Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Before we begin. This episode contains content that some listeners may find sensitive. Listener discretion is advised.
[00:00:27] This is the Access Pregnancy Post Row podcast and I am Mia Braun Forcing someone to be pregnant when they don't want to be is cruel and dangerous, and American voters know it. According to Jessica Valenti's book Abortion, 80% of Americans do not want the government making decisions about pregnancy at all and they believe that abortion should be unregulated by law, that it should be a decision solely between patient and doctor.
[00:01:02] This means that the extreme abortion bans going into effect across the country are being passed against what the majority of voters want.
[00:01:14] Republicans do not actually approve of voters having a direct say on abortion because the access to abortion is popular in this country. They would rather have a representative democracy, which means the people are electing their lawmakers to vote on issues for them.
[00:01:32] So what happens when the constituents vote to approve of abortion rights, yet their elected officials are, quote, pro life or anti abortion themselves?
[00:01:46] In November 2024, 10 different states voted on ballot measures to enshrine abortion rights and seven states passed them.
[00:01:59] In Colorado, Maryland, New York and Nevada, abortion was already protected under their state laws. So the ballot measures taken for the 2024 election would be to include the right to abortion in state constitutions, thus making it harder for lawmakers to revoke these protections in the future.
[00:02:24] The other states that passed abortion rights ballot measures are Arizona, Montana and Ohio. They will likely also have to wrangle with their legal challenges or bills from Republican lawmakers to dispute these measures.
[00:02:42] Arizona voters approved Proposition 139, which is a measure to establish a fundamental right to abortion in the state constitution.
[00:02:53] The amendment established that the right to an abortion is a fundamental right. This means it's considered a basic, essential right that the government cannot easily restrict.
[00:03:05] As a result of the voter approval, the right to abortion is now protected within the Arizona state Constitution. This provides stronger legal protection for abortion access in Arizona, making it more difficult for state lawmakers to enact restrictive abortion laws.
[00:03:25] House Concurrent Resolution 2058 is a resolution introduced by Arizona Representative Rachel Cashel. It proposes a new ballot measure that would Significantly modify Proposition 139.
[00:03:41] It aims to change the language of the amendment, effectively reversing the protections for abortion rights that voters have approved.
[00:03:51] Specifically, it would allow the state legislature to enact laws restricting abortion if they are rationally related to a legitimate state interest, which is a much broader and more permissive standard than what Prop. 139 established.
[00:04:08] If passed by Arizona House and Senate, both which have Republican majority. This measure would go to voters as a ballot initiative in the 2026 election.
[00:04:22] In Colorado, voters approved Amendment 79, which is a measure to enshrine abortion protections in the state constitution.
[00:04:33] Enshrine means to preserve or protect something, especially a right or tradition, in a lasting or sacred way. In this context, it means to firmly establish abortion protections within the state's constitution. The political landscape now involves reactions and implementation rather than outright attempts to stop the decision in the sense of completely reversing it.
[00:05:01] While a direct reversal of this amendment is unlikely due to its constitutional status, there will always be political opposition.
[00:05:11] This opposition may manifest in attempts to influence the interpretation of the amendment through legislation, as efforts to introduce regulations that, while not outright bans, could restrict access to abortion service, continued political discourse and attempts to influence public opinion regarding abortion. There are groups that are against the passing of Amendment 79. These groups and politicians will likely continue to voice their opinion and attempt to influence future legislation.
[00:05:51] Marylanders voted to approve to enshrine the right to abortion in their state's constitution. In November 2024, voters approved question one, which adds a section to the Maryland Constitution that guarantees a right to reproductive freedom.
[00:06:10] Voters in Maryland decided to add protection for abortion rights to the most important legal document in their state, making those rights very difficult to remove or weaken.
[00:06:22] There are indeed groups and individuals who oppose the outcome of Question one.
[00:06:29] These include anti abortion advocacy groups and some political figures.
[00:06:36] Organizations like the Maryland Catholic Conference and the Maryland Family Institute actively campaigned against the amendment. These groups hold the opinion that abortion is immoral and that life begins at conception.
[00:06:52] Although a constitutional amendment is very difficult to overturn, those who oppose abortion rights may pursue various strategies.
[00:07:02] They might attempt to introduce legislation that tests the boundaries of the amendment or seeks to regulate aspects of abortion access.
[00:07:13] It is possible that legal challenges to the interpretation of the amendment could arise.
[00:07:19] Continued political advocacy to influence public opinion and future elections is likely. It must be understood that even though the voters have made their choice, there will remain political groups that oppose the decision and will continue to attempt to influence the laws surrounding the topic.
[00:07:45] The Republicans in Missouri tried to stop any abortion rights amendments from getting to voters by holding up the process for pro choice signature collection. By refusing to sign off on the legally necessary cost estimate for the measure, the Attorney General, Andrew Bailey claimed that it would cost the state billions of dollars to restore abortion rights in the state.
[00:08:11] However, the state auditor was quoted listing this change as a mere $51,000.
[00:08:18] Bailey was forced to sign the approval to the real estimate by the state supreme court. However, he said if voters passed the pro choice amendments, he would refuse to enforce it.
[00:08:31] When Andrew Bailey's legal holdups did not work, the anti abortion groups in Missouri tried to send voters text messages warning them that pro choice petitioners were trying to steal their personal data.
[00:08:46] Missouri Amendment 3, known as the Right to Reproductive Freedom initiative, was on the general election ballot in Missouri on November 8, 2024. It proposed amending the Missouri Constitution to establish a right to reproductive freedom encompassing decisions about contraception, abortion, and other health care related to pregnancy. This amendment would have created a fundamental right to make decisions about one's reproductive health care, including abortion, and prevent the government from denying or infringing upon this right.
[00:09:24] It was expected to overturn many of Missouri's existing restrictive abortion laws.
[00:09:31] In the November 2024 general election, Missouri voters approved Amendment 3, establishing a constitutional right to reproductive freedom. This included the right to abortion.
[00:09:46] Following the passage of Amendment 3, Republican lawmakers in Missouri have begun efforts to introduce legislation that would significantly limit or alter the effects of the amendment. These efforts include proposals for new ballot measures that would further restrict abortion access.
[00:10:06] Essentially, Republicans are trying to put new legislation in place that would undo what voters have undeniably voted for. They are not blocking the amendment itself, but trying to put new laws in place that would counteract the amendment.
[00:10:25] Lawmakers introduced a fetal personhood bill called the Missouri Prenatal Equal Protection Act. It identifies life as beginning at fertilization.
[00:10:36] This would ban all abortions in violation to Amendment 3, which establishes a right to abortion until fetal viability.
[00:10:45] House Bill 194 has also been proposed by Republicans. This bill would ban abortion after cardiac activity, which again would defy the constitutional amendment. This bill is about defining viability as stating after the heartbeat can be detected, except that is, before the heart is even formed.
[00:11:08] Republicans have also tried to send a second ballot measure called House Joint Resolution 54 for voters, but this time it would ban both abortion and youth gender affirming care, which does not have as much popular support with voters.
[00:11:26] This measure is a cynical attempt to get voters to allow abortion restrictions wrapped in the guise of choice.
[00:11:35] Another tactic the Republicans are trying in the state of Missouri is to control abortion by proposing that it would be a crime to deliver mifeprestone or other drugs with the intent of causing an abortion.
[00:11:50] Senate Bill 119 was introduced and passed in the Missouri Senate.
[00:11:56] This bill creates the offense of delivery of an abortifacient drug. Under this bill, a person who has mifepressone or another abortion inducing drug and provides it to someone seeking an abortion could could be charged. This offense is a Class C felony.
[00:12:17] Amendment 3 aims to protect individuals rights to make decisions about their reproductive health care, including abortion.
[00:12:26] Senate Bill 119 is creating crimes related to the possession and distribution of abortifacient drugs. This is seen by many as placing restrictions on the ability of of people to exercise those reproductive rights within Amendment 3.
[00:12:44] Therefore, this bill is likely to be challenged in court to determine if it is in fact contradicting the constitutional amendment. The Senate bill is creating restrictions while the amendment is creating rights.
[00:13:00] Saying the quiet part out loud, Republican Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman is quoted saying, I'm here to tell you the Missouri supermajority of Republicans will not stand for this. There will be another option to vote so that people understand abortion will not continue in the State of Missouri, A proposed change to the Montana state constitution regarding abortion rights was presented to voters on the election ballot. The voters were asked to decide whether to add a provision to the state's highest legal document, the Constitution, that specifically addresses abortion rights. The Montana State Constitution now includes a provision that provides the right to abortion before fetal viability.
[00:13:55] Viability refers to the point in pregnancy when a fetus can survive outside the womb with medical assistance, generally around 24 weeks. The approved amendment prohibits the Montana state government, like the legislature, courts, etc. From enacting laws or policies that would deny or significantly restrict a woman's right to an abortion.
[00:14:22] Voters in Montana approved an amendment to the state constitution that bars the government from denying the right to abortion. But before viability, there are ongoing efforts by some Montana lawmakers to introduce bills that would create obstacles to abortion access.
[00:14:44] This includes bills that aim to restrict or regulate abortion procedures, introduce personhood measures that would grant legal rights to fetuses, and attempts to criminalize actions around abortion access.
[00:14:59] Lawmakers have proposed a bill that aims to criminalize people traveling out of state for abortion services. Known as House Bill 609, this bill sought to criminalize pregnant individuals who travel out of Montana to obtain abortion care, even if that care is legal in the state where it's provided.
[00:15:22] This bill emerged after Montana voters approved approved a constitutional amendment enshrining abortion rights in the state.
[00:15:30] The bill was viewed by many as an attempt to circumvent the will of the voters.
[00:15:36] This bill also aimed to criminalize those who assist pregnant individuals in traveling for abortion services.
[00:15:45] It would have imposed felony charges on individuals who obtain or assist in obtaining an illegal abortion, whether within or outside of Montana's borders. This included the pregnant person themselves, as well as anyone who AIDS or assists in transporting them.
[00:16:05] The bill faced significant opposition from abortion rights advocates. They argued that it was a direct attack on the freedom of Montanans who make their own health care decisions.
[00:16:18] Concerns were raised about the bill's potential to criminalize individuals seeking necessary medical care, particularly in cases of severe fetal anomalies.
[00:16:31] The bill was tabled in committee, meaning that it was set aside and is not currently being moved forward.
[00:16:41] A past amendment in Nevada would ensure abortion access for the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. Nevada already had laws protecting abortion rights, notably through Nevada Revised Statutes, which allows abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. Crucially, this statute was affirmed by voters in 1990, meaning the state legislature cannot easily amend or repeal it. In 2024, Nevada voters approved a ballot initiative that further enshrines abortion rights into the state's constitution. This aims to provide even stronger protection against potential future restrictions. It is important to understand that because of the 1990 vote, it is very difficult for lawmakers to change the current abortion laws.
[00:17:37] Nevada has a specific requirement for constitutional amendments. They must be approved by voters in two consecutive general elections. This means that even though the Amendment passed in 2024, it is not yet officially part of the state constitution.
[00:17:57] Nevada voters have taken the first step toward protecting abortion access up to 24 weeks by approving the amendment in 2024.
[00:18:07] This same amendment will be placed on the ballot again in 2026 general election.
[00:18:14] If it is approved by voters again in 2026, then it will become part of the Nevada State Constitution.
[00:18:24] While Nevada has strong protections for abortion rights due to both existing statutes and the recent constitutional amendment, it is reasonable to expect that there will still be political activity related to the issue.
[00:18:44] New Yorkers voted to amend their constitution to explicitly protect against discrimination related to pregnancy and reproductive health care, which strengthens abortion rights in the state. By approving this measure, New York voters have likely amended the state's constitution or enacted a strong state law that provides broad protections against discrimination related to a wide range of personal characteristics, explicitly including pregnancy outcomes and reproductive health care decisions. This makes it more difficult for the state or individuals to treat people unfairly. Based on these factors, there were and are groups and individuals who oppose the amendment. This opposition stems from various concerns, including concerns about the potential impact on parental rights, concerns about the inclusion of gender identity and its potential effects on areas like women's sports, and opposition to abortion rights in general.
[00:19:54] Republican lawmakers and conservative groups voiced opposition to the amendment. Opponents argued that the language of the amendment was too vague and could lead to unintended consequences. They raised concerns about how the amendment would be interpreted in areas like sports and parental rights.
[00:20:15] There were also legal challenges attempting to block the amendment from even appearing on the ballot.
[00:20:22] The debate served surrounding the amendment largely fell along partisan lines, with Democrats generally supporting it and Republicans generally opposing it. Therefore, while the amendment was approved by voters, there is definitely an opposing political force that is against the amendment and that has attempted and likely will continue to attempt to fight against the effects of this amendment.
[00:20:56] So who Pays for the Challenges to voter approved Measures?
[00:21:00] When voter approved laws are challenged in court state and local governments, they're often involved in defending those laws. Government attorneys who are paid with taxpayer funds represent the state or local government in these legal proceedings. Therefore, tax dollars are indeed used to pay for government lawyers to participate in these court cases regardless of whether they are defending or challenging a law.
[00:21:31] Legislatures whose salaries are paid by tax dollars may also dedicate time and resources to drafting and introducing new legislation that could potentially modify or counteract the effects of voter approved laws.
[00:21:48] Private individuals or organizations may also file lawsuits to challenge voter approved laws. These lawsuits may or may not involve the use of public funds. However, if the government is a party to the lawsuit, then tax dollars will be used to fund the government's legal defense.
[00:22:11] It's important to note that legal challenges can be funded by various sources, including private donations, nonprofit organizations, and political advocacy groups.
[00:22:24] When anti abortion groups or individuals challenge voter approved measures, the funding for the legal battles comes from a mix of sources.
[00:22:35] These organizations often have legal teams and fundraising networks dedicated to challenging abortion rights. They may receive funding from private donations, religious organizations and other groups that oppose abortion.
[00:22:52] Individuals who oppose abortion rights may contribute financially to support legal challenges.
[00:22:58] Similar to pro reproductive rights organizations, anti abortion groups may have legal defense funds to support litigation.
[00:23:07] Some foundations support anti abortion causes that will also provide funding for legal challenges.
[00:23:16] In some cases, if state or local governments align with anti abortion views, they may provide legal support or resources to challenge voter approved measures. It is also possible that state funds are used to defend laws that are already in place which anti abortion groups are trying to uphold.
[00:23:39] When state or local governments provide legal support or resources to challenge voter approved measures related to abortion, they are indeed using taxpayer funds.
[00:23:51] So despite a majority of voters supporting abortion rights, the state can use those same voters tax dollars to to actively oppose them.
[00:24:03] One should ask if it is right that a state can use taxpayer money, even from those who support abortion rights, to fund legal challenges against the will of the majority.
[00:24:16] It can feel like a direct disregard for the democratic process. When taxpayer money is used to fight against a measure that the majority of voters say supported, it creates a conflict of interest when state officials use public funds to pursue their political agenda rather than representing the interest of all of their constituents.
[00:24:40] Legal battles are expensive and using taxpayer money to challenge voter approved measures can be seen as a waste of resources, especially when those resources could be used for other public services.
[00:24:56] This practice can erode public trust in the government as it suggests that the state is not acting in the best interest of its citizens. There is tension that arises between the legal mandate of state officials to defend state laws and the political will of the people. This is a very difficult line to walk.
[00:25:21] So how do politicians go against the majority?
[00:25:26] Jessica Valenti writes Lawmakers are undermining Democracy to keep Abortion Banned Americans overwhelmingly want abortion to be legal, but these Republican leaders can't risk voters having a choice. So in state after state, they work to keep abortion off the ballot.
[00:25:47] Unfortunately, Republican politicians do not spend their time trying to prove that their stance on abortion is better for people or the country. Instead, they work hard to keep voters from having a choice. These conservative lawmakers have focused their energy on preventing voters from having a say at all. They know how popular abortion rights are to Americans, so they figure they shouldn't risk it by putting it on the ballot.
[00:26:19] Ballot measures are a way for citizens to vote on an issue.
[00:26:23] Since the Dobbs decision, a majority of ballot measures we have seen have been primarily citizen led.
[00:26:31] However, Republicans do not like that citizens have the power to use this direct democracy, so they try to pull out all of the stops to keep voters away from abortion because they know when voters have a say, they will protect this right.
[00:26:48] Bills introduced across the country would make it more difficult to get proposals on the ballot, more challenging to pass them, and would undermine newly adopted constitutional amendments.
[00:27:04] Republican state legislators will try to make it harder for these new goals to pass.
[00:27:10] Idaho introduced House Bill 2 to increase the threshold for ballot measures to pass from a simple majority to 60%.
[00:27:21] State Representative Bruce Skog introduced this bill because he claimed the citizen led initiative process was too influenced by out of state money and this new bill would level the playing field.
[00:27:36] Idaho's ban lacks exceptions for threats to patient health and has been sued by the former administration due to the state violating a federal law that regulates emergency room care.
[00:27:50] During the four months the law was in effect, a total of six patients needed to be airlifted to neighboring states in order to get care. Since the doctors in Idaho didn't want want to risk prosecution.
[00:28:04] As of April 2025, a judge broadened this medical exception. The court stated that the exception should be interpreted broadly by doctors and could apply to numerous serious health conditions even if death is not imminent.
[00:28:21] If the House Bill 2 passes in Idaho, it will make it a lot harder to restore abortion access throughout the state.
[00:28:31] According to Luke Mayville, a co founder of Reclaim Idaho. Lawmakers are attempting to rig the process so that future initiatives will fail even when they are supported by the majority of voters.
[00:28:46] Florida used this same idea and passed the bill in 2006 requiring that 60% of the vote must be in favor of for it to pass.
[00:28:57] This bill was not passed to thwart abortion rights, but it is why the estate's abortion rights measures narrowly failed in November of 2024 despite receiving 57% of the vote.
[00:29:12] It seems like Governor Ron DeSantis does not want his voters to have another chance to overturn the law as he has proposed changes to to citizen led amendments. They would require the people to go to election offices to sign a petition or request one by mail.
[00:29:31] This would mean that citizens could not bring forward amendments by going door to door to collect signatures as they do currently.
[00:29:41] DeSantis even has stipulations built in for those petitions that do sign somehow manage to get enough signatures. He wants it to require the Florida Supreme Court to determine whether they comply with the inalienable rights section of the state constitution, which grants rights to life, liberty and happiness. This seems fair, right?
[00:30:08] South Dakota lawmakers are also trying to raise the passage threshold for constitutional amendments from a simple majority as well.
[00:30:19] The Republicans in the state of Ohio also tried to raise the standard for ballot measures to require amendments to get 60% of the vote to pass after pro choice groups started collecting signatures to get abortion on the ballot for November 2023.
[00:30:39] These politicians also tried to mandate that pro choice activists collect signatures from every county in the state, as opposed to half of them. This rule would have allowed a single rural county with just a few residents to shut down a law that every other citizen in Ohio wanted.
[00:30:59] The Republicans in Ohio were so intent on making these things happen, they held a special election that cost taxpayers $18 million while trying to argue it didn't have anything to do with abortion, which would later be discovered in a leaked letter that this effort was entirely about abortion.
[00:31:22] While this was going on, anti choice organizations also got involved and tried to sue over the ballot measure. They tried to argue that the amendment should be split in two, which would be a way to require petitioners to start over and gather two times as many signatures. Luckily, all of these efforts failed.
[00:31:46] Another way politicians try to go above the rights of their voters is to change the vocabulary and trick voters when drafting ballot summary language Regarding the issue Conservatives want to claim that abortion only refers to unwanted pregnancies when abortion care covers ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, or life threatening pregnancies. There are times when conservatives do not want to use the word abortion when discussing ending rape related pregnancies.
[00:32:21] Republicans are so afraid that Americans oppose their views and agenda, they are not calling their own ban bans anymore, instead using words like they are supporting quote standards or seeking a quote consensus and wanting quote, reasonable limits.
[00:32:42] All of these terms stand in place of the word ban. Using the word consensus gives the implication that these laws are popular. When you push for extreme bills, using the words reasonable law limits helps diminish the impact. These terms help Republicans avoid telling the truth about what their policies will realistically do Marjorie Dannenfelzer is an American activist who is president of Susan B. Anthony Pro Life America. She stated in the summer of 2023 that the word ban doesn't apply to any abortion legislation because, quote, banning is not the word that we use because it's not accurate. Ban means everything.
[00:33:32] She claims that if abortion laws have exceptions for women's lives and health, it isn't a ban but a limit or a restriction. According to Marjorie Dannenfelser's logic, there are no abortion bans in the United States as there are no states in which all abortions are forbidden. When they define ban as a total ban without exceptions provides them plausible deniability.
[00:33:59] Choosing to use limit or restriction instead of abortion ban misleads the American public into believing that women do have options and a choice when it comes to abortion and their bodies. In reality, we know that even with the quote exceptions, these states have the consequences and lack of understanding. For every medical issue that can arise in pregnancy is not covered, doctors have their hands tied and therefore women are not getting the care they need.
[00:34:34] Conservatives like to focus on the intent of abortion. They like to split women into two groups, those that deserve care and those who don't. Abortion is a medical intervention. Intention has nothing to do with it, says Jessica Valenti in her book Abortion.
[00:34:54] The view Republicans accept is women who want to be pregnant and adhere to traditional gender roles which state that women should be mothers. They deserve abortion care if needed, but women who don't want to become pregnant are considered murderers. Therefore they don't deserve this right. They should be punished. Demonizing women who want abortions while trying to pretend to support IVF and abortion in cases of rape, incest or health conditions allows conservatives the ability to try and appease as many voters as they can while also pushing their agenda with policy behind the scenes.
[00:35:38] The question we need to ask is what are conservatives goals? Is their goal to help women and babies with these bans or are these bans a way to control and punish women?
[00:35:54] Quoting Jessica Valenti the powerful coalition of extremist organizations I.e. republicans that speak spent decades working toward this moment weren't really interested in abortion, but in what ending abortion meant for their broader goals. A return to forced traditional gender roles, a forced gender binary, a culture and politics ruled by white supremacist patriarchy where women had no power and the punishment of anyone who deviates from it at all.
[00:36:31] If this wasn't about power, control and punishment, why would some women be allowed abortions when they're raped? It is those of us who have sex willingly. They want to teach a lesson to the most. The truth is that most anti abortion sentiment and law is rooted in the idea that pregnancy is a punishment, a consequence for those who behave irresponsibly or promiscuously.
[00:37:02] Voters wonder how we can have a majority within our state on a topic like abortion, but we cannot have the laws we want.
[00:37:11] The hypocrisy of voters watching their elected officials work to pass laws that most of them oppose is outlandish.
[00:37:20] If Republicans are so sure that this nation is pro life, why are they so afraid of the people voicing their opinions?
[00:37:30] Conservative Rick Santorum has been quoted saying, thank goodness that most of the states in this country don't allow you to put everything on the ballot because pure democracies are not the way to run a country.
[00:37:45] Wow.
[00:37:47] We need to ask ourselves are Republican lawmakers attempting to orchestrate the death of direct democracy by a thousand cuts? This is not what democracy stands for and Americans deserve to have their voices heard on abortion rights without any interference or constraints.
[00:38:11] Voter approved ballot initiatives represent the direct expression of what the voters preferences are. When politicians seek to overturn or weaken these measures, it can be seen as a direct challenge to the democratic process.
[00:38:29] For those who view abortion as a fundamental right, the fight is not just about policy, but about protecting individual autonomy and bodily integrity.
[00:38:41] The fear that politicians may erode these rights creates a sense of urgency and motivates continued advocacy. If elected officials are allowed to undermine voter approved legislation, it sets a dangerous precedent that could allow them to undermine any voter approved legislation.
[00:39:07] On our next episode, we will start looking into what crisis pregnancy centers are. These are nonprofit organizations established by anti abortion groups with the primary goal of persuading pregnant individuals not to have an abortion.
