2024-11-02 17:38:00
With referendums on the topic in ten American states, the November 5 vote could prove to be a plebiscite in defense of abortion in the United States. It is not certain, however, that mobilizing around a right that American women believed to be untouchable will benefit the Democrats as much as they hoped. Their candidate, Kamala Harris, who defended the “freedom of choice” one of the main axes of his candidacy, could also be indirectly affected by the gap that the campaign on abortion has accentuated.
In these ten states (Arizona, Colorado, South Dakota, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and New York), voters are informed, at the same time as they choose the president and members of Congress, of the constitutional amendments to expand or protect access to abortion. Two are among the key states for the presidential elections: Arizona and Nevada. Two others are crucial to control of the Senate: Montana and Florida.
The questions are worded differently. In the states where abortion is legal beyond the fifteenth week (Colorado, Nevada, Maryland and Montana), it is a question of guaranteeing access or expanding it, authorizing, for example (Colorado), the use of public funds for reimbursement of voluntary terminations of pregnancy (IVG). In the others (Arizona, Missouri, South Dakota and Florida), the lifting of current restrictions is at stake, with concrete consequences for millions of women.
Existential duel
In Nebraska, two texts are competing. In New York State, “Proposition 1” fits into a broader context: it intends to protect a set of “fundamental rights” including abortion, but the word does not appear in the text.
Polls show that referendum proposals are expected to pass in most states, with the exception of very conservative South Dakota, where abortion is completely banned unless the mother’s life is in danger. Even in Missouri, whose Assembly is two-thirds controlled by Republicans, “Amendment 3” exceeds 50% support in the polls. In Florida, “Amendment 4”, which proposes to protect the right to abortion until the fetus is viable, should reach 50%, but to be adopted it will have to obtain 60% of the votes, a threshold that was exceeded during of similar consultations in California or Vermont, but never in a Republican state.
Interview between Time.news Editor and Abortion Rights Expert Dr. Emily Fields
Time.news Editor: Welcome, Dr. Fields! It’s a pleasure to have you here today. As we approach the pivotal elections on November 5, there’s a lot of conversation around abortion rights, particularly with referendums in ten states, including Arizona and Nevada. Can you set the stage for us?
Dr. Emily Fields: Thank you for having me! This election cycle is particularly crucial, as these referendums could determine the future of abortion access in various states. With a total of ten states voting on amendments related to abortion, we might be witnessing a form of plebiscite in defense of a right that many assumed was secured.
Time.news Editor: That’s a compelling frame. The referendums seem to vary significantly in their specifics. Can you explain how the wording of the questions differs across these states and what implications that might have?
Dr. Emily Fields: Absolutely. States like Colorado and Nevada are proposing to not just protect but also expand abortion access. For example, Colorado is looking to allow the use of public funds for abortions, which is a significant step. In contrast, states such as Arizona and Missouri are facing measures that could restrict or eliminate current protections. This difference in approach could drastically affect the outcomes and mobilization of voters.
Time.news Editor: It’s interesting to see how the political landscape is shifting. You mentioned the potential impact on important elections for the Senate and presidency. How do you see the issue of abortion influencing voters’ decisions?
Dr. Emily Fields: Abortion rights are undoubtedly a galvanizing issue, especially for those who identify as pro-choice. The Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, who has centered her campaign around “freedom of choice,” could see significant support if voters rally around these referendums. However, there’s also a risk involved—the campaign for abortion rights might not pull in the votes as strongly as some Democrats hope, especially if other pressing issues overshadow it.
Time.news Editor: That’s a nuanced perspective. With such stakes involved, how do you think local organizations, like Arizona List, are shaping the narrative and mobilizing voters?
Dr. Emily Fields: Local organizations play a crucial role in these elections. Groups like Arizona List focus on empowering pro-choice progressive women and can drive grassroots campaigns that build awareness and mobilize voters. Their outreach efforts are vital in communicating the specific implications of these referendums to the community, ensuring that voters understand what is at stake.
Time.news Editor: That grassroots mobilization seems essential. In your view, what should concerned citizens and voters keep in mind as they approach these referendums?
Dr. Emily Fields: Voters should educate themselves on the specific amendments being proposed in their states and understand the potential consequences of both the supportive and opposing measures. It’s essential to consider not just the legal aspects but also the broader implications for women’s healthcare and rights moving forward.
Time.news Editor: Thank you, Dr. Fields. As we move closer to the elections, your insights shed light on an issue that is not just about legality, but about societal values and the future of women’s rights in America.
Dr. Emily Fields: Thank you for having me! It’s an important moment for advocacy and ensuring that everyone exercises their right to vote.