Life is on the Ballot
Pro-life Americans celebrated the fourth anniversary of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June, the landmark Supreme Court decision that clarified there is no constitutional right to abortion. For nearly 50 years, Roe v. Wade prohibited states from passing laws to protect the unborn. Dobbs overturned that precedent, declaring that the people, through their state and federal representatives, have every right to determine what abortion policy will be.
Abortion advocates did not give up, however. They adopted a new and highly successful strategy: using state ballot initiatives and state constitutional amendments to establish or protect abortion rights. This November, you may encounter one of these measures on your ballot. Know what you are voting on before you cast your vote.
State referendums, also called “ballot initiatives,” are ways that citizens can vote directly on proposed state statutes or state constitutional amendments instead of moving them through the legislature. These initiatives can deal with a variety of issues such as marijuana legalization, increasing the minimum wage, or giving voting rights to felons. These are often controversial issues that could take years to sort out through the state legislature.
Unfortunately, abortion advocates have had significant success in getting anti-life provisions enacted using this strategy. Over the past four years, 11 pro-abortion ballot measures have passed, while only one pro-life measure has prevailed. As voters head to the polls this year, it is more important than ever to understand not only what these measures claim to do, but also what their language would actually mean.
Often, these referenda are often worded very deceptively. Idaho’s Proposition 1 would legalize abortion throughout all nine months for any reason and allow artificial reproductive technologies such as IVF to be unregulated. They use phrases such as the “right to reproductive freedom and privacy” and include verbiage that allows the state to regulate abortion after the point of “fetal viability.” However, “fetal viability” is defined very loosely. They leave it up to the doctor to make that decision on a case-by-case basis and deem a baby non-viable if “extraordinary measures” must be taken to save a life. But there is no definition of “extraordinary measures,” either. If passed, a baby born alive during an abortion attempt would not receive life-saving care. In cases of a “medical emergency,” the statute would allow any medical professional to perform an abortion- not just a licensed physician. Idahoans, vote NO on Prop 1.
Similarly, Virginia’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment is convoluted and confusing, a deliberate attempt to hide its radicalism. Currently, Virginia’s constitution is silent on abortion. This will create a constitutional right to kill children in the womb. It will declare that protecting unborn children is not a compelling state interest.
It starts by asking if the state constitution should “protect the freedom to make personal decisions” about reproductive healthcare. The proposal ends by allowing for “restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy except when the patient’s health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive.” While this sounds like simple exceptions for rape and incest, it is not. Doctors can easily deem manageable health concerns a risk to a mother’s health. Also, countless doctors have given grave diagnoses to babies in the womb with supposedly slim survival chances that have resulted in healthy babies.
The manipulation of words is intentional in hopes that more people will vote in favor of unregulated abortion. Supporters may characterize these provisions as reasonable safeguards. But the language leaves important questions about how broadly “health” and pregnancy viability could be interpreted. A measure can sound moderate while still creating broad legal protections for abortion. Virginians, vote NO on Ballot Question 1.
Nevada is voting for a second time on a Right to Abortion Initiative. The state requires state constitutional amendments to be voted on twice — in even-numbered election years — to be officially placed in the state constitution. As a refresher, the amendment explicitly establishes a right to abortion “without interference by state or local governments” until “fetal viability” or when protecting the life of the “pregnant patient.” Keep in mind, the amendment is written to avoid sex-specific words such as “mother” or “woman.” This amendment passed two years ago with 63% of voters in favor, but there is still time to sink it. Nevadans, vote NO on Question 6.
One state that stands out in this election cycle is Missouri. In 2024, Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment to provide for abortion access. This year, voters will consider Amendment 3, which would repeal that measure and establish significant limitations on abortion, such as medical emergency, fetal anomaly (not a disability), and rape and incest up to 12 weeks. The amendment also prohibits the administration of gender transition procedures, cross-sex hormones, or puberty blockers to children under 18 years of age. This amendment takes a giant leap toward saving innocent lives. Missourians, vote YES on Amendment 3.
While pro-life organizations and individuals have spent decades providing resources, counseling, and practical support to mothers and their children, abortion organizations have built extensive political and fundraising operations. Groups such as Planned Parenthood have poured millions of dollars into elections and ballot campaigns, giving them the resources to dominate the messaging surrounding these measures.
The pro-life movement has also achieved significant victories through state and federal policy, grassroots activism, and the appointment of judges committed to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning. Its grassroots network remains strong, with college outreach, state and local chapters, educational efforts, and events such as the March for Life.
But Dobbs fundamentally changed the political landscape. After nearly five decades of Roe, generations of Americans had grown up believing that abortion was a constitutional right. The overturning of Roe energized many pro-abortion voters, while some Republican candidates and elected officials have become reluctant to discuss abortion for fear of political consequences.
While many Americans still believe that supporting the cause of life is the most important reason to vote for a candidate, the shock of overturning Roe created an uptick in pro-choice voters. If the pro-life movement wants to change the culture, it must continue making the case for life —not only in statehouses and courtrooms, but also in churches, schools, communities, and at the ballot box. As Nicole Hunt writes in her National Review op-ed, Why the Pro-Life Movement Keeps Losing Elections:
For the last 49 years, an entire generation has grown up thinking that abortion is a constitutional right, and therefore not a moral wrong. They’ve grown up thinking abortion is an acceptable form of birth control and that it’s good for women. They need to know that abortion harms everything — the preborn, women, families, minorities, the poor, and much more—as it has for the last 49 years, and as it will continue to do.
Other referendums will also appear on state ballots. These include voter rights, redistricting, gender ideology and same-sex marriage, gun rights, taxes, education, and more. Voters should take the time to read the actual language of every measure appearing on their ballot — not simply the title or the campaign slogans used by its supporters. At this year’s Eagle Council, Dr. Tim Daughtry spoke about the power of messaging in this year’s election — how to recognize deceptive language and how to message better on our priorities. To watch his in-depth and enlightening speech, visit our website here.
For a broader overview of major 2026 ballot initiatives, see this overview from The Federalist
