Nebraska Supreme Court to hear lawsuit challenging abortion rights ballot measure, potentially altering state’s abortion landscape.
At a Glance
- Nebraska Supreme Court expedites hearing on lawsuit regarding abortion rights ballot measure
- Hearing set for next Monday; lawsuit filed by conservative nonprofit Thomas More Society
- Initiative aims to enshrine abortion rights in state constitution until viability
- Lawsuit argues measure violates state’s single-subject rule, addressing multiple issues
- If upheld, Nebraska could be first state with competing abortion amendments on same ballot post-Roe v. Wade
Nebraska Supreme Court to Hear Abortion Rights Challenge
The Nebraska Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a landmark case challenging a proposed abortion rights ballot measure. This expedited hearing, scheduled for next Monday, comes after the conservative nonprofit Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit contesting the initiative’s constitutionality. The case has drawn national attention as it could potentially reshape Nebraska’s abortion laws and impact the broader conversation on reproductive rights across the country.
The ballot measure in question aims to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant woman. Secretary of State Bob Evnen has already confirmed that enough signatures were gathered for the measure to appear on the November ballot. However, the lawsuit argues that the initiative violates Nebraska’s single-subject rule by addressing multiple issues within one proposal.
Competing Initiatives and Legal Arguments
Adding to the complexity of the situation, a competing initiative is also slated for the November ballot. This measure seeks to codify Nebraska’s current 12-week abortion ban with exceptions. If both initiatives make it to the ballot, Nebraska could become the first state since the overturning of Roe v. Wade to have competing abortion amendments on the same ballot.
“In fact, it’s an initiative that expands abortion rights throughout pregnancy for nearly any reason,” Heffron said. “And it’s without any sort of regulation from the state at all.”
The Thomas More Society, representing the plaintiffs, argues that the single-subject law prevents voters from being forced to accept unwanted provisions. Conversely, supporters of the expanded abortion rights initiative maintain that it addresses a single subject and should be allowed on the ballot. Secretary of State Evnen has chosen to intervene in the case to ensure comprehensive arguments are presented.
Broader Implications and Public Opinion
This case in Nebraska is part of a larger national trend, with abortion-related measures appearing on ballots in nine other states this year. Recent public opinion surveys indicate growing support for abortion rights, with one poll suggesting that 60% of Americans support legal abortion for any reason. This shift in public sentiment adds another layer of complexity to the legal and political landscape surrounding the issue.
“Nebraska’s ballot measure laws are clear and there’s reason to be concerned that abortion activists from New York and California have limited knowledge of and interest in those laws,” Pritchard said.
The Nebraska Supreme Court’s decision to expedite the hearing, bypassing lower courts, underscores the urgency of the matter. With the deadline for ballot printing rapidly approaching, the court aims to reach a decision swiftly. This case not only has significant implications for Nebraska but could also influence the national conversation on reproductive rights and the role of state constitutions in protecting or limiting abortion access.
As the Nebraska Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments, the eyes of the nation are on this pivotal case. The outcome could set a precedent for how states navigate the complex terrain of abortion rights in the post-Roe era. Regardless of the court’s decision, this case highlights the ongoing debate and legal challenges surrounding reproductive rights in America, reflecting the deep divisions and passionate advocacy on both sides of the issue.
