Unpopular Abortion Through Birth Could Become Legal In These 10 States Unless Voters Act Now

Most U.S. adults oppose legalizing abortion through birth, yet millions of those same Americans risk legalizing baby murder well into the third trimester via constitutional amendments this November.

The amendments, often proposed by out-of-state pro-abortion activists, are marred with undefined, vague, and sneaky language. Despite multiple challenges noting their lack of constitutionality and deliberate deception, the radical ballot initiatives have made it through certification to the Nov. 5 ballot.

Here are the 10 states — many with decades of pro-life laws — that could see unpopular abortion through all nine months of pregnancy become a gruesome reality this election season.

Arizona

Voters in the Grand Canyon State face a decision on a proposed amendment that seeks to add a “fundamental right to abortion” to the state constitution. If passed, the amendment will usurp the state’s current law banning abortion beyond 15 weeks.

The sweeping language in the proposed amendment hinges abortion availability on “viability,” which it refuses to define and instead leaves up to the subjective judgment of a health care professional. The amendment also prevents the state from passing or enforcing laws punishing abortionists for killing babies.

Colorado

Colorado currently offers unlimited abortion through all nine months of pregnancy to anyone who wants it. Amendment 79, however, would not only hamper future efforts to limit abortion but also permit “abortion to be a covered service under health insurance plans.”

Most Americans oppose taxpayer-funded abortion. As pro-lifers have noted, “The only provision keeping Colorado from being the number one destination for unrestricted abortion in the United States is the 1984 Colorado constitutional prohibition against the use of public funding for abortion,” which is what Amendment 79 seeks to replace.

Florida

Florida’s Amendment 4, if passed, would effectively enshrine abortion through birth in the Sunshine State’s constitution and eliminate safeguards designed to protect women and children,

The amendment itself is laced with vague terminology like “viability,” which can easily be exploited to ensure abortion at any point in gestation, and includes language that gets rid of parental consent. It also includes provisions for medical professionals to deem abortion at any stage of pregnancy necessary for a woman’s “health,” physical, emotional, or mental.

The path to the Sunshine State’s ballot measure involved deception and even fraudulent signatures. The “Yes on 4” campaign also features resources helping teens who want to skirt current state laws obtain abortions without involving their parents.

Even after warnings that the amendment’s language could easily trick voters who don’t believe in allowing second- and third-trimester abortions, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in April to keep the amendment on the ballot.

Maryland

One of the most pro-abortion states in the United States hopes to pad its baby-killing record with a ballot measure that would make its sweeping abortion provisions more permanent through an undefined “right to reproductive freedom.”

The authors claim abortion is “a central component of an individual’s rights to liberty and equality” and have declared the state “may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”

Missouri

The Show-Me State’s proposed amendment seeks to permanently permit abortion via the addition of a “right to reproductive freedom” to the state constitution.

The ballot measure would not only rid Missouri of its current abortion limits, which prevent ending life in the womb except in a medical emergency, but would also prohibit legislators from enacting or enforcing protections for women and unborn babies.

Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh found in early September that the petition to put abortion through birth in front of voters did not meet the disclaimer mandates outlined by Missouri law. Shortly after, however, the state supreme court overruled his decision.

Montana

Montana law prohibits abortion beyond “viability,” which the state defines as beginning at 24 weeks gestation. A proposed amendment, however, asks voters to amend their state constitution to “expressly provide a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion.”

The ballot initiative relies on vague language to deliberately prohibit the state from interfering with abortions at any point in pregnancy as long as a “healthcare professional determines it is medically indicated to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.” Under this sweeping modification, practically any abortion could be construed to meet the “medically necessary” qualifier required for taxpayer funding under Montana’s Medicaid program.

In addition to kneecapping the GOP legislature from passing any laws that limit abortion before the 24-week cutoff, the proposed amendment would also keep the government from holding abortionists accountable for misconduct, like ending life in the womb late in pregnancy.

Nebraska

Proponents of the “Protect the Right to Abortion” ballot initiative in Nebraska falsely purports that doctors in the Cornhusker state are prevented “from caring for patients whose pregnancies put their lives at risk” because of the state’s 12-week abortion limit.

The Planned Parenthood- and American Civil Liberties Union-funded amendment, which seeks to enshrine abortion at any point in pregnancy in the state’s constitution, however, would effectively eradicate protections for women, babies, and doctors.

In addition to overriding the state’s dismemberment ban, eliminating parental consent requirement, and preventing state legislators from enacting pro-life protections in the future, the proposed amendment leaves vague, undefined terms like “viability” up to the subjective judgment of a health care practitioner.

Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen approved the unlimited abortion amendment and its pro-life rival for the ballot in August but paused certification until after the state supreme court unanimously ruled it was legal in September.

New York

New York already allows unpopular unlimited abortion as long as a medical professional deems the life or physical or mental health of the mother at risk. The proposed Equal Rights Amendment on the ballot on Nov. 5, however, would further hamstring legislators who try to bring state law up to par with Americans’ desire to limit abortion.

The proposed amendment includes sweeping language and terms such as “discrimination” that would equip the New York Constitution with a “civil right” allowing men to play women’s sports. Proponents of the ballot measure even implied that the amendment could stop the state from banning things like transgender mutilation and chemical castration for children.

New York Supreme Court Justice Daniel Doyle ruled in May that the state legislature failed to satisfy the constitutionally outlined procedure for passing a ballot measure. By June, however, the New York Appellate Division’s Fourth Department Court overturned that ruling.

Nevada

Abortion in Nevada is currently permitted at any point in gestation as long as “the physician has reasonable cause to believe an abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant person.” A proposed amendment, however, seeks to further shield abortion from any future regulation or limit by adding a “fundamental right to abortion” to the Nevada state constitution.

If the amendment passes, it must undergo another vote in a subsequent general election to achieve full ratification.

South Dakota

The pro-abortion proponents of South Dakota’s Amendment G pretend it would “restore the rights that women and girls of South Dakota had for fifty years under Roe v. Wade.”

In reality, the proposed amendment’s vague and undefined language would allow the fatal practice through all nine months of pregnancy as long as a physician deems it necessary for women’s “health.” It also opens the door for outside activists like Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union to sue to eliminate parental rights and conscience protections for doctors who have moral or religious objections to abortion.

Several complaints and allegations of misconduct plagued the Amendment G petition process, including unattended petitions, duplicate signatures, and misleading information. The proposal survived long enough, however, to pass the state’s months-long certification process and make it on the Nov. 5 ballot.  

It was only after pressure from The Federalist in September that several of South Dakota’s self-professed pro-life politicians, including Sen. Mike Rounds and Gov. Kristi Noem, released statements urging their constituents to vote against it.

---

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.

The Federalist