Conservatives aim to halt abortion ballot measure losses

Conservative Lawmakers Fight‌ Back Against Abortion Access Expansion

As more states have passed ballot measures expanding access to abortion, conservative lawmakers and activists have been‌ trying to mitigate the damage by passing laws to govern⁣ them and filing lawsuits to⁤ challenge them.

Since the overturn‍ of Roe v. Wade, legal abortion activists have successfully ushered along state constitutional amendments that supersede laws restricting‌ abortions in several states.

Trump Legal‍ Woes Come Barreling⁢ Toward Supreme ​Court on Three Key Fronts Ahead of ⁢2024

Many of those amendments have been written vaguely by activists, opponents say, which gives the amendments expansive power and opens them to a wide range of interpretation, such as including phrases ⁢such as “reproductive freedom” that could ​extend ⁤legal protections to ⁣sex-change ⁤operations.

While ⁣Democrats in several states have advanced‌ laws ensuring that sex-change interventions have explicit legal protection, Republicans in Ohio, Michigan, and Kansas have been trying to counter the expansion of such laws beyond​ abortion access by passing laws ‌that⁢ weaken the scope and implementation of the​ amendments.

These legislative counters come as⁣ at least 11 states could see similar measures on their ballots in the⁤ 2024 ⁣general​ election.

Ohio

Ohio ​voters recently passed an amendment to their state constitution expanding‌ abortion access and overriding the “heartbeat bill” passed​ by the⁢ legislature and signed by‌ Gov. ⁤Mike DeWine (R-OH). So-called heartbeat bills get‌ their titles from their ban on abortions after doctors can detect a fetal heartbeat, which is typically around six weeks of pregnancy.

The 14-point vote in favor of the amendment dealt a blow to opponents ‌of legal abortion, but some⁣ legislators in Ohio are trying to make sure ​the legislature has ​the final say over its interpretation.

A group of state⁢ representatives led by Republican Rep. Jennifer Gross is looking ‌to introduce legislation that would give the state General Assembly “the exclusive authority over implementing Issue ‌1,”⁢ which ‍would deny the‍ ability⁤ for‍ state courts to interpret the amendment and “immediately dismiss” all lawsuits regarding implementation.

It would also ⁤charge judges with a misdemeanor if they did not⁣ comply, which could in theory lead ‍to their impeachment.

“To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with Issue 1, Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over‌ this ambiguous ballot initiative,” a press release from the‍ four Ohio Republicans said. “The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings​ and input from legal experts on both‌ sides.”

After the passage of Ohio’s amendment,​ abortion providers and activists who ‌were ​already in court over ⁢the​ heartbeat bill filed a new motion to strike down the law in light of the measure, ⁢which took effect Dec. 7.

In addition to legislative action, Buckeye State Republican Senate President Matt Huffman⁤ promised a “revolving door of ballot campaigns to repeal‌ or replace Issue 1,” according to his spokesman.

Republican state House⁢ Speaker Jason Stephens similarly added that there are “multiple paths that we will explore to continue to protect innocent life,” saying the ‌amendment is “not the end of⁢ the conversation.”

Michigan

Last year, Michigan passed Proposal 3, which enshrined abortion access into the ​state constitution. It has since been used by Democrats to expand the legal⁣ authority of the amendment beyond abortion access, with⁤ Democratic lawmakers eyeing an end to parental consent laws that prevent children​ from seeking abortions.

Getting rid of parental consent laws has been a consequence⁣ of nearly all such ballot initiatives.

Last month, Right to Life and three Michigan​ Republican lawmakers filed a federal lawsuit asking the court‌ to halt implementation of Proposal 3.

The lawsuit said Michigan’s amendment ‍creates a “super right” to abortion in violation of the First and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as⁢ well ‍as the guarantee ⁤clause, which protects the public’s right to ​a republican form of government.

“At no time​ in our nation’s history has such a ⁤super-right, immune from all legislative action, ever⁣ been created by a popular vote outside of ​the checks and balances of a republican form⁤ of government,” the lawsuit said.

Kansas

Sunflower State voters rejected, by nearly 18 points, a ballot initiative ‍last year to remove language guaranteeing abortion in the state’s constitution.

After the defeat for⁢ abortion opponents, conservative lawmakers filed 20 pieces of legislation to restrict the procedure in the state, many of which ⁤were vetoed by Gov. Laura Kelly (D-KS).

However, the state legislature overrode Kelly’s vetoes on measures that included criminal penalties for abortion doctors and the requirement to inform users ‍of chemical abortion ​pills that a reversal treatment exists in progesterone. Supporters of legal abortion, including medical groups that advocate⁣ the procedure, have attempted to discredit the efficacy of progesterone despite evidence to‍ the contrary.

Some laws passed versions of a “born alive” act, ⁤requiring doctors ​to engage in lifesaving care in the event of a⁤ botched abortion, as well as mandating funding to counseling centers that advocate alternatives​ to abortion.

How do proponents ⁢and critics of⁢ House Bill 5096 in Michigan ​differ ⁢in their​ views on the⁤ use of telemedicine for prescribing abortion-inducing drugs?

⁢Nder review by ⁤lawmakers who are ‍seeking to impose restrictions on abortion. ‌One of the proposed ‌bills, House Bill 5095, aims​ to require doctors to provide additional information to patients considering an abortion, including ⁤the potential risks and alternatives. Supporters of the bill argue that it is necessary‍ to ensure informed consent, while opponents claim that it is a tactic ‍to‌ discourage ‌women from ‍accessing abortion services.

Another ‌bill, House Bill 5096, seeks to ban the‌ use of telemedicine for prescribing abortion-inducing drugs. Proponents of the bill argue that it is necessary to safeguard the health and ⁣well-being of women, while critics argue that it unnecessarily restricts access to⁤ safe and ⁣effective⁣ healthcare.

The proposed legislation‍ in‌ Michigan has sparked a fierce debate between proponents and opponents of abortion rights.‍ Advocates for reproductive freedom argue that these bills​ infringe‌ on a ⁢woman’s⁤ right to‍ make decisions about⁣ her own body, while anti-abortion activists argue that they are necessary to ‌protect the unborn and promote a culture ​of life.

Kansas

Kansas, ​like Ohio and Michigan, has ⁤also⁣ seen efforts by⁤ conservative​ lawmakers to challenge the expansion of abortion⁣ access. In 2020, the state passed⁢ a constitutional amendment known as Amendment‍ 1, ‍which declares that there ⁣is⁣ no constitutional right to abortion and allows the⁢ state​ to regulate and restrict the procedure.

Since the passage of Amendment 1, lawmakers have introduced several bills aimed at further limiting abortion access. One such bill, Senate Bill 55, seeks to ban‍ abortions based on the diagnosis of Down syndrome. ‌Supporters of the bill argue that it protects individuals with disabilities, while opponents argue ⁢that it undermines a woman’s right to make⁣ decisions about her own pregnancy.

Another bill, House Bill 2027, would impose additional requirements‍ on abortion providers, including mandatory reporting of complications and the prohibition of fetal tissue research.⁤ Supporters of the bill argue that it ensures accountability and safeguards the dignity of the unborn, while​ opponents argue that it adds unnecessary burdens to healthcare providers and restricts scientific research.

These ⁢attempts by conservative lawmakers to challenge the expansion of abortion⁢ access ⁤highlight the ongoing battle ⁣over reproductive ‍rights in the United States. While abortion ‌rights advocates celebrate the progress made in expanding access to safe and‌ legal abortion, ⁤opponents continue to fight back, employing legislative tactics and legal⁢ challenges to restrict access.

The outcome of these battles will have ⁣significant implications for ⁢the future of‌ abortion rights in‍ the United​ States. As‍ the‍ 2024 general election approaches, it⁢ is likely that more ‌states ‍will face similar measures ⁢on their ballots, further intensifying the debate. Ultimately, the fight over abortion access will continue as‍ both sides seek to ‍shape the legal landscape and protect their ⁢respective values and ideals.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases