115

This is actually HUGE. These three states contain 50 million people.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/09/politics/abortion-rights-2022-midterms/index.html

This is actually HUGE. These three states contain 50 million people. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/09/politics/abortion-rights-2022-midterms/index.html

84 comments

CA is a given. MI and VT are great news. But the most telling is Kentucky! Even in this very red state, people voted against a state constitutional ban.

The truth is, neither parties represent the American majority on abortion. Ovarit members obviously are farther left than the majority. But the majority basically don't want a ban, and some restrictions including viability, third trimester (and maybe the later part of the second trimester) with exceptions including cases of rape, incest, endangerment to the mother's health and life.

I do see a silver lining to the overturn of Roe v. Wade. It may finally stop the politicalization of this issue going forward. The GOP is not stupid. They see the messages coming out of Kansas and Kentucky. This midterms election also serves as a signal too. The Evangelical voters will never be able to get a federal law pass to for a total ban. Any GOP politician not from the most most conservative districts would be committing political suicide if they go that way.

The Republicans in Illinois have already been advertising: "Abortion is not at risk in Illinois; don't fall for the Democrat's lie that it's at risk". I can't find an example right now but I've seen them.

The Michigan one also protects "the right to be sterilized" which scares me honestly. Too many people think there are no consequences for young women getting a hysterectomy, when we know there are health consequences that drop the closer a woman is to menopause, to where the benefits outweigh the risk and it's safer.

I also feel it was a sneaky Trans Rights insert.

"The Michigan one also protects "the right to be sterilized" which scares me honestly."

I personally know women, and have heard stories from a lot more women I don't personally know, who have had an insanely difficult time getting their tubes tied. Doctors discouraging them "because you might change your mind," doctors requiring their husband's approval...

So I think that right does need to be enshrined.

Do we know if minors are included?

TRAs will jump at the chance to sterilize minors through irreversible surgeries, and if this is considered a right in Michigan, what recourse do the victims have?

Yeah, I don't get why that's scary. Women are routinely denied the right to get sterilized and frankly I'm glad to see some action being taken to address that.

Do you think sterilization procedures in women routinely involve a hysterectomy? That's inaccurate. Removal, or 'tying,' which has become less common, of the fallopian tubes leaves the ovaries and uterus in tact in the body. Hysterectomies and oophorectomies are almost always only done in cases where there's an underlying health condition that make it necessary because legitimate medical professionals understand that these organs serve purposes other than baby-making.

Hysterectomies and oophorectomies are almost always only done in cases where there's an underlying health condition that make it necessary

Unnecessary hysterectomies and oophorectomies are performed at a very alarming rate.

Sterilization procedures for women don't involve hysterectomies. They involve having the fallopian tubes removed. It's an entirely different thing. Edit: whoops, Calliope beat me to it.

I'm old enough to have talked to the women who went in to have a biopsy, and woke up with a hysterectomy, and had horrible horrible side effects for something they didn't consent too, because the laws were different back then. Or maybe not - this is one that happened in 2007, where they cover all the side effects.

https://lowninstitute.org/guest-post-the-madness-of-unnecessary-hysterectomy-has-to-stop/

And I see young women in their 20's complaining that they want a hysterectomy for their worthless uterus and they don't want kids anyways and why are doctors hesitant to do so in a young women? And other women responding how unfair it is... by people who don't know the risks. I've had trouble finding anything negative, online, about hysterectomy for a very long time, I'm surprised I found that above link.

Maybe people are already becoming aware of the risks again.

The GOP is not stupid.

The GOP IS stupid. I don't mean that in the gratuitous slamming of conservatives. I mean they really are. Their anti-abortion stance has been a stone around their neck for decades. No one really wants it. There's a loud, screaming population of religious fundies that want it. But the research has shown their steady decline since the 1950s.

UK Tories were smarter about this. But their religious decline was much faster, tbf.

Republicans should have dropped abortion from their platform in the 80's. They dropped same-sex marriage way sooner. They certainly should never have allowed their gruesome, cruel trigger laws be put into place. They should never have pursued inexperienced SCJs who are ostensibly cult members. (The Catholic Church does have groups that operate as mini-cults within it).

Mitch McConnell really put this all into place more than Trump did, and he has the audacity to blame Trump for the mid-term failures.

Nope. If the SC hadn't overturned Roe, Republicans would have had their red wave.

Since they're not saying that out loud as a group, they are indeed stupid.

I don't actually agree. It wasn't stupidity. The pro-life coalition had been very useful to them until now, as women had been to the Dems. I was around during the Bush I era. The Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition was a very strong bloc of voters in the late 80s through the mid 90s. The threat they posed was very real, and much scarier than it is now as there was no internet, traveling was nowhere as easy, abortions couldn't be done by ordering pill by mail, and the stigma of unwanted pregnancies was much more a thing than now when people don't really feel shamed about anything anymore. Since then, both sides had continued to milk this until there's nothing left.

I know it's not easy for us to see it this way, but locally the politicians who pushed the ban in their states have constituents who are staunchly pro-life. At the state levels, they were able to make the claim to them that they made good on their promise. Most of these local politicians won't be impacted by national elections. But now unless there are court challenges, and situations they didn't foresee (eg 10 year old rape victims, women's health issues, IVF issues), they will get to keep their status quos of strict abortion bans.

But the most telling is Kentucky! Even in this very red state, people voted against a state constitutional ban.

I think this is because people prefer the status quo. I don't know if a vote to enshrine the right to abortion would have passed

Hopefully this has sent a powerful message to both parties!

For Republicans, this is truly a case of be careful what you wish for, you might get it. Without Roe v. Wade, they have no target to fight against on the federal level. They have no way of changing the laws providing abortion rights in blue states short of a federal ban. And they don't have the votes and support to do that.

At the state level, they've essentially won. So they're no longer able to use this issue to drive their evangelical base. All that's left is debates among themselves whether it should be a total ban or not, and what exceptions. Party infighting is not exactly helpful to them but that's all they got. (It would be the same problem too if they ever gain control of Congress and try to pass a federal law. They won't be able to legislate in any way to please anyone. The bill would thus never see daylight out of caucus.)

As for the Dems, I'm skeptical they'll get the right message. The message they got probably is abortion is still the issue to dangle in front of female voters and to scare them into voting D.

Looks like Biden’s dangling “abortion is on the ballot” carrot worked yesterday. The Red wave turned out to be a ripple.

What's the language in the CA, MI and KY clauses? All cloaked Trans Supremacy enshrinements, just like the VT amendment?

I am not seeing any "trans supremacy" issues in the language.

The California language: "The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives." https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1,_Right_to_Reproductive_Freedom_Amendment_(2022)

The Michigan language: "Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-prop-3-election-2022-michigan-abortion-rights-constitutional-amendment/

The Vermont language: "That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means." https://www.mynbc5.com/article/vermont-proposal-5-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-states-reproductive-liberty-amendment/41726065

"Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including ...abortion care"

This feels like it can be misused to let men stop women from getting an abortion. It says any individual can make decisions about abortion, so which individual's opition is more important?

What's the language in the CA, MI and KY clauses? All cloaked Trans Supremacy enshrinements, just like the VT amendment?

This is why I can't get too excited about these bills. I haven't had time to read them. But I have no doubt that most (if not all) of them force-teamed the right to abortion with the "right" for children to get blockers, hormones, and teet yeet surgeries on demand. So, if states seek to ban these barbaric trans procedures in the future, they'll have to kill the right to abortion along with it.

Once again, women are forced into a political hostage situation where we have to choose between bodily autonomy and keeping women-only spaces safe and penis free

I'd argue that having to share spaces with men is a nullification of bodily autonomy.

Good! The more states put this issue to rest once and for all the less of a carrot dems have to dangle in front of us. I don't believe for one second that Biden will codify Roe before seeking reelection, if ever.

If he coded it then people would turn on him and start demanding more protections for women and children and to stop the TRA nonsence. They know that the legal right to abortion is a very popular opinion that’s why he’s dangling it

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's a dangling carrot and the last thing that reminds us of what the party stood for once. I for once refuse to bite for it. If they were so pro abortion they would have done it. We might have a chance of a republican house and Senate and what now? Biden will say nevermind. When he could have done it BEFORE the midterms. And of course so many people will buy it and say "we have to vote more blue next time!!"

It's just so frustrating.

I was recovering from an illness and then a week before the election, I started back up on my postcard writing, PR work, door knocking do whatever I can to keep our democracy and our abortion rights...my daughter called her friends and took them to vote...it's been a big push at the end and I'm SO HAPPY about all of these wins!!!! I feel exhausted but elated!!!

Plus, a friend's spouse won their election, so I'm very excited about that as well. I was dreading a red wave and then it just didn't happen and I truly believe it's because women HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN.

When I saw the news, I breathed such a sigh of relief. The fight doesn't end here, but it's so nice to see something positive for once!

VT's ballot question was:

“That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”

We discussed that one earlier. https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/102862/vermont-abortion-protection-has-implications-far-beyond-abortion

"An individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy " covers a lot of ground and could usher in a reproductive biotech gold rush into VT. And other unintended consequences.

one of the women who worked on the bill said it was written specifically to include transpeople.

So, trans people will be suing to be able to reproduce via technology. Or, something, something medical - surrogate.

I don't know where this will lead, tbh.

"said it was written specifically to include transpeople"

That's presumably why it says "individual" rather than "woman and girl" or similar.

"So, trans people will be suing to be able to reproduce via technology"

No, that's not what constitutional amendments do. They don't give anyone the right to sue a state to force the state to provide XYZ (whatever the thing you have a right to is). They just make it unconstitutional for the state to ban XYZ or to punish people for doing XYZ.

The ballot question was pretty vague. As most deliberately are. No devilish details allowed. The legislation that follows is what’ll matter. How “State interest” will be defined will be something to watch for too.

"How “State interest” will be defined will be something to watch for too."

"An abortion can only be turned down if it is "justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means." A state interest is deemed "compelling" if it is for the "purpose of protecting the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that individual's autonomous decision-making."' https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-prop-3-election-2022-michigan-abortion-rights-constitutional-amendment/

I’ve read that this could open up lawsuits from men suing women for having an abortion- since it’s about “personal reproductive autonomy” and not the rights of the person actually pregnant. Is that just far right scare tactics or could that be true? I’m so troubled that nowhere does it mention even “pregnant people” let alone women!!

I have no idea. But the given the vague language that could certainly be a possibility. As could “financial abortions” where an unwilling father could legally opt out of being responsible for the child’s financial needs if the mother refuses to abort an unexpected pregnancy.

Both are examples where seeking “equality” between the sexes in “reproductive rights” is not necessarily the best approach.

I’ve read that this could open up lawsuits from men suing women for having an abortion- since it’s about “personal reproductive autonomy” and not the rights of the person actually pregnant

I don't see how you could read it that way, since it says (Michigan) "Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom..."

That means every individual has the right. There's no way to read that to mean that individual B has the right to infringe individual A's rights.

Same goes for VT ("an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed...") and CA ("an individual’s reproductive freedom... includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion").

Can I have some sources for that?

It was only speculation from a contributor to a local paper, like I said, I don’t know if it’s true or just some kind of scare tactic leading up to the election. Here’s the article if you’d like to read it:

https://vtdigger.org/2022/11/01/matthew-strong-if-prop-5-passes-mens-rights-and-the-courts-will-be-the-big-winners/

I'm not familiar with USA law, does that mean that these rights can't be removed anymore? Not even by a federal law? If so, this is amazing news!

Not quite, unfortunately. What it means is that the states with such provisions in their constitutions cannot pass or enforce laws prohibiting abortion.

So, for instance, Michigan has an old law criminalizing abortion on its books (I believe the law was enacted in 1931, and is still on the books but has been unenforceable since the US Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade).

The moment Roe v. Wade was overturned, that law came into force again, although enforcing it was blocked by lawsuits filed in Michigan courts. Those lawsuits are now moot, because Michigan's constitution now prohibits any such laws. Old laws against abortion cannot be enforced and new ones cannot be passed.

However, our country is a federal system, which means two things: (1) states cannot pass or enforce laws that conflict with the federal constitution (which is why the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade back in 1973 meant no state could prohibit abortion), and (2) states ALSO cannot pass or enforce laws that conflict with federal statutes, as long as the federal statute itself is authorized under the federal constitution.

Link on that: https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-vi/clauses/31

It's point (2) -- whether the federal statute is itself constitutional -- that is the kicker. In the US, Congress (meaning the two houses of the federal legislature) can't pass laws about absolutely anything it wants to. Congress can only pass laws if both of the following are true: (a) the laws fall into the areas about which the Constitution says the feds can legislate, and (b) the laws do not otherwise violate the Constitution (e.g., the law doesn't prohibit or unreasonably limit any of the people's constitutional rights).

Oh, and also, passing a law isn't sufficient; the president also has to sign the law, and US presidents have the right to veto laws. Congress can't overcome a presidential veto unless it can get a 2/3 majority to do so -- IOW if a Republican Congress passed a law against abortion, a Democratic president would veto it, and the law would die a death because there's no way that 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate would vote to prohibit abortion nationwide.

So as long as a Democrat is in the White House, there would be no point in the US Congress passing a statute prohibiting abortion. It would not become law. Republicans would have to control the House, the Senate, and the White House for such a law to be made.

And if THAT happened, lawsuits would immediately be filed in all states with constitutional rights to abortion, arguing that the federal statute wasn't authorized (most likely because regulating abortion doesn't fall within any of the powers given to the federal legislature in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i).

Thank you very much, this exlanation is more detailed than what I expected! Even though the situation is still bleak, I'm glad they can't easily pass a federal law to ban it completely. I hope more states follow the example of Kentucky, Michigan and Montana.

I'm not at all clear on why so many here are opposed to these enshrinements. Do you not want states to constitutionally protect abortion? I've read the language and I don't see anything about prioritizing TIPs.

[–] MissBehaved 6 points Edited

And they are strategically located across the US. WEST, CENTRE, EAST.

I'm surprised at MI, but glad.

What's the language in the Michigan clause? Does it use the word "woman"?

To be fair, we wouldn't want a self-loathing woman to be denied the right to abortion because she legally changed her sex to male (or her parents did it to her when she was a minor incapable of consent).

(or her parents did it to her when she was a minor incapable of consent)

In that case, the poor young woman will never be pregnant. Putting a female child on blockers and then testosterone results in sterility. If she never reached menarche, her eggs never matured.

Did CT do it???

There wasn’t a ballot question about reproductive rights, or amending the state constitution if that’s what you mean. Abortion rights in the event of Roe being overturned was voted into law back in the 1990s.

Load more (3 comments)