67°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
THE LATEST
EDITORIAL: Convicted Pahrump JP still wants her paycheck

Michele Fiore is upset that the taxpayers are no longer paying her not to work as a Pahrump justice of the peace. She has only herself to blame.

Letters to the Editor

The most dangerous lies are the lies we tell ourselves and all the ways we look to justify them.

Letters to the Editor

I am happy that the election campaigning is over, but most of all the absence of political ads from both parties, blatantly lying about their opponents.

Letters to the Editor

As a resident of Pahrump, I have deep concerns about bringing homeless people here with the intent of reintroducing them into society.

Letters to the Editor

Nobody knows better the grit and sacrifice military service requires than those who donned the uniform.

Letters to the Editor

I am voting for Trump based on his proven record as the 45th president.

EDITORIAL: Biden foreign policy leaves a void on world stage

The world was a relatively stable place when Donald Trump left office in 2021. Since then, the Biden White House signaled repeatedly to our enemies that there is little consequence for international misbehavior.

An ode to the healing waters of Tecopa

Every oasis in a desert has a gravitational pull, and Tecopa’s hot mineral water is a particularly strong vortex.