FACT SHEET
Ballot Initiatives in 2012: Putting Women’s
Health and Rights Up For a Vote
OCTOBER 2012
Ballot initiatives can be powerful policy-making tools that raise community-specific issues
and allow citizens to take democracy into their own hands. In recent years, however, they
have also been a means to push an extreme agenda that would undermine women’s health
and reproductive rights.
What is a Ballot Initiative?
Ballot initiatives (also called ballot measures) are questions, statutes or constitutional
amendments that are added to ballots for voters to adopt or reject in state or local elections.
The requirements for an initiative to qualify for the ballot differ from state to state.
Typically, citizens attempting to introduce an initiative must first gather a minimum
number of signatures in order to show public support. The language in ballot initiatives
generally must also meet certain criteria, such as clear or unbiased wording; they are
frequently challenged in court on these and other grounds.
Personhood
Personhood initiatives – which define human life as
beginning at conception – are a growing trend in
ballot initiatives. Because the language in these
measures tends to be broad, the impact on women’s
health can be far-reaching. Some ballot measures
would ban abortion without exceptions, some would
outlaw some forms of birth control, and others
would restrict access to in-vitro fertilization and
other fertility treatments. In 2011 a personhood
measure, Initiative 26, was defeated in Mississippi
with more than 55 percent of voters opposing it.1
“The lines are so unclear on what
may or may not happen. I think
there are circumstances beyond
everybody's control that can't be
regulated through an
amendment.”
— A Mississippi voter, speaking about the
state’s failed personhood ballot initiative
Personhood on the Ballot in 2012: In April, a personhood initiative in Oklahoma was
invalidated by the state’s Supreme Court, which found that it would be unconstitutional
under Roe v. Wade. That ruling is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Personhood
USA.2 Additionally, in the past year, personhood ballot initiatives were proposed in
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Ohio and Oregon; however, none of
these qualified to make it on to the ballot.3
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW | Suite 650 | Washington, DC 20009
202.986.2600 | www.NationalPartnership.org
For more information about personhood ballot initiatives around the country, click here or
visit ReproHealthWatch.org.
Religious Refusal
These types of ballot initiatives would allow individuals or organizations to be exempt from
certain laws, or refuse to provide services if their objections are motivated by “sincerely
held religious beliefs.”4 These measures would allow health care providers to withhold
benefits, refuse to provide medical services or refuse to comply with laws prohibiting
discrimination. These laws often target access to contraception, but the impact of religious
refusal measures can be much broader, such as the refusal to provide mental health
services or HIV treatment.
Religious Refusal on the Ballot in 2012: Earlier this year, North Dakota voters rejected
Measure 3, a religious liberty ballot initiative. 5
For more information about religious refusal ballot initiatives around the country, click here
or visit ReproHealthWatch.org.
Public Coverage of Abortion
Other ballot measures aim to limit access to abortion care for low-income women by
restricting coverage of abortion in publicly-funded health plans, such as Medicaid. Such
bans unfairly discriminate against low-income women and may effectively undermine their
decision to terminate a pregnancy. A measure in Oregon – which failed in July to qualify for
the ballot – would have restricted coverage of abortion in public health plans with an
exception only for endangerment of the woman’s life “or as may be required by federal
law.”6
Public Coverage on the Ballot in 2012: Voters in Florida will decide in November on
Amendment 6, which would amend the Florida Constitution to ban public funding for
abortion services. It would also make it more difficult to repeal existing state or federal
bans on public funding and would exempt abortion from the state constitution’s privacy
clause, potentially making way for a number of other restrictions. The amendment needs
the support of 60 percent of voters to pass.7
For more information about public coverage initiatives around the country, click here or visit
ReproHealthWatch.org.
Parental Involvement
Parental involvement laws, which require that a minor’s parent or guardian be notified or
give consent before she can obtain an abortion, are also frequently proposed as ballot
initiatives. These laws take the choice away from the girl and put a sometimesinsurmountable hurdle between her and the health care she needs, sometimes forcing
desperate young people to resort to dangerous measures. And while these ballot measures
must allow a minor to go before a judge to get permission not to involve her parent, this
process can be complicated, humiliating and time consuming. Courts in at least two states
NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN & FAMILIES | FACT SHEET | BALLOT INITIATIVES: PUTTING WOMEN’S HEALTH UP FOR A VOTE
2
refuse or are unable to hear judicial bypass cases altogether.8 In 2012, groups opposed to
abortion rights attempted to introduce parental involvement initiatives in California and
New Jersey, but they were not successful in either state.9
Parental Involvement on the Ballot in 2012: In November, voters in Montana will decide on
LR 120, which would prohibit a physician from performing an abortion on a minor under 16
years of age unless the physician notifies a parent or legal guardian at least 48 hours prior
to the procedure. It includes exceptions for a medical emergency or if the requirement is
waived by a judge.10
For more information about parental involvement ballot initiatives around the country, click
here or visit ReproHealthWatch.org.
Conclusion
Although voters have rejected many recent attempts to push through anti-choice ballot
initiatives, these measures are a growing threat. The ballot initiatives detailed here are
current strategies employed by opponents of abortion rights; however, voters in the future
may encounter new approaches to undermining women’s access to abortion and other
needed health services through the ballot initiative process. Women’s health and rights
should not be put up for a vote and voters should educate themselves about the impact of
these harmful initiatives before going to the polls.
1 “Mississippi defeats life at conception ballot initiative” (November 9, 2011). USA Today. Retrieved July 18, 2012 at http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-1108/Mississippi-Abortion-Amendment/51129886/1
2 Viebeck, Elise. “‘Personhood’ group takes petition case to the Supreme Court” (July 30, 2012). Healthwatch, The Hill. Retrieved August 28, 2012 at
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/abortion/241019-personhood-group-appeals-case-to-supreme-court
3 “Ballot Measures.” NARAL Pro-Choice America. Retrieved July 18, 2012 at http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/government-and-you/state-governments/ballot-measures/
4 “Ballot Measures.” NARAL Pro-Choice America. Retrieved July 18, 2012 at http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/government-and-you/state-governments/ballot-measures/
5 Smith, Nick. “North Dakota voters reject Measure 3” (June 12, 2012). Bismarck Tribune. Retrieved July 18, 2012 at http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/northdakota-voters-reject-measure/article_67d5392c-b4f7-11e1-a18c-0019bb2963f4.html
6 Jaquiss, Nigel. “Chief Petitioner Throws in Towel on Anti-Abortion Measure.” Willamette Week. Retrieved August 6, 2012 at http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-28856chief_petitioner_throws_in_towel_on_anti_abortion_measure.html
7 “Religious leaders fight Florida amendment that would limit abortion funds (September 19, 2012). New4Jax. Retrieved September 25, 2012 at
http://www.news4jax.com/news/Religious-leaders-fight-Florida-amendment-that-would-limit-abortion-funds/-/475880/16668344/-/13y2dssz/-/index.html
8 “Protect Young Women’s Health: Oppose the ‘Teen Endangerment Act’” (March 2012). National Partnership for Women & Families. Retrieved August 28, 2012 at
http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/Teen_Endangerment_Act_Factsheet.pdf?docID=9921
9 “Ballot Measures.” NARAL Pro-Choice America. Retrieved July 18, 2012 at http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/government-and-you/state-governments/ballot-measures/
10 Legislative Referendum No. 120 Ballot Language, State of Montana, Retrieved October 24, 2012 at http://sos.mt.gov/Elections/2012/BallotIssues/LR-120.pdf
The National Partnership for Women & Families is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group dedicated to promoting fairness in the workplace, access to quality health care and
policies that help women and men meet the dual demands of work and family. More information is available at www.NationalPartnership.org.
© 2012 National Partnership for Women & Families. All rights reserved.
NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN & FAMILIES | FACT SHEET | BALLOT INITIATIVES: PUTTING WOMEN’S HEALTH UP FOR A VOTE
3