When on June 24, 2022, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court overturned abortion rights at the federal level in the US, it caused a legal, political, and social shock whose repercussions are still felt every week in the country. Roe vs. Wade, the ruling that had protected women's right to decide about their bodies since 1973, was more than just legal precedent and a symbol. For the Democratic Party, for Vice President Kamala Harris, it is one of the main campaign issues, a matter of existential importance, pure principles. And that is why, as they aim to return to the White House and eventually appoint justices who could overturn the decision, they are using all their efforts in state-by-state battles.
In these elections, it is not just about choosing the president, Congress, or 33 senators. In addition to them, there are countless state positions, judges, prosecutors, school boards at stake. And dozens of referendums of all kinds, including 10 in as many states, on abortion, after cases have proliferated across the country of women who died due to not receiving necessary medical care and procedures because doctors, bound by laws, did not intervene until the fetus's heartbeat stopped, even if the pregnancy was clearly unviable. Kamala Harris has repeatedly used the case of Candi Miller and Amber Nicole Thurman, two women from Georgia who did not survive, in her rallies, especially in the city of Atlanta.
The outcome of these referendums tonight is not uniform. Florida has rejected the so-called Amendment 4, a proposal that sought to change the state's Constitution to prohibit lawmakers from restricting access to abortion until fetal viability or to protect the mother's health. The literal text that was voted on and did not receive the necessary 60% support stipulated that "No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider," but without changing "the Legislature's constitutional authority to require parental or guardian notification before a minor has an abortion."
It was not enough. Republican Governor Ron DeSantis was staunchly opposed, just as he was to recreational marijuana, and he achieved a sufficient victory, using all his political and financial capital. His state agencies spent millions of taxpayer dollars on radio and television ads that misrepresented the measure, claiming, for example, that it infringed on parents' rights regarding minors.
His government created a website claiming that Amendment 4 "threatens women's safety" and partnered with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, to add confusing language, stating that the amendment "would result in significantly more abortions and fewer live births per year in Florida" and that this "may negatively impact state and local revenue growth over time," according to Rolling Stone magazine. In addition to pressuring television networks that aired ads with threats of lawsuits.
Florida's measure is the first in these two years that did not succeed in expanding women's rights and protections. Out of the 10 proposals scrutinized tonight, six have already been approved, and three have not. The last one is still pending a recount.
One that passed without issues was in New York, although it is the most unique. While in most cases the issue was about when it should be legal to terminate a pregnancy or how to prevent bans when the mother's health is at stake, in New York, state legislators opted for a peculiar indirect approach by presenting it as a measure against discrimination.
The State Constitution specifically prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, or religion, and the amendment that passed proposes adding that no one can be denied civil rights due to national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, or "healthcare and reproductive autonomy." It is no secret that one of the motivations was to include the reproductive issue to mobilize the progressive electorate, arguing that this new wording solidifies the legal framework, as any attempt to restrict abortion would, in essence, be an unconstitutional act of discrimination in healthcare.
In Colorado, Amendment 79, which has been approved, was included as a referendum thanks to a citizen initiative, which will make abortion a constitutional right in the state, in addition to eliminating the current prohibition on state and local funding for necessary medical procedures.
In Arizona, Proposal 139, which would guarantee access to abortion up to the so-called fetal viability point, has also been approved. Now, the state prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, approximately nine weeks before the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. A group called Arizona Abortion Access gathered more than enough signatures, many more than required, and placed the issue on the ballot, garnering support from 61.5% of citizens.
On the other hand, South Dakota, which has one of the most restrictive legislations, rejected the measure at stake. Abortion rights groups were quite critical because they believed the language in the proposition was so broad and generic that it actually opened the door to making abortion impossible even if approved.
Local activists argued that it was in line with what the conservative electorate of the state could accept. And that the priority was to do something, as state laws prohibit abortion except when necessary to save the pregnant woman's life and do not include exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or non-life-threatening health issues of the pregnant woman.
The failed amendment would have legalized abortion in the first trimester but assumed that it could be restricted in the second trimester if the reasons were "reasonably" related to the pregnant woman's physical health. In the third trimester, it would be generally prohibited, except in cases where it is necessary to protect the woman's life or health.