By CatholicVote | Created at 2024-11-05 01:01:04 | Updated at 2024-11-05 10:37:18
9 hours ago
For pro-life Americans, the stakes in the 2024 election cycle could not be higher.
While the lion’s share of media coverage surrounding Election Day has been focused on the all-important presidential race, in many parts of the country, extreme pro-abortion measures lurk down-ballot.
On Tuesday, voters in 10 states will decide whether or not ballot initiatives creating a so-called “right to abortion” in their state constitutions will pass.
One of these states – Nebraska – also has a pro-life amendment that will be voted on at the same time.
In this next installment, CatholicVote’s pre-Election Day “State of Play” series dives deep into these eleven total measures and what they would mean for their respective states if passed.
>> CLICK HERE FOR A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE AMENDMENTS <<
Arizona – Proposition 139
Simple majority required to pass
What it would do
Arizona Proposition 139 is also known as the “Right to Abortion Initiative.”
The proposition’s official ballot summary states that “a ‘yes’ vote shall have the effect of creating a fundamental right to abortion under Arizona’s constitution.”
“The State will not be able to interfere with this fundamental right before fetal viability, unless it has a compelling reason and does so in the least restrictive way possible,” the summary continues
“Fetal viability” is usually defined as coming about at around 24 weeks’ gestation.
Current state abortion law
Currently in Arizona, doctors “can perform abortions up to 15 weeks gestational age,” per the website of the state attorney general’s office.
The website also specifies that in Arizona law, “gestational age” is “calculated from the first day of the [mother’s] last menstrual period.” There are no current exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
State of play
An August statement signed by Phoenix Bishop John P. Dolan, Tucson Bishop Edward J. Weisenburger, Gallup Bishop James S. Wall, and Phoenix Auxiliary Bishop Eduardo Nevares expressed the prelates’ “strong opposition” to the pro-abortion measure.
“If passed, this initiative threatens to enshrine a constitutional right to virtually unrestricted abortion in Arizona,” the bishops wrote:
What makes a constitutional amendment especially grave is that our own Arizona legislators could lose the ability to regulate abortion in any meaningful way, leaving us with the potential for what would likely become nearly unrestricted abortion.
They noted that Proposition 139 “would likely remove most safeguards for girls and women that are currently in place at abortion clinics, permit a minor to obtain an abortion without parental involvement or permission, and allow for painful late-term abortions of viable pre-born children.”
Last month, CatholicVote reported on an October 4 press conference during which multiple left-leaning pro-life groups notably declared their staunch opposition to the amendment.
Over a week earlier, in late September, a New York Times / Siena poll found that 58% of likely Arizona voters supported the proposition – a comfortable eight points above the simple majority threshold required for passage.
Colorado – Amendment 79
55% of the vote required to pass
What it would do
Colorado’s Amendment 79 has the moniker the “Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative.”
If the amendment were approved with 55% of the vote it would do two main things to the state’s constitution.
First, it would add Section 32 to the end of Article II, recognizing a “right to abortion” in Colorado. The section elaborates: “Government shall not deny, impede, or discriminate against the exercise of that right, including prohibiting health insurance coverage for abortion.”
Secondly, Amendment 79 would repeal Article V Section 50, which currently prohibits the direct or indirect use of taxpayer money to fund abortion in the state.
Current state abortion law
Colorado is currently one of nine states that allows abortions at all stages of pregnancy.
State of play
Denver Archbishop Samuel Aquila urged the Colorado faithful to vote “no” on Amendment 79 in a late September letter published in Denver Catholic, a magazine affiliated with his archdiocese.
“This proposition does three things contrary to the dignity of the human person,” Aquila wrote:
it creates a constitutional right to unrestricted abortion for all 40 weeks of pregnancy, eliminates parental notification laws and allows for taxpayer funding for abortions, which is currently prohibited.
Colorado already has some of the strongest pro-abortion ‘rights’ in the entire world, and this proposition is even more extreme. If we do not defeat this, pro-life legislation will be unable to be passed due to the constitutional right to abortion, and countless children known only to God will die in Colorado because of state-subsidized abortion.
Also in his letter, Aquila noted that “recent polling data show if more Coloradans knew all that this amendment would do, support for the amendment would drop as low as 47 percent … below the threshold the pro-abortion lobby needs to win.”
“We have a path to victory,” the archbishop stressed.
On Monday, the day before Election Day, The American Politics Research Lab (APRL) at the University of Colorado Boulder released its “Colorado Political Climate Survey 2024 Report.”
In it, APRL indicated:
We have the amendment on the edge of passing (56% support, though with 11% of likely voters reporting they were “not sure” how they would vote). Support again splits starkly on partisan lines, with over 80% of Democrats supporting the amendment, and over 60% of Republicans opposing it.
Florida – Amendment 4
60% of the vote required to pass
What it would do
Amendment 4, or “Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion,”: is less than 40 words long and reads as follows:
Limiting government interference with abortion.— Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, 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.
The amendment would explicitly legalize abortion up until “fetal viability.”
However, many critics have explained that the measure’s vague language stating “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion when necessary to protect the patient’s health” opens the door for the amendment to effectively legalize abortion in Florida up until birth.
Critics also widely interpret the amendment as seeking to eliminate the current Florida requirements that abortion be performed by a physician and that parental consent be given for minors to obtain abortions.
As CatholicVote previously noted, Article X, Section 22 “requires parental notice” for abortions to be performed on minor mothers in the state, “but not consent.”
Current state abortion law
In April 2023, Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Catholic, signed the “Heartbeat Protection Act” into law, protecting most unborn children in the state after six weeks’ gestation. The act went into effect on May 1 of this year.
As CBS News reported, the law “includes exceptions in cases of rape, incest and human trafficking up to 15 weeks of pregnancy.”
State of play
Florida currently requires a 60% supermajority – the highest percentage of the vote needed to pass constitutional amendment out of all ten of the states with abortion votes on the 2024 ballot.
For this reason, Florida is widely seen as the state with the greatest chance for a pro-life victory this month.
CatholicVote reported last week that per a poll of early Florida voters, Amendment 4 “is just short of passing, with less than 58% of early voters supporting it.”
“St. Pete Polls found that 79% of Democratic early voters favored the measure, and 15% opposed it,” CatholicVote’s report added:
The polls also found 59% of Republicans voted in favor of the measure, and 32% opposed it. 57% of Independent voters favored the measure, and 36% opposed the measure.
In a broader poll including Floridians who had not yet voted, 54% of likely voters said they opposed the ballot measure, which is still below the required 60%.
>> EXCLUSIVE: FLORIDA ER DOCTOR ON WHY AMENDMENT 4 IS DANGEROUS, MISLEADING <<
DeSantis has repeatedly denounced the proposed amendment.
On October 21, the governor joined a coalition of doctors, including Catholic radiologist Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, in opposition to Amendment 4 at a news conference in Coral Gables, Florida.
As CatholicVote noted, “Standing with the governor, the group of doctors told reporters that the amendment misleads voters, and that, if it passes, it will imperil the health of many women in the state.”
“Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski, who has been critical of DeSantis in the past, joined the effort, providing a closing prayer,” CatholicVote added.
Like DeSantis, Wenski has repeatedly voiced his opposition to the amendment and in late September warned that, if passed, Amendment 4 would “make Florida into a mecca for abortions, for people from other states and from South America.”
Nearly all of the states in the American Southeast, including Florida, currently have pro-life laws protecting almost all unborn children either after six weeks of pregnancy or at all stages of pregnancy.
>> WENSKI: AMENDMENT 4 WOULD MAKE FLORIDA A ‘MECCA’ FOR ABORTIONS <<
All of the state’s bishops have vocally opposed the amendment.
“Key arguments promoting abortion often overlook a crucial point,” wrote St. Augustine Bishop Erik Pohlmeier in a message posted on his diocesan website:
Phrases like “abortion is healthcare” or “my body, my choice” ignore the fact that another life is at stake. Once a baby is conceived, there is another body to consider. It can never be considered healthcare when it results in the death of another person.
Pohlmeier concluded his message by urging Floridians to “recognize that this is also a spiritual battle.”
“Any effort to end life must be resisted with prayer,” he stressed. “Remember, God’s strength and seek his grace. Only with the power of the Holy Spirit can we help shape our society to value the gift of new life.”
Maryland – Question 1
Simple majority required to pass
What it would do
If a simple majority of Maryland voters approve Question 1, also known as the “Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment,” then a new text outlining “the fundamental right to reproductive freedom” would be added to the Maryland Constitution’s Declaration of Rights.
This text would add: “The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”
Current state abortion law
Like Colorado, Maryland is currently one of nine states that allow abortions at all stages of pregnancy.
State of play
A message from Baltimore Archbishop William E. Lori Archbishop, Washington Archbishop Cardinal Wilton Gregory Archbishop, and Wilmington Bishop William Koenig called on Maryland voters to vote “no” on Question 1.
“A constitutional amendment severely limits legislative flexibility and prevents elected officials from enacting laws that respond to changing circumstances or new evidence related to abortion policy and the protection of women,” the prelates wrote:
The unfortunate reality is that nothing regarding abortion in Maryland would change if this amendment were defeated. Sadly, Maryland has some of the most permissive abortion laws in the country, allowing for abortion at any stage of pregnancy, including right up to the moment of birth.
We stand in solidarity with women and children, and we reject the notion that abortion is a solution to the challenges faced by women in crisis situations.
A University of Maryland / YouGov poll released last week found that a bare majority of 51% of Marylanders indicated abortion in the state should be “legal and generally available.”
Last month, Maryland Matters reported that the state’s “voters are poised to enshrine the right to abortion access in the state constitution, with 69% of voters saying they will support it and just 21% opposed.” Maryland Matters is part of the left-leaning States Newsroom network.
Missouri – Amendment 3
Simple majority required to pass
What it would do
Per its text on the state’s ballot, Missouri’s proposed Amendment 3 would “establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid.”
The amendment, also called the “Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative,” would also, according to the text, “remove Missouri’s ban on abortion” and “allow abortion to be restricted or banned after Fetal Viability except to protect the life or health of the woman.”
Current state abortion law
Missouri currently protects almost all unborn children at all stages of pregnancy. The law provides an exception for medical emergencies but no exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
State of play
A statement signed by Jefferson City Bishop W. Shawn McKnight, St. Louis Archbishop Mitchell T. Rozanski, Kansas City-St. Joseph Bishop James V. Johnston Jr., and Springfield-Cape Girardeau Bishop Edward M. Rice denounced the amendment as “an extreme proposal.”
Then bishops added that if passed, Amendment 3 would “allow full-term abortion with no protections for the preborn child, including when the child is capable of feeling pain.”
It would also “effectively eliminate common-sense state regulations that have protected Missouri women for years,” the prelates cautioned:
These include health and safety requirements for abortion clinics; the requirement that only a medical doctor be allowed to perform abortions in the state; and that parents of a minor be notified before she can have an abortion.
This summer, Senior Counsel Mary Catherine Martin of the pro-life Catholic law firm the Thomas More Society stated, “Amendment 3 is rife with hidden effects.”
“Its main provision creates a totally novel, and limitless, ‘super-right’ ranking higher than life, speech, religion, equal protection, and due process,” Martin continued. Amendment 3 “would require the courts, when making decisions relating to reproduction, to place this ‘super-right’ above the interests of anyone else, and even of society as a whole.”
In addition, CatholicVote reported at the time that amendment
would repeal nearly all of Missouri’s regulations on any kind of reproductive healthcare, including IVF, abortion, cloning, stem cell research, and gender transition surgery.
It would also repeal Missouri’s regulations on discrimination-based abortion, which protect unborn children with disabilities, and take away laws forbidding late-term and partial-birth abortion.
A September Emerson College Polling / The Hill poll found that around 57% of “very likely” voters in the state support Amendment 3.
FOX affiliate KTVI reported that per the poll, a majority of Democrats (90%), independents (61%), women (60%), and men (54%) support the amendment. Meanwhile, half of Republicans oppose it and 32% of Republicans support it.
Montana – CI-128
Simple majority required to pass
What it would do
CI-128 is also called the “Right to Abortion Initiative.” Its text states that it “would amend the Montana Constitution to expressly provide a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion.”
“It would prohibit the government from denying or burdening the right to abortion before fetal viability,” the constitutional initiative adds.
Current state abortion law
Abortion is currently legal in Montana up until “fetal viability.”
State of play
Back in May, both of Montana’s Catholic bishops, Helena Bishop Austin Vetter and Great Falls-Billings Bishop Jeffrey Fleming, issued a statement urging Montanans to vote “no” on CI-128.
Vetter and Fleming warned that the “initiative seeks to enshrine legal authorization” for “Late-term abortion of babies who will feel pain,” “Abortion of babies who have been partially delivered,” and “Abortion by dismemberment of children growing in the womb.”
“Faced with this unprecedented threat to human life, we urge all people of goodwill to decline to sign the petition to place this dangerous amendment on our ballot,” they emphasized:
Trusting in God, we invite all Montanans to pray for the defeat of this Constitutional Initiative and stand in defense of women, children and all those threatened by this extreme proposal.
Last week, the Daily Montanan, part of States Newsroom, reported:
Polling shows that 60% of Montanans favor the initiative, a number that has remained relatively consistent throughout the year. Ten percent of those polled remained neutral while 25% said they disapproved of it.
The support shows that a majority of all voting blocs approve of the measure, with Democrats at 84%, Republicans at 54% and independents at 60%.
Nearly 9-in-10 Montanans also believe abortion should be legal in certain or all circumstances, according to the poll.
Nebraska – Initiative 434 and Initiative 439
Simple majority required for each to pass, in addition to 35% of all voters who cast a ballot voting “yes”
What they would do
In the 2024 election cycle, Nebraska is unique in that it is the only state with dueling abortion-related measures on the ballot – and the only state with an initiative that if passed would aim to protect more unborn lives.
Initiative 434, or the “Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment” – the lone pro-life ballot measure in front of voters this month – would add the following text to Nebraska’s constitution:
Except when a woman seeks an abortion necessitated by a medical emergency or when the pregnancy results from sexual assault or incest, unborn children shall be protected from abortion in the second and third trimesters.
The second trimester of pregnancy is commonly understood to begin at 13 weeks’ gestation.
Meanwhile, the pro-abortion Initiative 439, or the “Right to Abortion Initiative,” would contrarily amend the Nebraska Constitution to add a section stating the following:
All persons shall have a fundamental right to abortion until fetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient, without interference from the state or its political subdivisions.
The section specifically states that “fetal viability” in this case is to be determined via “the professional judgment of the patient’s treating health care practitioner,” with the word “doctor” or “physician” not used.
Current state abortion law
Nebraska’s current pro-life law, known as the Preborn Child Protection Act, protects most unborn children after 12 weeks’ gestation.
The law makes exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, and “when there is a threat to a woman’s life or a risk of irreversible harm to a major bodily function,” NBC News noted.
Republican Gov. Jim Pillen, a Catholic, signed the pro-life law in May 2023.
State of play
Polls show that Nebraska, like Florida, presents one of the strongest prospects for a pro-life victory at the ballot box.
A Midwest Newsroom / Emerson College Polling poll released last month showed that slightly more respondents supported the pro-life Initiative 434 than the pro-abortion Initiative 439 – although both initiatives were polling short of the majority of support required for passage.
In the poll, 46% of respondents said they would vote “yes” on Initiative 434, and 41% said they would vote “no.” Meanwhile, 44% said they would vote “yes” on Initiative 439 and 40% indicated they would vote “no.”
On Sunday, Lincoln Bishop James Conley held a Eucharistic procession around the Nebraska state capitol, where adorers pleaded “for the life of the preborn,” CatholicVote reported.
Furthermore, Conley had earlier “urged Catholics to join him in praying a novena to the Sacred Heart of Jesus during the beginning of October, with the intention of defeating” Initiative 439, CatholicVote’s October Heroes & Zeroes report noted.
At the time, Conley had called the pro-abortion initiative “dangerous and deceptive.”
Nebraska’s other two bishops also urged Catholics to participate in the pro-life October Sacred Heart novena.
In March, Conley, Omaha Archbishop George J. Lucas, and Grand Island Bishop Joseph G. Hanefeldt issued a statement in support of Initiative 434 and in opposition to Initiative 439.
The prelates wrote that while Initiative 434 is “imperfect in its protection of all preborn children, the proposal is a step toward safeguarding human life. Thus, it is morally permissible for Nebraskans to support this newly proposed initiative.”
>> WOMEN ATHLETES FIGHT NEBRASKA PRO-ABORTION AMENDMENT IN NEW AD <<
“More importantly, we urge Nebraskans to unite in opposition to the other initiative proposal that wants to enshrine the evil of late-pregnancy abortion into the state constitution,” they added:
Women in Nebraska deserve support throughout pregnancy, not abandonment to the lifelong, physical and emotional trauma of abortion. The late-pregnancy abortion ballot measure fails pregnant women and is more extreme than meets the eye. Nebraskans should pray and work for its defeat and commit to even more support for pregnant women in need.
In late October, Nebraska-based pro-life group Protect Women & Children released two ads starring half a dozen female University of Nebraska athletes representing a variety of sports.
The athletes called on the state’s voters to vote for Initiative 434, and to vote “no” on Initiative 439.
“439 outlaws parental notification for minors,” volleyball star Rebekah Allick, a Catholic, said in one of the ads. “434 defends women from abuse, sex trafficking, and coercion.”
Nevada – Question 6
Simple majority required to pass
What it would do
Nevada Question 6, or the “Right to Abortion Initiative,” would add a section to the state’s constitution declaring: “All individuals shall have a fundamental right to abortion performed or administered by a qualified health care practitioner until fetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.”
Interestingly, the word “woman” does not appear once in the wording of the initiative – with the gender-neutral “individual” or “patient” being used instead.
Current state abortion law
According to the website of the state’s Division of Public and Behavioral Health, “Any person in Nevada who is pregnant has the legal right to choose to have an abortion when performed by a licensed physician within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.”
Again, the word “women” is not used when referring to expectant mothers.
State of play
On Friday, the left-wing think tank Data For Progress released a poll showing that roughly two-in-three Nevadans back the pro-abortion initiative.
Data for Progress reported that “66% of voters say they would vote yes on the abortion ballot measure State Question 6, while 26% say they would vote no.”
“A majority of Democrats (91%) and Independents (63%) in Nevada are supportive of this constitutional amendment, while Republicans are more split, with 49% opposed and 42% in support,” the think tank added.
In September, CatholicVote reported that Reno Bishop Daniel Henry Mueggenborg during an appearance on EWTN “outlined three initiatives that the Catholic Church in Nevada has taken to oppose” Question 6.
“Back in the spring, we [the Church] participated in a state-wide initiative encouraging people to decline to sign the petition for the amendment itself,” the bishop noted.
CatholicVote continued:
During the summer, the Church created videos in English and Spanish that explained why people should oppose the initiative and encouraged people to inform other Nevadans about the ballot, he said.
“This has to be a broader-based resistance to this initiative than just the Catholic Church,” Bishop Mueggeborg stated.
The Church’s third initiative is working with other religions that hold pro-life values to oppose the initiative.
Mueggenborg reinforced to viewers that the battle over Question 6 isn’t “just about a legal fight, this is about a moral fight for the conscience of our country and certainly for our Catholic population.”
New York – Proposal 1
Simple majority required to pass
What it would do
New York Proposal 1 is different from the pro-abortion amendments under consideration in the other nine states in that, if passed, it would also push the “transgender” movement on children.
Per its ballot text, the proposal, known as the Equal Protection of Law Amendment, “protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy” – both euphemisms widely used by pro-abortion activists.
The proposal seeks to protect New Yorkers against “discrimination based on ‘sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes,’” and add these specific words to Article 1, Section 11 of the New York Constitution.
In the same clause, the measure would also replace the words “his or her” with the word “their.”
FOX 5 NY reported:
Although the words “abortion” or “LGBT” don’t appear on the ballot, the measure could protect abortion rights and broaden protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.
…
Supporters, many Democrats, believe expanding the state’s anti-discrimination protections will make it harder for future politicians who oppose gay marriage or abortion to limit these rights in New York.
Current state abortion law
Per FOX 5 NY, the Empire State “currently allows abortion until fetal viability.”
State of play
Requiring just a simple majority, Proposal 1 is very likely to pass in deep-blue New York.
A Siena Research Institute Poll from late October found that 69% of respondents supported the proposal, including a stunning 36% of respondents who identified as “conservative.”
Archbishop Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, along with the rest of the state’s bishops, auxiliary bishops, and emeritus bishops, released a September 5 statement denouncing Proposal 1 as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and urging the faithful to vote “no.”
“Aside from being redundant in a state that already has stripped away all abortion limitations, the amendment would render impossible any change to the law if the hearts and minds of New Yorkers were ever to shift toward protecting the child in the womb,” the bishops wrote:
The amendment’s sweeping language and inclusion of “age” as a protected class could also lead to parents’ rights being stripped away. Courts could decide that parents have no authority over their minor children on important matters and permit children to make destructive and permanent decisions on their own which they could well live to regret, including but not limited to so-called “gender affirming” treatments and surgeries.
The Catholic prelates added that the proposal “could lead to darkness for many New York families.”
“This amendment disregards the lives of unborn and struggling children in the name of political agendas,” they stressed. “It could have dangerous consequences for these children and their parents.”
Writing in The New York Post, Wai Wah Chin called Proposal 1 a “dishonest Trojan horse sneaking discrimination into law.”
“Many families in New York are alarmed and outraged that Prop 1 would create special rights for transgender minors,” she noted. “It certainly does that.”
Chin observed that if the proposal passes, parents in New York “can be legally liable for stepping in to stop their own child’s choice, based on an all-too-common passing fancy, to receive irreversible chemical treatments or surgical procedures.”
South Dakota – Amendment G
Simple majority required to pass
South Dakota Amendment G is also known as the “Right to Abortion Initiative.”
According to the amendment’s Attorney General Explanation summary, it seeks to establish “a constitutional right to an abortion” in the state.
The Explanation notes that the amendment declares that during the first trimester of pregnancy “an abortion may not be regulated nor may regulations be imposed on the carrying out of an abortion.”
“Any regulation of a pregnant woman’s abortion decision, or of an abortion, during the second trimester must be reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman,” the summary continues.
The second trimester is commonly understood to end at around 27 weeks gestation, several weeks past the threshold for “fetal viability.”
Amendment G’s Attorney General Explanation adds:
In the third trimester, the amendment allows the regulation or prohibition of abortion except in those cases where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman. Whether an abortion is necessary during the third trimester must be determined by the pregnant woman’s physician according to the physician’s medical judgment.
Current state abortion law
South Dakota currently protects almost all unborn children at all stages of pregnancy. An exception is made to save the life of the mother.
The state was one of the handful with pro-life “trigger laws” that went into effect following the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade.
State of play
South Dakota is frequently mentioned as another state where there is a good chance of a pro-life victory at the polls.
A mid-October poll from the Chiesman Center for Democracy at the University of South Dakota found that Amendment G is “supported by half (50%) of South Dakota’s registered voters and opposed by nearly as many (47%),” the Argus Leader reported.
“One of the main takeaways is that a high-stakes battle over abortion access in South Dakota is too close to call,” the Sioux Falls-based newspaper added, noting that the poll found just 3% of respondents to be undecided on their vote on the amendment.
In a September column for the Sioux Falls diocesan newspaper, South Dakota Catholic Conference executive director Michael Pauley compared voting “no” on Amendment G to “stopping to help somebody if their car was overturned and there was nobody else around,” CatholicVote reported at the time:
He stated that South Dakota’s pro-abortion amendment, known as Amendment G, is a life-or-death issue.
“The outcome will determine whether thousands of preborn girls and boys have a chance to be born, or whether their lives will come to a violent end through abortion,” Pauley wrote. “A ‘no’ vote on G gives these babies a chance to be born. But if a majority vote ‘yes,’ these babies will die. That is the stark choice before us. Only rarely is an issue of such eternal significance placed into our hands.”
This article is a part of CatholicVote’s pre-election “State of Play” series. Readers can find other entries in the series below.
State of Play – Presidential Battlegrounds Part I: The Sun Belt
State of Play – Presidential Battlegrounds Part II: The Blue Wall States
