Wall Street Journal Examines Antiabortion Ballot Initiatives In Five States

Main Category: Abortion
Article Date: 22 Apr 2008 - 5:00 PST

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

The Wall Street Journal on Monday examined the "philosophical split" among antiabortion groups over five state ballot initiatives, with some groups supporting only measures that seek to ban abortion, while others are supporting attempts to "chip away" at abortion rights through initiatives aimed at restricting access or limiting certain procedures.

Ballot initiatives in Colorado and Montana would change the states' constitutions to give legal rights to embryos by granting them "personhood" status, the Journal reports. According to the Journal, such measures could challenge the legality of abortion, human embryonic stem cell research, in vitro fertilization and some forms of birth control. Supporters of the initiatives claim that a change in the definition of personhood could "undercut the legal argument" behind Roe v. Wade, the Journal reports (Farnam, Wall Street Journal, 4/21).

A proposed initiative in South Dakota seeks to ban all abortions except in cases of rape and incest or to protect the health of the woman if there is a "serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of the functioning of a major bodily organ or system of the pregnant woman should the pregnancy be continued and which risk could be prevented through an abortion" (Proposal text, 4/21). An even narrower version of the proposal appeared on the ballot in 2006 but failed. South Dakota Right to Life is not supporting the initiative because it does not ban abortions in all cases. In Missouri, an initiative would require women seeking abortions to receive a psychological exam to ensure they are not acting under duress, among other provisions. Advocates for the initiative have argued against state officials who have said that it "would be tantamount to a ban" on abortion, the Journal reports.

According to the Journal, some "more established" antiabortion groups, such as the National Right to Life Committee and Focus on the Family, are not supporting such "direct approach" initiatives. An attorney for NRLC said the groups are concerned that the U.S. Supreme Court would reject the constitutional arguments behind the initiatives, leading to more difficulty in future attempts to overturn Roe.

According to the Journal, a ballot initiative in California that would require physicians to notify parents of minors seeking abortions two days before the procedure "embraces" a more "modest strategy" to restrict access to abortion. Supporters of the initiative say it would give parents rights, while opponents say it is "onerous" because of the two-day waiting period and because it allows parents to sue doctors. Supporters of the initiative said they turned in more than 1.1 million signatures by the deadline on Friday. Different versions of the initiative have appeared on the California ballot two separate times and have failed, the Journal reports (Wall Street Journal, 4/21).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.