NE Supreme Court Allows Radical Abortion Amendment On Ballot

A radical amendment that threatens to ram unpopular abortion until birth into the Cornhusker State constitution will make the ballot in November despite its deceptive nature, the Nebraska Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Friday.

Abortion in Nebraska is prohibited beyond 12 weeks gestation. The “Protect the Right to Abortion” ballot initiative, funded by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, however, seeks to enshrine abortion at any point in pregnancy in the state’s constitution.

The proposed amendment leaves vague, undefined terms like “viability” up to the subjective judgment of a health care practitioner, not necessarily a doctor. As the Thomas More Society lawyers who argued the case noted, the measure could “effectively … abolish nearly 50 years of legislative enactments,” like the state’s dismemberment ban and parental consent requirement, and prevent state legislators from enacting pro-life protections in the future.

A majority of Nebraskans, 72 percent, say they oppose legalizing abortion through birth. The lawsuit heard by the high bench, however, alleged that the ballot measure’s language could mislead voters with strong feelings about unlimited abortion to vote against their convictions.

The lawsuit also asked Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen to withhold the proposed amendment from the ballot because it “is legally insufficient” and violates the Nebraska Constitution’s Single Subject Rule mandating “[i]nitiative measures shall contain only one subject.”

“The proposed initiative contains several subjects, which are not natural and necessary to each other, and which will confuse voters and create doubt after the election,” a brief filed by the Thomas More Society warned.

Evnen first approved the unlimited abortion amendment and its pro-life rival for the ballot in August but paused certification until the court made a decision. On Friday, the state supreme court declared that the initiative “does not violate the single subject rule” outlined in the Nebraska Constitution.

“We determine that the Initiative does not include multiple subjects, and instead we determine that the provisions of the proposed constitutional amendment are naturally and necessarily related to the general subject,” the court wrote.

Dr. Catherine Brooks, the neonatologist who brought one of two writs of mandamus against the abortion amendment, said the court’s ruling will lead to grave consequences for Nebraska women and children.

“Nebraska women and medical professionals should not be subjected to vague, unscientific standards, while dangerously expanding the scope of abortion practice,” Brooks said.

Thomas More Society Senior Counsel Matt Heffron who argued the case, added that the amendment, if passed, will “be a sea-change, overturning nearly 50 years of Nebraska laws on abortion.”

“We are deeply concerned that the Nebraska Supreme Court has allowed this intentionally deceptive initiative to go before Nebraskans for a confusing vote,” Heffron said. “The ‘Protect Our Rights’ initiative is a Trojan Horse and would expand abortion throughout pregnancy for nearly any reason — without any regulation by the State, whatsoever — while allowing non-physicians to make these determinations.”

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.