In Kentucky, Legal Abortion Is on the Ballot
Voters will soon cast ballots on a constitutional amendment that seeks to explicitly remove any protections for abortion in the state's constitution.

A constitutional amendment on the ballot in Kentucky will likely decide whether abortion will be legal in the state.
The proposed amendment would officially clarify that Kentucky's constitution does not protect the right to abortion—skirting privacy and bodily autonomy protections in the state's constitution. Whether it succeeds is likely to affect the outcome of a current legal battle in the state's Supreme Court, where justices are reviewing the state's 2019 trigger law. In a struggle closely mirroring Kansas' August ballot measure, abortions will likely permanently cease in the state if the amendment passes.
Following the release of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision in June, Kentucky enacted its 2019 abortion trigger law, which banned all abortions not performed to save a woman's life or prevent a disabling injury. The state also passed a six-week ban on abortion in 2019. Following legal challenges from the state's two abortion clinics, Kentucky's Supreme Court decided that the law could stay in effect until the court could rule on the ban's constitutionality. The state Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in the matter in November—after the midterm election. While the law is under review, most abortions remain halted in the state.
According to the ACLU, Kentucky has a constitutional provision protecting "privacy, bodily autonomy, and self-determination," thus making a ban on abortion difficult to justify. However, if Amendment 2 receives voter support, this constitutional barrier to the state's abortion ban will be removed. The Amendment reads "To protect human life, nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion."
As midterm voting draws near, both pro-life and pro-choice campaigners have ramped up their efforts to sway voters.
Pro-life legislators in particular emphasized that if passed, the amendment itself would not render abortion illegal. "The amendment does not allow abortion or does not outlaw abortions. It does not outlaw abortions in all cases. Under current Kentucky law, abortion is legal if necessary to preserve the life or health of a pregnant woman," Rep. Nancy Tate (R–Brandenburg) told media last Thursday. She continued, arguing that the amendment would "keep state judges in their lane of interpreting the law and not inventing new laws and new rights that the constitution does not speak of."
However, to pro-choice advocates, if the measure fails, "it would really drive home the narrative that abortion is a winning issue," Tamarra Weider, the state's director of Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates told The 19th. "We have a real opportunity to change what, nationally, people think about Kentucky. And hopefully, they'll reconsider not only abortion rights in Kentucky but look across at those other red states that people don't invest in."
While the recent victory for pro-choice advocates in Kansas—which decisively voted down a measure that would remove constitutional protections for bodily autonomy in the state—is energizing pro-choice Kentuckians, it is difficult to predict the outcome of the contentious vote. Regardless, how Kentuckians vote on the proposed amendment is likely to determine whether abortion will remain illegal in the state.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I wonder how many people who are pro-abortion do not believe in a right to bodily autonomy when comes to, say, vaccinations?
Once again, with many diseases there is a public health issue of contagion that factors into requiring vaccination. Of course, everyone knows that: even those who disingenuously ignore the important distinction in their Red vs Blue Team culture-warring taking points.
Now, that doesn’t mean it is illegitimate to question vaccine mandates for COVID-19 but the general concept of why vaccines might be mandatory for some diseases (polio, for example) is well understood.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.????????.???
Ιո 23 ḋауѕ аⅼⅼ tḣе ḋіеѕеⅼ ԝіⅼⅼ ḃе ģοոе аոḋ уоսr еոеrǵу ѕսррⅼу ԝіⅼⅼ ḋіѕареаr ѕο ḋο tḣіѕ rіǵḣt ոоԝ
Ꮩіѕіt............... http://wiresouth.com
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (odi-14) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
…
Just open the link————————————–>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
The inalienable right to life is on the ballot.
Is it an inviolate right or not?
If you are going to bring in the needs of other individuals in order to compromise it in some cases that you like, then you really do not have an argument that it is uncompromised in the case of abortion.
Nobody is saying you have to be vaccinated, that is your choice. What they are saying is if you choose not to, you then have no right to risk infecting other people , so go buy a plot of land and live on it like a hermit away from everybody else.
In fact, that doesn't sound like a bad idea these days.
Nobody was saying that if you were unvaccinated it should be illegal for you to have a job? I seem to remember a decrepit old fart living in a big white house saying just that at this time last year.
You can have plenty of jobs, just not where you can infect others. Get a job that telecommutes to your heart's content.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this article… http://www.Profit97.com
The idea that unvaccinated people should be required to live on a plot of land away ftom everybody else is not deeply rooted in our Nation's history and tradition.
Vaccination itself isn’t deeply rooted. Salk’s development of the polio vaccine was a big deal. He was (rightly) treated as a hero.
The vaccine makes *you* immune - so why does it matter if I have it or not?
I know you actually know the answer to that question.
I know you’re a lying, sea lioning shitweasel.
I'm pro-vaccine, but a bit puzzled by your dismissal.
Once everyone who wants to be vaccinated is immune, I question the vaccine mandate.
That said, insurers should have the right to require repayment for unnecessary lifesaving efforts for the voluntarily vulnerable. I feel the same about seat belt and helmet laws.
You can take risks, if you like, but don't expect anyone else to pay for your devil-may-care bravado or embrace of pseudoscience.
Shun the vax, lose your house if you need ICU treatment.
Seems fair.
No house/collateral/likely recoup through garnishment? EMTALA exemption. The hospital can let you die and write "suicide" on your death certificate. Because that's pretty much the truth.
In cases where there is highly communicable, harmful disease, bodily autonomy is not an inviolate right.
That is a abstract legal/moral position consistent with classical liberalism. I am not specifically endorsing COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
Is this where you are going to make an argument that pregnancies are a public rather than private matter?
I can say in advance that will require some stretching of the concept of public interest that just isn’t required when discussing the public interest in controlling, say, the spread of polio.
It is a public matter that you cannot kill a child in your care.
The justification for laws about murder is argued on ethical principles, not public health concerns.
So "public health concerns" are unethical?
Maybe you could pick up a Logic textbook.
That’s rich, coming from you.
Do you support taxes being used to keep all comatose patients on life-support until death by natural causes?
Mr Laursen,
You can only successfully argue that abortion is a right enjoyed by women if you can successfully argue that an unborn baby enjoys no protection under the law.
This is a difficult issue for me. I support abortion on demand for early term pregnancies, but I draw the line on later term. Where is that line and how do I (and others) arrive at it? Personally, I think it should be at 12 weeks. Beyond that and society is dealing with legalized infanticide, which is something I cannot stomach. I fully admit that my 12 week limit is arbitrary, and I am willing to hear others' arguments on the matter. I also recognize that a young, unmarried pregnant girl is in a dreadful situation and I can sympathize with a decision to terminate a pregnancy, and I would never criticize a young woman that makes that difficult decision.
Pregnancies are a public matter because murder is a public matter, particularly murder of a defenseless baby.
Did you notice I didn’t make any arguments about abortion?
>public health issue
nope.
How about eugenics?
You cannot have both you ignoramus. If you have a right to body autonomy then you cannot commit murder in the name of that "principle" but deny it in cases where there is only a possible risk of harm in others. This is just special pleading on your part with ever more exposed opportunistic rationalizations.
People voting for what they want is a threat to our democracy!
Well, it does illustrate the problem of the Tyranny of the Majority. And since that problem is inherent to democracy, yes it is a threat. And that's as it should be.
Only if you vote for a Republican. Not wanting a Democrat in office is a threat to Democracy, no matter how incompetent or dishonest that Democrat might be. We can only have a Democracy if the Democrat party is in power. Biden, Obama and Hillary have clarified this issue many times.
express you understand this is exactly how the design works.
....Pro-life legislators in particular emphasized that if passed, the amendment itself would not render abortion illegal. "The amendment does not allow abortion or does not outlaw abortions. It does not outlaw abortions in all cases. Under current Kentucky law, abortion is legal if necessary to preserve the life or health of a pregnant woman," Rep. Nancy Tate (R–Brandenburg) told media last Thursday. She continued, arguing that the amendment would "keep state judges in their lane of interpreting the law and not inventing new laws and new rights that the constitution does not speak of."....
Sounds very reasonable. Hope it passes.