3 states reject pro-abortion ballot measures while 7 other states expand abortion

CNA Staff, Nov 6, 2024 / 10:15 am

Voters in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota on Tuesday night voted down major pro-abortion proposals in their states, while seven other states saw voters approve measures to expand abortion, in several cases codifying abortion access into the state constitution.

After back-to-back pro-life losses in half a dozen states since 2022, the rejection of the pro-abortion measures in three states on Tuesday represent the first victories at the ballot box for pro-life advocates since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Meanwhile, several states that already do little to restrict abortion committed to make the procedure even more accessible. And in a handful of states, notably Missouri, Tuesday’s results could ultimately negate the strong pro-life legal protections currently in place.

Here’s a breakdown of the results in each state that voted on abortion Nov. 5.

Arizona codifies abortion as a ‘fundamental right’

Voters in Arizona definitively approved Proposition 139, which provides constitutionally for a “fundamental right to abortion.” The measure says the state cannot restrict abortion until the point of “viability,” at approximately 24 weeks of pregnancy, unless it has a compelling reason and does so in the least restrictive way possible.

The measure also prevents the state from interfering with abortions after viability if, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, an abortion is “necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.”

The measure will undo Arizona’s current abortion law, which restricts most abortions after 15 weeks. 

The Arizona Catholic Conference, representing the state’s bishops, had in late August released a statement expressing “strong opposition” to Proposition 139, saying that despite its claims to be “moderate in nature,” the language of the proposal would make Arizona “one of the most extreme states in terms of abortion.”

Colorado solidifies its abortion bona fides

Already one of the most permissive states in the country in terms of abortion, Colorado voters approved Amendment 79, which enshrines in the state constitution the state laws already in place that allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

Specifically, it amends the state constitution to say that the government “shall not deny, impede, or discriminate against the exercise of the right to abortion, including prohibiting health insurance coverage for abortion.”

The Colorado Catholic Conference had strongly urged all people to vote no on Amendment 79, noting that among other things, it could open the door for direct taxpayer funding for abortion.

Florida rebuffs abortion lobby, keeps pro-life protections in place

Pro-life advocates expressed elation early in the night Nov. 5 as Florida voters rejected Amendment 4, which would have added a right to abortion before the point of “viability” to the state’s constitution and allowed for abortions later in pregnancy if a woman’s doctor deems it necessary to end the life of her child. 

The pro-abortion lobby poured more than $100 million into Florida in an effort to enshrine abortion in the state constitution and negate the state’s Heartbeat Protection Act, one of the most pro-life laws in the country, which restricts abortion after six weeks of pregnancy with limited exceptions.

The measure failed after garnering 57% of the vote; it needed 60% to pass. The measure was strongly opposed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Catholic Church in Florida.

The pro-abortion amendment would have directed that “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health.” It offered no guidelines in determining a patient’s “health,” rather leaving that assessment up to “the patient’s health care provider.

On Tuesday night, the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops said it was “profoundly relieved at the defeat of Florida’s pro-abortion Amendment 4.”

“This is a positive outcome for Florida and all efforts to promote the flourishing of our state,” the bishops said.

The bishops noted that though the amendment failed, “a majority of Floridians voting in the general election supported it.”

“Much work remains to open hearts and minds to the dignity and goodness of life in the womb and at every stage,” the bishops continued. “We will continue to proclaim in our churches and in the public square the value of every human life and to highlight that there is a better way forward for women, families, and society than abortion.” 

Maryland overwhelmingly codifies abortion

(Story continues below)

Similar to Colorado, Maryland does little to protect unborn children and the measure approved by voters on Tuesday codifies its already permissive abortion laws into the state constitution. 

The Maryland Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment, or Question 1, cements an abortion “right” in the state’s constitution and will make it impossible for pro-life laws to be enacted, advocates say. Maryland voters overwhelmingly approved the measure, with roughly 75% voting yes. 

Maryland currently places no gestational limits on abortion. Parental notice is required for a minor to have an abortion, but critics say that requirement is easy to circumvent.

The Catholic bishops of Maryland had warned that “a vote against the constitutional amendment is a vote for women and justice” — while acknowledging that “nothing regarding abortion would change in Maryland if this amendment does not pass.”

Missouri votes to undo pro-life protections

Missouri was one of the first states to fully ban abortion after the fall of Roe v. Wade. On Tuesday, voters narrowly approved Amendment 3, which adds a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” to the state constitution, threatening to undo decades of pro-life gains. 

Missouri’s Amendment 3 prohibits “any regulation of abortion, including regulations designed to protect women undergoing abortions and prohibit any civil or criminal recourse against anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant women,” according to the secretary of state’s office. 

It mandates that the government “shall not deny or infringe upon a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” including “prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.”

The amendment’s appearance on the ballot was the subject of a court battle, with pro-lifers arguing that the final proposed language not only violated state law by failing to list which laws it would repeal but also mislead voters about the scope and gravity of what they would be voting for. The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately voted 4-3 to allow the measure to appear before voters. 

Missouri law had extended protection to unborn babies throughout all of pregnancy with the only exception being cases of “medical emergency.”

The Missouri Catholic Conference, which advocates policy on behalf of the state’s Catholic bishops, has called the measure “an extreme constitutional amendment that legalizes abortion at any stage of pregnancy with no protections for the preborn child, even when the child is capable of feeling pain.”

Montana enshrines pro-abortion court ruling

Voters in Montana, where abortion has been legal for years due to a court ruling, voted roughly 57-43 to establish a “right” to abortion in the state constitution. 

Ballot Issue No. 14 amends the Montana Constitution “to expressly provide a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion,” according to the secretary of state’s office.

The initiative, also known as CI-128, guarantees the right to abortion before fetal viability, enshrining a 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling that held that pre-viability abortions fall under a constitutional “right to privacy.”

Montana’s Catholic bishops issued a joint letter in May denouncing the proposed pro-abortion constitutional amendment, calling the initiative an attack on the “recognition of the infinite dignity enjoyed by all persons” that fails to respect “life as a precious gift from God and recognize our sacred duty to nurture and protect every human life.”

On a resource page about the amendment, the bishops noted that the vast majority of the funding for the pro-abortion amendment came from organizations outside Montana.

Nebraska considers competing measures to deliver pro-life victory

Nebraska voters were in the unusual position of choosing between two competing abortion-related ballot measures, one pro-life and one pro-abortion. The voters rejected the measure that would have expanded abortion and approved one that restricts abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy. 

The proposed “Protect Women and Children” amendment, Initiative 434, amends the state constitution to outlaw abortion “in the second and third trimesters” except in cases of medical emergencies or when the baby is the result of rape or incest. The measure passed roughly 55-45. 

Nebraska’s current state law restricts abortion after roughly 12 weeks. 

Meanwhile, voters rejected the pro-abortion ballot measure, Initiative 439, which would have enshrined in the state constitution the “right” to have an abortion until the point of viability or later to protect the health of the pregnant woman.

Officials had clarified that because the Nebraska measures are mutually exclusive and could both be added to the constitution, the measure with the most “for” votes would be adopted.

Nevada takes a step toward fully codifying abortion

Nevadans approved a measure, Question 6, that if ultimately adopted will codify already-existing state laws into the state constitution that allow for abortion up to roughly 24 weeks into pregnancy.

The measure passed roughly 63-37. 

In Nevada, a simple majority vote in two consecutive elections is required for state constitutional amendments. So despite passing Nov. 5, the same measure must be approved in 2026 as well.

The Nevada Catholic Conference had urged all voters to vote no on Question 6, saying that among other things it will remove parental notification, consent, and family involvement from “all reproductive decisions for their minor children, including abortion.”

New Yorkers vote to protect ‘reproductive health care and autonomy’

An “equal rights” amendment will be added to the New York Constitution after voters approved it Tuesday. New York is already a haven for abortion, which is accessible through all nine months of pregnancy.

Though it does not explicitly mention abortion, New York’s Proposal 1 will bar discrimination based on “pregnancy outcomes,” “gender expression,” and “reproductive health care and autonomy,” effectively enshrining abortion in the state constitution.

On May 7, a New York state court blocked the proposal from reaching the ballot, citing procedural errors. A unanimous appellate court decision on June 18 reversed the lower court ruling, placing the measure back on the ballot.

The bishops of New York state had urged Catholic New Yorkers to oppose Proposal 1, warning that it would enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution as well as potentially restrict parents’ rights to make medical and other decisions for their minor children, including so-called “gender affirming” procedures.

South Dakota keeps abortion ban in place

By a vote of nearly 60-40, voters in South Dakota rejected a measure that would have instituted a “right” to abortion there. The measure, Amendment G, would have established “a constitutional right to an abortion,” legalizing abortion for any reason during the first trimester and allowing for the regulation of abortion after that point.

Michael Pauley, executive director of the South Dakota Catholic Conference, wrote in a September column that the battle over Amendment G “is a serious matter that affects both the common good of the state and the interests of the Church.”

“A ‘no’ vote on G gives these babies a chance to be born. But if a majority vote ‘yes,’ these babies will die. That is the stark choice before us. Only rarely is an issue of such eternal significance placed into our hands,” Pauley wrote.