It’s much easier to defend a proposal when you can avoid talking about the unpopular parts.
In November, Nevada voters will decide the fate of Question 6. If passed, it would declare that “All individuals shall have a fundamental right to abortion.” Voters approved this in 2024, but as a constitutional amendment, it must be approved twice to become law.
Set aside your feelings on abortion and consider those first two words — “all individuals.” It reads “individuals” instead of “females” because the left believes men can get pregnant. That is laughable.
Men will never have abortions because men can’t get pregnant.
It also undercuts the pro-abortion arguments the left has made for decades. Abortion supporters frequently claim that abortion is about a “women’s right to choose.” Or that the law shouldn’t come between a woman and her doctor. According to the left’s new standard, anyone who made a sex-specific argument for abortion is a bigot. If you find that offensive — and you should — you shouldn’t vote to put that insanity in the Nevada Constitution.
Now take a look at the proposal itself. Abortion would be protected “until fetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient,” the initiative states. Note the word “patient” instead of a female-specific word such as mother or woman.
The second part of the language is a loophole that would legalize partial-birth abortion. That’s because the word “health” includes mental health. An abortionist could claim that a woman who is nine months pregnant needs an abortion to protect her mental health. Voila. If this initiative is approved, that would be constitutionally protected.
Understand that a partial-birth abortion is exactly what the name implies. An abortionist delivers a baby breech. The baby’s body is outside the mother’s body. Before the baby’s head leaves the birth canal, the abortionist sticks scissors into the baby’s skull and vacuums out the baby’s brains. After the baby’s skull collapses, the abortionist delivers the dead baby.
It’s a gruesome and unnecessary procedure. Instead of killing the baby, a doctor could deliver it. Adoption remains a loving option.
Polling shows that many people who say they support abortion oppose abortions in the third trimester. That’s understandable. At seven months, a preborn baby is undeniably a baby.
Abortion zealots know this. They also know abortion in Nevada isn’t going to be banned anytime soon — despite all the TV ads claiming otherwise. But instead of trying to persuade the public, they are attempting to sneak through late-term abortion protections.
The initiative would also prohibit a parental notification law. A 14-year-old can’t get a Tylenol from the school nurse without permission from her parents. But an abortion wouldn’t require the same. That’s a dream for child rapists and a nightmare for parents.
In theory, the press should highlight these details when reporting on this measure. These are the most newsworthy parts of this proposal. But in 2024, much of the coverage simply accepted the proponent’s framing of the language. When the left proposes something, there is frequently a distinct lack of media curiosity of its obvious implications.
Partial-birth abortion shouldn’t be given constitutional protections.
Contact Victor Joecks at vjoecks@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-4698. Follow
@victorjoecks on X.
