A woman looks outside of a window to see a crowd holding various signs that say "anti-choice," "life," and "pro-life"

Andrea Austria / Media Matters

Research/Study Research/Study

Anti-abortion groups have launched aggressive lobbying campaigns against ballot abortion access amendments across the country

Groups have sued to take the amendments off the ballot, calling them “radical” and claiming they will allow for “unlimited abortions” and “infanticide”

Special Programs Abortion Rights & Reproductive Health

Written by Chloe Simon

Research contributions from Courtney Hagle

Published

In the 2024 election, nine states — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and South Dakota — have amendments on the ballot which would enshrine the right to abortion through at least the first trimester. Anti-abortion and Catholic groups have mobilized against these ballot amendments in each state, fighting them through lawsuits, fearmongering about the aftereffects, or spreading misinformation about the amendments themselves. Some common and false right-wing complaints have been that the amendments would allow for “unlimited abortions,” that minors “will be able to obtain an abortion without a parent’s consent,” and that these amendments protect “infanticide.” 

Jump to section...

  • In many states, access to reproductive health care has been severely limited since the dismantling of Roe v. Wade

    • Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, 14 states have enacted a near-total ban on abortion and six states have restricted abortion access between 6 and 20 weeks. Although some of these states allow exceptions to the ban, such as in medical emergencies, the Center for American Progress wrote that “the vague nature of the statutes’ language has caused women to receive delayed care, putting their lives in danger and resulting in near-death experiences.” [Center for American Progress, 6/15/23; KFF, 6/20/24]
    • Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has tried to present a ‘softer’ approach to abortion despite the reality of his and the GOP’s policies. For instance, Trump said he would not enforce the Comstock Act, which, if enforced, could “ban the mailing of anything that can be used to produce an abortion in all circumstances,” even though his running mate JD Vance previously signed a letter urging the Department of Justice to use it. Trump also has voiced his support for leaving abortion policies to the states, seemingly contradicting the Republican National Convention’s platform, which opposes “Late Term Abortion” and nods to the concept of fetal personhood (and which Trump “personally edited every line of,” according to Axios). The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a blueprint for Trump’s potential second term, also calls for a crackdown on abortion medication and birth control. [Media Matters, 7/17/24; Politico, 8/20/24; Johns Hopkins University, 5/31/24; MSNBC, 7/29/24; 7/21/24; Axios, 7/10/24; The Washington Post, 7/17/24]

  • Some groups have followed the Ohio abortion amendment attack playbook

    • Anti-abortion groups have seemingly modeled their attacks on the 2024 abortion amendments after American Policy Roundtable’s misinformation campaign against the 2023 Ohio abortion amendment. APR alleged that Ohio’s amendment would cause parents to lose “their right to a say in their children’s health care decisions” and would open the door to “unlimited abortion through all nine months.” Both claims are frequently cited in anti-abortion groups’ messaging on the 2024 ballot amendments. [Media Matters, 10/26/23; The New York Times, 8/23/24; Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, accessed 8/28/24]

  • Arizona

    • Arizona’s abortion amendment would allow for abortions up until the point of fetal viability, which in the U.S. is “regarded to be around 24 weeks of gestation.” Although Arizona currently has a 15-week ban in place, which abortion advocates have called an “arbitrary timeline” used to restrict access, the state Supreme Court ruled in April that an 1864 near-total abortion ban was still enforceable. In May, a bipartisan bill in the state legislature ultimately repealed it. [Arizona Mirror, 6/11/24; Center for American Progress, 7/18/24; NBC News, 8/12/24]
    • Anti-abortion groups have argued that Arizona’s amendment deceptively obscures how extreme it is and fearmongered about its potential impact on women and girls. Cindy Dahlgren, spokesperson for the “It Goes Too Far” campaign, told LifeSite News that “most voters are not told that under the unregulated, unlimited abortion amendment they will lose the required medical doctor, critical and common sense safety standards for girls and women seeking abortion, and moms and dads will be shut out of their minor daughter’s abortion decision, leaving her to go through the painful and scary process alone.” Maria Birndaum, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America’s state director for Arizona, claimed that the amendment “aims to create an Arizona unrecognizable to those of us who live here. This proposal would impose painful late-term abortions up to birth.” The amendment protects access up until the point of fetal viability and only prevents the state from restricting abortion after that “to save the woman’s life and no exceptions after that for rape or incest.” [LifeSite News, 4/10/24; Breitbart, 8/11/24; NBC News, 8/31/24]
    • The Arizona Supreme Court recently struck down Arizona Right to Life’s challenge to the amendment. Lawyers for the anti-abortion group tried to claim that Arizonans who signed the petition to get the amendment on the ballot had been shown an “unlawfully misleading” summary. The court ultimately ruled that “nothing in the Description ‘either communicates objectively false or misleading information or obscures the principal provisions’ basic thrust.” [Arizona Mirror, 8/13/24; Washington Examiner, 8/21/24]

  • Colorado

    • Colorado’s abortion amendment would enshrine access in the state constitution as well as act to “lift the state’s nearly 40-year-old constitutional ban on state money being used to pay for abortions.” In 2022, Colorado also passed a “statutory protection for abortion as a fundamental right.” [The Colorado Sun, 5/17/24; Center for Reproductive Rights, accessed 8/27/24]
    • Anti-abortion groups March for Life and Pro-Life Colorado organized a May 2024 march to protest the “looming threats” of the abortion amendment. Brittany Vessely, a board member of Pro-Life Colorado, said the purpose of the march was to get Coloradans to say “‘no to abortion’ on April 12” and “spread the truth about life!” Republican state Rep. Brandi Bradley claimed at the march that Colorado has “the most radical and the most extreme abortion laws in the country, including day-of-birth abortions. It’s appalling. We are not a pro-choice state. We are a pro-murder state.” [March for Life, 3/25/24; The Denver Post, 4/12/24; Colorado Times Recorder, 4/15/24]

  • Florida

    • Florida’s abortion amendment would allow for abortion up until the point of fetal viability and in instances where it is “necessary to protect a patient’s health.” Florida’s six week abortion ban, which was enacted in 2024, has abortion advocates concerned that it could “effectively cut off abortion access for more than 21 million women of reproductive age across nearly a dozen states.” [Pensacola News Journal, 8/15/24; BBC, 5/1/24; MSNBC, 5/1/24]
    • Anti-abortion groups have claimed that the abortion measure is deceptive and that most voters would not support it if they knew the extent of the measure. Live Action published a piece arguing, “Two simple facts change minds on abortion every day. One: The ‘fetus’ is an innocent human life growing inside the womb. Two: Abortion procedures violently and brutally kill that child.” They concluded that “despite what these organizations say, people do not see the brutality mentioned above as freedom.” [Live Action, 5/7/24]
    • Anti-abortion figures have also fearmongered about supposed health risks to young girls and women should the amendment pass. In a piece for The Federalist, director of state public affairs at SBA Pro-Life America Kelsey Pritchard wrote that “girls who aren’t old enough to get their ears pierced on their own will be able to obtain an abortion without a parent’s consent. The health and safety requirements for abortion facilities would be eviscerated by this amendment. Abortions won’t need to be performed by doctors, and abortion facilities won’t need to be near hospitals or have hospital admitting privileges, putting women at serious risk.” The bill’s proponents have claimed otherwise, saying that health care providers “would still be limited to their scope of practice,” which refers to the “activities and duties that a person licensed to practice as a health professional is permitted to perform.” They’ve also said that the amendment does not “interfere with the parental notification requirement for abortion that’s already in Florida’s Constitution.” [The Federalist, 5/1/24; Tampa Bay Times, 8/16/24; American Medical Association, 12/28/23]

  • Maryland

    • Maryland’s abortion amendment would add language to the Declaration of Rights in the Maryland Constitution ensuring the right to “reproductive freedom” and protecting the right from future infringement. The Guttmacher Institute currently rates Maryland’s abortion policies as “very protective,” with abortion not being “restricted based on gestational duration.” [Maryland Legislature, accessed 8/27/24; Guttmacher Institute, accessed 8/27/24]
    • Bishops in Maryland published a statement in opposition to the amendment, arguing on the basis of “religious freedom,” complaining that abortion “perpetuates a ‘throwaway culture,’” and fearmongering about the safety and freedom of women and health care workers. Per the Catholic Standard: “In encouraging Catholics and others to reject the amendment, the bishops focused on five themes: Abortion perpetuates a ‘throwaway culture,’ the amendment diverts resources from women’s well-being, it risks the rights of health care workers, and the amendment would limit the ability of elected officials to respond to changing needs or information. They rejected the notion that abortion is a solution for women in crisis situations.” [Catholic Standard, 5/8/24]
    • Maryland Right to Life also published a guide to the amendment that fearmongered about trafficking and argued that the amendment is deceptive. The guide purports to expose the “truth” about the amendment and includes claims that “Maryland women already have an unlimited statutory right to abortion for any reason through birth,” that “poor women who want to keep their babies will have less access to quality reproductive healthcare … because of the abortion industry’s monopoly over women’s health,” that parents could lose custody of their child if they oppose an abortion, and that taxpayers would be forced to pay for elective abortions. [Maryland Right to Life, accessed 8/28/24]

  • Missouri

    • Missouri’s constitutional amendment on abortion would ensure the right of individuals to have an abortion, overturning the state’s existing near-total abortion ban. Abortion is currently illegal in Missouri, with “limited exceptions only in cases of medical emergencies” and no exceptions for survivors of sexual assault or incest. The ballot amendment would allow abortions up until the point of “fetal viability,” which is the “standard of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.” [Missouri Independent, 8/13/24; PBS News, 8/13/24]
    • Susan B. Anthony Pro-life America called the amendment an “All-Trimester Abortion Amendment.” The anti-abortion group called it a “deceptive and extreme abortion amendment” that “would protect second- and third-trimester abortion, eviscerate women’s health protections, eliminate parental rights, and ensure taxpayer-funded abortion.” [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, 8/13/24]
    • Catholic and anti-abortion groups have also organized around combating the amendment, arguing that it is an “extreme constitutional amendment that legalizes abortion at any stage of pregnancy with no protections for the preborn child, even when the child is capable of feeling pain.” Groups like the Missouri Catholic Conference and Missouri Right to Life have also claimed that the amendment would disallow the ability to “regulate any safety boundaries for a woman going in for an abortion.” [Catholic News Agency, 8/14/24]
    • Conservative public interest law group the Thomas More Society has filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Missouri Republican “state lawmakers and a prominent anti-abortion leader” to throw out Missouri’s abortion ballot amendment. Senior counsel Mary Catherine Martin claimed that the “Secretary of State was wrong to certify” the amendment and that “its main provision creates a totally novel, and limitless, ‘super-right’ ranking higher than life, speech, religion, equal protection, and due process.” The lawsuit is scheduled for a trial on September 4, 2024. [LifeNews, 8/26/24; ABC News, 8/26/24; Chicago Tribune, 10/6/13]

  • Montana

    • Montana’s abortion amendment would “enshrine a 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling that said the constitutional right to privacy protects the right to a pre-viability abortion by a provider of the patient’s choice.” Abortion in Montana is currently legal up until the point of fetal viability, which is considered to be 24-26 weeks along in a pregnancy. [The Associated Press, 8/20/24; Guttmacher Institute, accessed 8/22/24]
    • The New York Times wrote that the Montana Family Foundation, which is lobbying against the amendment, claimed that it “would allow ‘unlimited abortions,’ protect sex traffickers who force women to get abortions, remove parental consent laws on abortion and allow ‘radical, irreversible gender reassignment surgery.’” A previous version of the foundation’s website alleged that a “dentist” or a “chiropractor” could “approve an abortion at any stage of pregnancy.” [The New York Times, 6/21/24; Montana Family Foundation, accessed via Web Archive 9/4/24]
    • Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life for America called the amendment “too extreme for Montanans” because it will “enshrine all-trimester abortion in the constitution for babies who could survive outside of the womb and force the taxpayers to fund it.” The group also called the amendment a “death sentence for babies who can survive outside the womb.” The amendment would “prohibit the government from denying or burdening the right to abortion prior to fetal viability,” which only goes up to the second trimester of a pregnancy and is not “all-trimester.” [SBA Pro Life America, 8/21/24; Twitter/X, 7/31/24; Center for Reproductive Rights, accessed 9/3/24; Mayo Clinic, accessed 9/3/24]

  • Nebraska

    • Nebraska’s abortion amendment would add language to the state constitution saying, “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." Nebraska currently bans abortion after 12 weeks, except in cases of sexual assault, incest, or when necessary to save the mother’s life. [NBC News, 8/23/24]
    • Conservative non-profit Nebraska Family Alliance and its Protect Women and Children committee have put up a competing ballot abortion amendment that would “restrict abortions after the first trimester to no more than 12 to 14 weeks gestational age.” Nebraska Right to Life President Sandy Danek said the language of the competing anti-abortion amendment would “give us an ability to go back to the Nebraska legislature and seek further protections.” [NPR, 5/27/24; Nebraska Examiner, 7/8/24] 
    • Non-profit Nebraska Catholic Conference ruled it “morally permissible” to support Nebraska Family Alliance’s amendment because it is an “imperfect alternative to the intrinsically evil pro-abortion ballot initiative proposal.” The Conference also argued that the “voter must view this proposal as an incremental step toward full protection of all human life from abortion, and not as a permanent compromise.” [Catholic News Agency, 8/23/24; Nebraska Catholic Conference, accessed 8/28/24]

  • Nevada

    • Nevada’s abortion amendment would enshrine the right to abortion in the Nevada Constitution. Currently, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks gestation and “lawmakers cannot change the law without another statewide vote.” [The Nevada Independent, 6/28/24, 8/14/23]
    • In 2023, the pro-life Coalition for Parents and Children political action committee filed a lawsuit arguing that “the ballot initiative is illegal because it is too broad for a single question, does not reflect the entire implications of the question and would cost taxpayer funds” in an effort to halt the amendment from getting on the ballot. Although a Nevada judge initially ruled in the group’s favor and rejected the ballot initiative, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed his ruling. Justice Lidia Stiglich wrote in her decision that “the petition has a single subject – reproductive rights – and that the description is ‘straightforward, succinct, and non-argumentative.’” [LifeSite News, 4/22/24; The Nevada Independent, 10/6/23; Nevada Current, 4/18/24] 
    • Anti-abortion advocacy website LifeSite News argued that the amendment could be “construed as protecting infanticide” because it would prevent the ability of the state to “penalize, prosecute or otherwise take adverse action” against individuals for “actual, potential, perceived or alleged outcome of the pregnancy of the individual, including, without limitation, a miscarriage, stillbirth or abortion.” The article also attacked the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision to allow the amendment to remain on the ballot, saying that the court had “sided with a proposed amendment to create a ‘fundamental right’ to virtually unlimited abortion.” [LifeSite News, 4/22/24]
    • Since March, Nevada Right to Life has spent thousands of dollars on an ad warning of “a radical amendment on the horizon” and calling for people to sign a petition and “say NO to Nevada’s Radical Abortion Amendment.” The ad, which has cost at least $8,000 so far, has earned at least 300,000 impressions. Another ad from the group, which ran briefly in March, similarly called for people to sign a petition and “join the Movement Against Nevada’s Radical Abortion Amendment.” [Meta’s ad library, accessed 9/3/24, accessed 5/17/24]

  • New York

    • While New York’s ballot amendment focuses on equal rights and doesn’t specifically mention abortion, it protects people from discrimination based on sex, including “pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care and autonomy.” According to NBC News, “In New York, abortion is legal up to around the 24th week of pregnancy. Passage of the proposal — which requires a simple majority — would effectively cement those projections constitutionally.” [NBC News, 8/31/24]
    • Though much of the amendment’s criticism has come from anti-LGBTQ advocates relying “heavily on anti-trans rhetoric,” some Catholic groups have attacked it too, arguing that it is “another unnecessary step in the state’s quest to be the abortion capital of the country.” A LifeSite News article wrote that the archdiocese of New York had warned Catholics about the amendment, claiming that it would threaten religious liberty and that “institutions could be forced to participate in abortion.” The New York State Catholic Conference also attacked the amendment, saying that, “New York State should be pouring resources into helping women and families, not promoting abortion through limitless funding, advertisements, and splashy legislation.” [Politico, 9/3/24; Gothamist, 8/28/24; LifeSite News, 8/22/24; 19th News, 7/7/24]

  • South Dakota

    • South Dakota’s abortion amendment would allow for a “trimester framework that leaves abortion decisions to women in the first trimester while allowing regulations that are ‘reasonably related’ to the health of the woman in the second trimester, and a ban of abortion, except to ‘preserve the life and health’ of the woman, in the third.” South Dakota currently has a near-total abortion ban, which has proved to be unpopular with voters. About 48% of South Dakotans supported the Roe v. Wade “status quo” while “77% of the electorate opposed the current lack of exception for victims of rape and/or incest; and 85% supported an exception for the health of the mother, which is legal under the current law.” [The American Prospect, 7/9/24; South Dakota State University, accessed 8/29/24]
    • Anti-abortion group Life Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against Dakotans for Health, the group behind the amendment, alleging that they had “deceived and tricked South Dakotans into signing their petition.” Judge John Pekas ultimately dismissed the lawsuit, saying, “I don't know how the Dakotans for Health can control the Secretary of State. …. They submitted the (petition) information to the state of South Dakota and it has been accepted.” [South Dakota News Watch, 7/15/24]
    • Life Defense Fund misrepresented the purpose of the measure in the media, arguing that it is a “radical abortion up to birth … amendment.” On Washington Watch with Tony Perkins, Life Defense Fund spokesperson Caroline Woods claimed that the ballot measure “allows abortion up to all nine months.” Life Defense Fund’s website also made this point, writing, “The Abortion Amendment would legalize painful, late-term abortion, all the way to the point of birth.” Jezebel wrote that the amendment “would codify access to abortion in the first trimester and also allow the state to enact restrictions in the second trimester,” while still allowing South Dakota to “ban abortion in the last trimester, when a fetus is thought to be viable.” [Twitter/X, 8/14/24; Life Defense Fund, accessed 8/16/24; CBS News, 7/16/24; Jezebel, 8/28/24]