34°F
weather icon Clear

EDITORIAL: Abortion rights are already protected in Nevada

Democrats have pounded away at the abortion issue for the past two election cycles. And why not? It seems to work. Never mind that the extremism on the issue runs both ways.

What has increasingly become the default position for Democratic candidates — no restrictions on the procedure at all (legal abortion until birth) — occupies the fringes of public opinion alongside the outright ban favored by some conservatives.

At any rate, the matter is settled in Nevada. Abortion rights are already codified in state law, thanks to overwhelming voter approval in 1990 of a referendum that legalized abortion through the first two trimesters.

Yet here we have Question 6 on the November ballot. This proposal would amend the state constitution to establish “a permanent layer of protection” for abortion rights, according to supporters. But even the language of the referendum concedes that a “no” vote “would not impact the availability of abortion as a statutory right under Nevada law.”

It’s worth noting that the proposal could potentially make it easier for health care providers to perform third-trimester abortions. Those who wrote the “arguments for passage” don’t explicitly deny this. Proponents also argue that the amendment has “no fiscal or tax implications” despite fears that a constitutional right to abortion could be interpreted by progressive judges to mean that Nevada taxpayers must foot the bill. This is not idle speculation. Notably, the initiative includes a note from the Legislative Counsel Bureau stating that “the financial effect upon the state or local governments cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty.”

The proposal also expands those who may legally perform an abortion beyond licensed physicians.

In truth, left-wing special-interest groups worked to place Question 6 on the ballot to accomplish a singular objective: To drive turnout, theoretically mobilizing Democrats and progressives in the November election. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. Political parties and others routinely use the initiative process to give sympathetic voters another reason to head to the polls. Yet discerning Nevadans will remember that abortion rights are secure in this state regardless of how Question 6 fares.

Abortion rights are not in danger in Nevada. Question 6 is a vaguely worded, duplicative initiative that could have costly unintended consequences. The voters spoke loudly and clearly 34 years ago, and abortion remains protected in the Silver State. There is no need to support Question 6.

The views expressed above are those of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

MOST READ
LISTEN TO THE TOP FIVE HERE
THE LATEST
Letters to the Editor

It’s time to address the inequalities in our nation, not point fingers over who is patriot or not. We’re all Americans first and foremost.

Letters to the Editor

After reading the letter from a “moderate Republican”, with a severe case of TDS,

BOVEE — Election results: What does it all mean?

First, something it doesn’t mean: the Nov. 4 election is not a wholesale rejection of Trump and his policy.

Letters to the Editor

Government shutdowns are becoming almost like ‘political holidays’ for so many in government.

Letters to the Editor

As a moderate Republican I am just shaking my head at the mindless automatons we actually call elected officials who have been storming around causing complete chaos on Capitol Hill for two weeks.

Letters to the Editor

Residents of the Autumnwood subdivision have been under what many in the community feel is an attack on their rights by the Nye County commissioners.

Letters to the Editor

Short-term rentals are not a threat to our community. They are an economic lifeline for many retirees, working families, and property owners like myself.

Letters to the Editor

A town board is just that, a town board, no enforcement or regulatory authority.

Letters to the Editor

If Dr. Waters wants to bring it back, he should list positive things that were in fact done and propose changes for the future – not make an argument based on a hypothetical.