother's life is in danger)

without states like South Dakota around the abortion issue would be solved and everyone would go back to mostly ignoring it except extremists on both sides

solving problems with reasonable solutions is bad for business
 
A few of these new measures — in Florida, Missouri and South Dakota — would do something no ballot question has done so far: restore access to abortion where it had been almost entirely banned. Previous ballot initiatives have merely protected access in states where it already existed.
So all these measures are going to fail. There all in states that vote red, or likely to go red given the choice between a return to Trump prosperity or four more years of economic depression.

Takes two to tango though. The men want consequence free sex just as much.
Abortion doesn't give men consequence free sex, it gives women that, but not men. For men to have consequence free sex, they need to be able to walk away from a child even when the mother wants it. Part of the reason abortion is even an issue is the refusal of pro-abortion groups to extend such rights to men. Its hilarious how they have a clear path to victory but refuse to take it.
 
Yes we should let the voters state by state decide of if murdering babies should be legal. After all we need to make sure to protect democracy at all costs.
I mean, part of the question they'd be asked would be if it actually does qualify as murdering babies.
 
Back
Top Bottom