Pro-Choice Abortion Initiatives Pass in Seven Out of Ten States
Most of these weren't close calls at all.

It was a pretty good night for reproductive freedom initiatives, which prevailed in seven of the ten states where they were on the ballot.
Measures meant to protect abortion access were approved by voters in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and New York. And most of these weren't close calls at all.
Still, the results are out of line with a trend seen since the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022. Until yesterday, the pro-choice position prevailed in every state where abortion-related measures were on the ballot, including in red states such as Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio.
That 2024 election pattern is broken somewhat by results in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota. But even in two of these states, strong support for pro-choice policies was clear.
In Florida, 57 percent of voters supported Amendment 4, an Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion. Had it passed, Amendment 4—which was fought bitterly by the DeSantis administration—would have amended the Florida constitution to say that "no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health." Currently, the state only allows abortion until six weeks pregnancy.
Fifty-seven percent in favor may seem like a win, but it falls short of the 60 percent approval threshold required for constitutional amendments in Florida.
In Nebraska, 48.7 percent of voters approved the state's Right to Abortion measure, (Initiative 439), which would have amended the constitution to declare that "all persons shall have a fundamental right to abortion until fetal viability." It was a close call, yet ultimately a loss. But a competing measure—Initiative 434—passed 55.3 percent to 44.7 percent and, while not as supportive of legal abortion as 439, it's also something of a pro-choice bill. Initiative 434 still allows for first trimester abortions but prohibits second and third trimester abortion unless "necessitated by a medical emergency or when the pregnancy results from sexual assault or incest."
Only in South Dakota—where it's currently criminal to perform an abortion or prescribe abortion medication unless a pregnant woman's life is at risk—did a reproductive freedom initiative truly flop. Voters rejected Amendment G—a citizen-led initiative to enshrine abortion rights in the state's constitution—by almost 20 percentage points (with 87 percent of votes counted).

Meanwhile, reproductive freedom initiatives saw decisive victories in the remaining seven states that considered them, including in some states that currently have restrictive abortion bans.
In Arizona, voters approved Proposition 139, a measure that enshrines a "fundamental right" to abortion until fetal viability in the state's constitution. Abortion is currently legal in Arizona only until 15 weeks pregnancy. Voters rejected this status quo, with about 62 percent voting for Proposition 139 with 60 percent of votes tallied.
In Missouri, where abortion is currently illegal except in medical emergencies, voters approved Amendment 3, a constitutional amendment declaring that "the Government shall not deny or infringe upon a person's fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which is the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions." The measure goes on to stipulate that regulations after fetal viability are permitted, so long as they're "achieved by the least restrictive means" and don't "deny, interfere with, delay, or otherwise restrict an abortion that in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional is needed to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person."
Voters in several states where abortion is currently legal up to at least fetal viability also opted to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitutions.
In Maryland, where abortion is currently legal until fetal viability, voters overwhelmingly approved Question 1, also known as the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment. The tally was about 74 percent for and just 26 percent with three-quarters of votes counted. Initiated by state lawmakers, the measure enshrines in the Maryland constitution "an individual's fundamental right to an individual's own reproductive liberty." Specifically, the amendment says "the State may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right [to an abortion] unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means."
In Montana, where abortion is currently legal until fetal viability, voters approved The Right to Abortion Initiative, also known as CI-128. The measure will amend the state constitution to say "there is a right to make and carry out decisions about one's own pregnancy, including the right to abortion," and "this right shall not be denied or burdened unless justified by a compelling government interest achieved by the least restrictive means." It goes on to say that the state "may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability provided that in no circumstance shall the government deny or burden access to an abortion that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient." With 87 percent of Montana's votes counted, it was winning 57.4 percent to 42.6 percent.
In Nevada, where abortion is now legal until 24 weeks pregnancy, voters approved Question 6, putting the state on the path to guaranteeing a "fundamental right" to abortion until fetal viability in the Nevada constitution. The measure states that the right to an abortion "shall not be denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means." With 84 percent of Nevada votes counted, it was up 63.3 percent to 36.7 percent. However, it must pass again in 2026 to be enacted.
In Colorado, where abortion is currently legal throughout pregnancy, voters passed Amendment 79, a citizen-led initiative also known as the Colorado Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative. The measure repeals a 1984 amendment prohibiting the use of public funds for abortion and creates a new constitutional amendment stating that "the right to abortion is hereby recognized. Government shall not deny, impede, or discriminate against the exercise of that right, including prohibiting health insurance coverage for abortion."
And New Yorkers opted by a large margin to adopt Question 1, an amendment that adds discrimination protections to the state constitution, which currently bars discrimination based on "race, color, creed, or religion." The amendments adds to this "ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy."
Some of these results are no surprise. New York, Colorado, and Maryland are firmly blue states. But reproductive freedom wins didn't neatly match up to red/blue divides. Trump won Florida, Missouri, and Montana and is leading in Arizona and Nevada (though AP hasn't called these races yet), yet a majority of voters in these states, too, opted to support legal abortion.
These results suggest that no matter which politicians people choose, the right to choose is still broadly popular around the country.
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
A miscarriage of justice?
But the people being murdered didn’t get to vote.
So seven states have passed measures indicating that some human idividuals are property and may be destroyed at the whim of their owner. Human rights are granted by the government, not an inherent property.
A great night for the nihilistic death cult, I suppose.
“Stay out of my uterus you fucking weirdos.”
Once again, if you were the least bit competent at keeping weirdos out of your uterus to begin with, there wouldn’t be an issue.
If teenage boys can learn ‘Abstinence is the best policy.”/”Don’t stick it in crazy.” under threat of their own branch of the judiciary and federal law that will pursue them for paternity, you can learn to keep your legs closed so that you don’t have to murder impending children.
^
"But then how can I live without personal responsibility?"
- Typical Progressive (with or without birthing hardware)
Listen idiots I am going to say this very clearly so even you can understand:
States with 6 weeks bans are going to result in anti-abortion pro life woman dying.
Just like the recent case in Texas where complications from a miscarriage resulted in sepsis and then organ failure then death... this is going to be repeated. These are people who wanted to carry their child to term, but as often happens, it didn' t work. And now she is dead. Fuck these 6 week bans and fuck the judiciary for acting like these laws do not violate personal autonomy.
Rape exists. Or were you too busy spouting off about something you will likely never experience ?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/rape-statistics-by-state
Sure, in which case the woman had best file a rape report and the police get fetal DNA samples.
"Human rights are granted by the government"
I agree with your comment except for the part cited here.
Human rights are granted by God. See Declaration of Independence.
Declaration of independence doesn't confer any legal rights.
“ Human rights are granted by God”
How are you going to prove that?
With what some person “says” god wants?
ALL we know for sure is that people wrote everything we know or believe about “god”.
I will be interested to see if the “leave it to the states policy” holds in the Trump administration. If Republicans control congress will there be pressure to roll back state policies with a national ban? If Congress passes a ban will the President sign it? The "leave it to the states" is a good way out of the abortion issue. So, will they resist pressure for more antiabortion action?
There will be no intercourse allowed in the new concentration camps Trump will herd citizens into so that is a moot point.
Spoken like a devout regime bot. Abortion is a state issue now and forever. Congress has no incentive whatsoever to attempt abortion legislation.
Trump has said --- repeatedly --- he has no interest in a ban. And it would not pass SCOTUS review in the first place.
It's not like he has not been asked and has not answered the same way for months. Are you asking for a reason?
Yes, I am asking for a reason. Most of the Justices that voted to overturn Roe stated, in their confirmation hearings, that Roe was settled law. So, I tend to not have much faith in what Republicans say about abortion.
^ This ^
Sounds good to me. The whole point of reversing Roe v Wade was to send the issue back to the states, where the voters can have their say. In fact, before Roe v Wade states were in the process of liberalizing their own abortion laws, and looked to go on doing so. It was RvW that lit the fire under pro-choice activists to fight the years long battle to return the matter back to the states where it belonged. I call it a win for democracy.
^+1
As much as I detest abortion. This was at least in accordance with the tenth amendment.
The whole point of passing Roe v Wade was to keep the states from interfering in an Individual's personal health decisions. Last thing anyone needs is a nanny state telling what to do with their own body.
You mean murder a baby?
Colorado - using taxpayer money to fund abortions is so very Libertarian.
Now they can pave the way to making sure every woman of color is encouraged to take advantage of the free services.
In 2020 Colorado passed a law abolishing the death penalty for convicted violent felons. When Polis signed the law, he said it was because sometimes juries get it wrong and there might be racial animus in the deliberations.
Now in 2024, Colorado passes a law making it legal to apply the death penalty to innocent unborn children, and bonus! every taxpayer has to pay for it. I guess he is not concerned about racial animus or a single person "getting it wrong".
Demonstrating once again how the left enjoys killing the innocent and coddling the evil ones in society.
And since many of those babies are non white, this is clearly RACIST!!!!!!!!
Stop letting everyone into you uterus unprotected, fucking weirdo. Take some fucking responsibility for yourself, for once in your fucking life. That's coming from someone who supports abortion until viability. Pick some new slogans. Stop lying about everything.
Fucking weirdos fucking weirdos.
It is all about responsibility and human rights.
Do you think that your criteria for killing a baby is based on intelligent reasoning?
If so, it’s obvious which of the contradictory definitions of “viability” you have chosen and which you disregard.
1. The ability to continue successfully
2. The age at which a human baby may be prematurely removed from its life giving mother and still survive.
Because rational people must recognize that a younger “pre-viable” baby in the second definition is also absolutely viable by the first definition.
Maybe you’re not using intelligent reasoning after all.
Isn’t choosing intelligent reasoning also your responsibility?
Whatever. Abortion is finally extinct as a national election issue. What will regime media do with themselves?
Roe v Wade made it extinct as a national election issue dumb*ss.
SCOTUS =/= [WE] mob 'democracy' Legislation.
If your political enemies want to abort their fetuses and sterilize their children, why would you prevent that?
Religious virtue-signalling.
Never underestimate just how insane humans get when 'religion' is the basis of the battle (see the middle east).
Because the children are not my enemies?
Because only stone age religious zealots, 19th century slavers, and actual fucking Nazis treat human clumps of cells as something entirely subhuman, worse even than animals?
Because, regardless of solutions or outcomes, writing off what agency children do have as wholly subservient to their parents' wishes is about as anti-individual liberty as you can get?
Pro-Life isn't lobbying for 'children' agency.
The very legislation is about enslaving ?children? in their mothers vagina against her wishes.
Maybe all Women should just be prosecuted for murdering ?babies? every 'that time' of the month?
"there is a right to make and carry out decisions about one's own pregnancy"
Only in today's Gov-God worshiping environment does that fail.
In every one of those states, abortion was more popular than Kamala Harris: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sbFzMwgMeT5zuQNNdvWjFsvtc5mFuH8yxL_mOgUjlE8/edit?usp=sharing
Indeed.
Republicans wrote Roe v. Wade.
Catholic Democrats initiated the Pro-Life movement.
But Power-mad Republican get really stupid when comes to opening-up Constitutional-fences (LIMITS) and thinking the left will never use that open-gate Power for themselves on something really stupid.
Republican voters over and over again showed support for Roe v Wade but the RINO part just didn't listen.
Abortion and the Rights of Women vs. the Rights of the Fetus/Child: A Sliding Scale of Conflicting Rights
Abortion remains one of the most contentious issues in modern society, balancing the rights of women with those of the fetus/child. This article explores the nuanced perspectives on abortion rights, focusing on the shifting balance of rights from conception to birth.
Early Pregnancy: Women's Rights Predominate
In the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, the rights of the woman are paramount. During this period, access to abortion is generally unrestricted, reflecting the belief that a woman's autonomy over her body should be prioritized. This stage is characterized by the woman's right to make decisions about her health and future without significant legal constraints.
Mid-Pregnancy: Increasing Rights for the Fetus/Child
From 12 to 24 weeks, the rights of the fetus/child begin to gain more recognition. Abortion is still available but under more restrictive conditions. This period acknowledges the developing fetus's increasing complexity and potential for viability. The balance of rights starts to shift, with the fetus/child's interests becoming more significant, though still secondary to the woman's health and well-being.
Late Pregnancy: Fetal Viability and Legal Restrictions
After 24 weeks, the fetus is generally considered viable, meaning it can potentially survive outside the womb with medical assistance. At this stage, abortion is typically illegal unless there is a reasonable risk to the woman's life or health, and no reasonable chance of saving the fetus/child. The recognition of fetal pain responses, even if pain receptors are not fully developed, further complicates the ethical considerations.
Comparing Abortion Restrictions: Europe vs. USA
A common misconception is that the USA has more restrictive abortion laws compared to Europe. In reality, many European countries have stricter regulations. For example, countries like Germany and France have more stringent gestational limits and mandatory counseling requirements. In contrast, the USA allows for more lenient access to abortion services, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy. This discrepancy highlights the need to debunk the myth that the USA is more restrictive, emphasizing the importance of understanding the specific legal frameworks in different regions.
The Sliding Scale of Conflicting Rights
The concept of a sliding scale of conflicting rights is central to the abortion debate. Initially, the woman's rights are predominant, reflecting her autonomy and decision-making power. As the pregnancy progresses, the fetus/child's rights become more pronounced, leading to increased legal restrictions. This balance aims to respect both the woman's and the fetus/child's interests, acknowledging the complex ethical landscape.
Viability and Dependency
Viability, typically marked at 24 weeks, is a crucial milestone in the abortion debate. However, it's essential to recognize that a born child cannot fend for themselves until several years after birth. This dependency raises questions about the true meaning of viability and the extent to which it should influence abortion laws.
Conclusion
Abortion laws reflect a delicate balance between the rights of women and the rights of the fetus/child. The sliding scale approach acknowledges the evolving nature of these rights throughout pregnancy, aiming to respect both parties' interests. Understanding the nuances of abortion laws in different regions, such as the USA and Europe, is crucial for informed discussions on this complex issue.
Killing the baby NEVER represents their interests.
It is all about responsibility and human rights.
Do you think that your criteria for killing a baby is based on intelligent reasoning?
If so, it’s obvious which of the contradictory definitions of “viability” you have chosen and which you disregard.
1. The ability to continue successfully
2. The age at which a human baby may be prematurely removed from its life giving mother and still survive.
Because rational people must recognize that a younger “pre-viable” baby in the second definition is also absolutely viable by the first definition.
Maybe you’re not using intelligent reasoning after all.
Isn’t choosing intelligent reasoning also your responsibility?