No doubt we are in a battle in this country to protect pre-born babies and women’s health and lives from what seems an insatiable appetite for abortion—at any cost. I am referring to abortion ballot amendments being put before voters in at least 10 states this November. Those states include Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York and South Dakota. In November, voters will be asked to decide whether to enshrine abortion rights into their state constitution. Do not presume the ballot question put before voters will be clearly spelled out. It will not be. Abortion proponents have purposefully constructed the amendment language to be vague and loosely defined (if at all), allowing for wide interpretation that threatens the lives of unborn babies throughout pregnancy, as well as the health and safety of women and girls.

If the electorate is not transparently educated about the devastation these amendments will bring, we can almost be assured the trickery used by abortion proponents will result in permanent loss. Repealing constitutional amendments is extremely difficult, so we must pray and do everything we can to oppose the amendments.

As CMDA Senior Vice President for Bioethics & Public Policy Jeffrey Barrows, DO, MA (Ethics), wrote in his recent blog post on the permanence of state amendments, we cannot assume all voters will have an equal understanding of the amendments. Some voters “commonly rely on information available across various public channels that may or may not be accurate. Often, it is the side with the most money to spend on public advertisements that will win the argument, simply because they are able to influence voters through their propaganda campaigns,” wrote Dr. Barrows. We saw this happen in Kansas, Michigan and Ohio.

Below is a quick overview of the ballot amendments and the pro-life coalitions formed in the affected states to counter the pro-abortion efforts.

• Arizona: Prop 139 would allow second- and third-trimester abortion. Arizona already allows abortion until 15 weeks when a baby can feel pain. Prop 139 would also remove parental consent of the minor daughter seeking an abortion. This opens the opportunity for horrendous abuse by traffickers and other child abusers. The amendment also eliminates safety standards to protect girls and women’s health protections and ensures taxpayer-funded abortion. Read more from the Arizona pro-life coalition It Goes Too Far.
• Colorado: Initiative 89 would allow abortion through the third trimester (late term) for any reason. The initiative would also remove parental involvement from the minor child’s decision for an abortion because it “impedes” with abortion access (currently, parental notification at 48 hours prior to a scheduled abortion on a minor is the law in Colorado). Health and safety standards would also be removed. Unlike other clinics that perform medical/surgical procedures, Colorado has no licensing, regulation or inspections for high-risk second- and third-trimester abortion clinics. Also, nothing in the amendment prevents taxpayers from being forced to subsidize unrestricted abortion, even if they have strong moral and religious objections to abortion. Learn more and get involved with the Colorado chapter of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
• Florida: Amendment 4 would allow second- and third-trimester abortions for potentially any reason for “the patient’s health,” which is not defined. This may well include treatable, temporary health concerns (such as emotional health) to justify an abortion when a child could survive outside the womb. Amendment 4 allows for non-physicians to determine if an abortion is necessary and removes parental notification (current Florida law requires parental consent for a minor to have an abortion). Learn more from Florida Physicians Against Amendment 4.
• Maryland: Abortion is already legal in Maryland throughout pregnancy. The Maryland Reproductive Freedom Amendment would remove parental rights as it does not contain minimum age or parental consent requirements, which protect minor children. The constitutional amendment would increase health and safety risks to women and girls seeking an abortion. The amendment would also put pregnancy resource centers in jeopardy. Learn more from Marylanders for Health Not Harm and this explainer video from CMDA Maryland State Representative and OB/Gyn Dr. Sandy Christiansen.
• Missouri: In Missouri, where abortion is currently illegal, the Missouri Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative (Amendment 3) would conceivably allow abortion for all nine months of pregnancy for “physical or mental health” reasons. Parental notification and consent are removed, and it also removes Missouri health and safety standards for women and girls—and could even allow for some unlicensed persons to perform or induce abortions. Read more from MissouriRight to Life’s “10 Reasons to Oppose the Pro-Abortion Initiative.”
• Montana: Constitutional Amendment 128 would allow abortion through all stages of pregnancy. Abortion in Montana is currently legal until viability. If approved by voters, this would create a new section of the Montana Constitution that explicitly establishes a right “to carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion. This right shall not be denied or burdened unless justified by a compelling government interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” We can presume from this language, as with other state ballot amendments similarly written, that parental consent and notification rights will be eliminated as it pertains to the minor child seeking an abortion. Learn more in this Montana Free Press article, which mentions the advocacy of pro-life organizations Montana Family Foundation, Pro-Life Montana and SBA Pro-Life America.
• Nebraska: Nebraska voters will choose between a pro-abortion and an abortion-limiting ballot amendment in November. The “Protect Our Rights” amendment would allow abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Parental notification and consent rights would also be eliminated to protect the minor child seeking an abortion. The “Protect Women and Children” abortion-limiting initiative proposed by the Nebraska Family Alliance would prohibit abortion after 12 weeks (current Nebraska law) with exceptions for rape, incest and danger to the health and life of the mother. Stronger, incremental protections could be pursued going forward. Learn more from the Nebraska Family Alliance on their abortion-limiting initiative.
• Nevada: Ballot Question 6, Right to Abortion Initiative would establish the unrestricted right to abortion in the Nevada Constitution until fetal viability or to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant mother, which is a subjective and capricious standard, essentially allowing abortion without restrictions. If the initiative passed this November, it would have to pass again in 2026 to amend the state constitution. Currently, abortion in Nevada is legal up to 24 weeks.
• New York: Prop 1 (formerly known as The New York Equal Protection of Law Amendment) would amend the Equal Protection Clause of the New York Constitution to add “…sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes and reproductive healthcare and autonomy” to the list of protected rights in New York. If this amendment is approved, any healthcare professional who refuses to provide gender transition to an individual may be accused of discrimination. Further, refusal to perform or refer for an abortion at any point in pregnancy would be viewed as discrimination, and if found guilty of discrimination, that healthcare professional could be forced to pay both compensatory and punitive damages that could reach tens of thousands of dollars. Learn more at The Coalition to Protect Kids-NY.
• South Dakota: Amendment G, Right to Abortion Initiative would legalize painful, late-term abortion up through birth. Parental rights would be removed, thereby allowing coerced abortions certainly on unprotected minors. Healthcare conscience freedoms would likely be violated due to healthcare professionals being forced to participate in performing abortions against their will and conscience. Basic health and safety standards would not be followed by allowing non-physicians to perform abortions, and facility inspections would not be enforced. View the “SD Abortion Amendment Explained” Life Defense Fund flyer here. Read op-edwritten by CMDA South Dakota member and OB/Gyn Dr. Patti Giebink about the dangers of Amendment G, and join their group Doctors for Dakotans.

CMDA created a few resources to help you engage with your church, colleagues and friends to overcome the disinformation surrounding abortion amendments:

• An abortion fact sheet that includes:
  • Recommendations for Approaching Your Church
  • Talking Points on Abortion for a Christian Small Group
  • Additional Resources
• A 30-minute video on why life begins at fertilization

As Christians in healthcare, we encourage you to engage on this issue. We cannot afford to be silent or absent on this urgent matter. If any of these amendments pass, the lives that will be lost to abortion cannot be undone. So please engage and continue to pray for the lives of the unborn and women to be protected. Thank you.