In Nevada, a recent development saw a judge dismissing a petition from pro-abortion groups seeking to introduce a ballot question in 2024.
The proposal aimed to establish access to abortion as a constitutional right throughout the state, but the judge, James Russell, deemed the measure too wide-ranging to be a single-subject question fit for the ballot.
Judge Russell’s decision, delivered on Tuesday, highlighted the petition’s flaw in encompassing a multitude of subjects. He emphasized the lack of functional connections between various topics, such as infertility care, vasectomy, postpartum care, and abortion, within the proposed amendment.
“The Petition embraces a multitude of subjects that amount to logrolling,” Mr. Russell wrote in the opinion.
“For instance, it is unclear how a vasectomy relates to infertility care or postpartum care,” he wrote. “Likewise, it is unclear how postpartum care is related to abortions or birth control. Thus, it is improper to characterize these broad categories as a ‘single subject.'”
“The Legislature could not reduce ‘reproductive health’ to a single statute, let alone a single statutory chapter,” the judge added.
Moreover, the judge pointed out that the petition failed to address funding for establishing a panel to oversee compliance with the suggested “reproductive rights.” According to Nevada’s constitutional stipulations, any citizen-initiated measure demanding additional spending must identify a funding source, which the pro-abortion initiative lacked.
The proponents, including Planned Parenthood and the Nevada ACLU, asserted that the constitutional amendment wouldn’t curtail equality rights. Judge Russell, however, deemed this assertion misleading and highlighted the potential adverse impact on pregnant women’s rights.
The judge pointed out that the proposal might prevent the state from investigating or taking action in cases of miscarriage or stillbirth.
“[The Petition] vaguely states, ‘the State may not penalize, prosecute, or take adverse action against any individual based on the outcome of the pregnancy of the individual,'” Mr. Russell explained. “This is misleading because it does not delineate the fact that the petition will prevent the State from investigating or taking action against any miscarriage or stillborn birth.”
Following the judge’s ruling, the pro-abortion advocates expressed intentions to challenge the decision in the Nevada Supreme Court. Lindsay Harmon, president of Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, reaffirmed their commitment to securing the right to vote on protecting reproductive rights in the state constitution.
“We will not let one judge’s misguided ruling deter us from giving Nevadans the opportunity to vote to permanently protect their reproductive rights in the Nevada Constitution,” Lindsay Harmon, president of pro-abortion group Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, on Wednesday said in a statement.
Conversely, Jason Guinasso, representing the state, applauded the ruling, stating that the proponents need to redefine their proposal more clearly.
“They [have] got to do a better job of redefining what it is they are proposing,” the lawyer said.
The initiative, originally filed in September, faced obstacles due to its broad scope. If it were to make it onto the 2024 ballot and receive a simple majority, it would require a second passage on the 2026 ballot to amend the state constitution.
The Nevada Democrats, eyeing an upsurge in turnout in the upcoming presidential election, view the abortion debate as a crucial factor. They aim to highlight the GOP’s anti-choice agenda to rally their base for the next election cycle.
“We will continue to remind Nevadans of Republicans’ extreme anti-choice agenda every day until next November,” said Johanna Warshaw, a spokesperson for the Nevada Democratic Party. “The entire GOP field is pushing for a national abortion ban.”
Notably, Nevada’s current abortion laws permit procedures up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, affirmed through a 1990 ballot referendum.
The recent proposal by Senate Democrats seeks to amend the state constitution, asserting the right to reproductive freedom for all individuals in Nevada, presenting another avenue for potential change in the state’s legal framework if passed in legislative sessions and voter approval in subsequent years.
“Neither may the State penalize, prosecute, or take adverse action against any individual or entity for aiding or assisting another individual in the exercise of the rights established by this initiative,” it adds.
