Dem
51
GOP
49
Pro-choice groups are trying to get constitutional amendments on the ballot in at least nine states in 2024. These initiatives tend to drive up turnout, especially among young voters. Conservatives and Republicans are afraid of these measures and are now fighting back. They are running TV and digital ads, holding events, and even knocking on doors to try to convince people not to sign petitions that would put amendments on the ballot making a right to an abortion part of the state Constitution. They are also trying to get secretaries of state to refuse to put the amendments on the ballot or to write up false (and negative) summaries of them.
Fundamentally, anti-choice groups understand that they cannot win at the ballot box, as elections in Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio have shown. They fear that their massive victory with the Dobbs decision is being undone one state at a time, even in red states. They know that voters, even in red states, want abortion to be legal, so their strategy now is to prevent the voters from having a say.
Some of the arguments are at least plausible. Steven Aden, of Americans United for Life, said: "Because we believe that abortion is truly about the right to life of human individuals in the womb, we don't believe those rights should be subjected to majority vote." If you actually believe that a clump of cells inside a woman is a human being, then it makes sense to argue that its life should not be subject to majority vote. Some are more blunt. Kristi Hamrick, of Students for Life, said: "Just because someone shoves a clipboard in your face, you don't have to sign."
Missouri state Rep. Brad Hudson (R) knows that the PR campaigns telling people not to sign petitions are probably going to fail since most people support the right to an abortion. So he wants to rig the game. He wants to change the process for getting a constitutional amendment passed to foil those nasty voters who want to pass an amendment that he personally dislikes. That's why he was elected to the state legislature, right? To make sure his personal opinion overrides what the voters might want. That's known as LEADERSHIP. His plan is to require majorities not only statewide, but also in half of the state's congressional districts. That way the people in the rural districts could override what the people in the teeming cities want.
Anti-abortion AsG (that looks weird, but is probably the correct abbreviation for "attorneys general") in multiple states are challenging abortion initiatives as unconstitutionally vague, confusing, or misleading. They are also trying to set up barriers to certification, require cost estimates, and more.
Some of the arguments from states border on the absurd. Missouri officials have argued that allowing abortions would cost the state billions of dollars in tax revenue not paid by the persons not born. They didn't provide an analysis, however, of each of these people as a profit center. Some of them might require state services, including education, welfare, or even incarceration, that might make them a net loss to the state. Others might get free public education in the state up through graduate school and then leave the state (e.g., people trained as OB/GYNs), resulting in a huge loss for the state.
In short, the anti-abortion side is revving up every possible way to keep abortion measures from getting on the ballots. (V)