CHICAGO (AP) — Billboards read “STOP Child Gender Surgery.” Brochures warning about the dangers to minors. “PROTECT PARENTS’ RIGHTS” on church notices.
As voters in nine states decide whether to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitutions, opponents are using parental rights and anti-transgender messages to undermine support for the ballot proposals.
The measures make no mention of gender-affirming surgeries, and legal experts say changing existing laws on parental notification and consent regarding abortions and gender-affirming care for minors would require a court case. But anti-abortion groups hoping to end their drought at the ballot box have turned to the kind of language that many Republican candidates across the country are using in their own campaigns to attract conservative Christian voters.
“It’s really outlandish to suggest that this amendment applies to things like gender reassignment surgery on minors,” said Matt Harris, an associate professor of political science at Park University in Parkville, Missouri, a state where abortion rights are on the ballot Ballot paper is there.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down constitutional protections for abortion, voters in seven states, including conservative Kentucky, Montana and Ohio, have either protected the right to abortion or rejected attempts to restrict it.
“If you can’t win by telling the truth, you need a better argument, even if that means capitalizing on the demonization of trans children,” Dr. Alex Dworak, a family doctor in Omaha, Nebraska, where anti-abortion groups are using the strategy.
Tying abortion rights ballot initiatives to parental rights and gender affirmation is a strategy borrowed from the textbooks of Michigan and Ohio, where voters nevertheless enshrined abortion rights in state constitutions.
Both states still require minors to obtain parental consent for abortions, and the novel changes do not yet affect parental involvement or gender-specific care laws in either state, said David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University.
“It’s just a matter of reusing the same strategies,” Cohen said.
In addition to Missouri and Nebraska, Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Nevada and South Dakota are the states where voters will consider constitutional amendments this fall.
Missouri’s abortion ballot measure in particular has become a target. The amendment would prohibit the government from violating a person’s “fundamental right to reproductive freedom.”
Gov. Mike Parson and U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, both Republicans, have claimed the proposal would allow minors to have abortions and gender-affirming surgeries without parental involvement.
The amendment protects reproductive health services, “including, but not limited to,” a list of topics such as prenatal care, childbirth, birth control and abortion. It doesn’t mention gender-affirming care, but Missouri state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican and an attorney with the conservative Thomas More Society, said it’s possible it could be considered reproductive health services.
Several legal experts told The Associated Press that a court ruling would be required, which is unlikely.
“It would be a stretch for any court to say that anything involving gender-affirming care counts as reproductive health care,” said Marcia McCormick, a professor of law and gender studies at Saint Louis University. She noted that the examples listed as reproductive health care in the Missouri Amendment are all directly related to pregnancy.
As for parental consent for abortions for minors, she pointed to an existing state law that is similar to a law the U.S. Supreme Court struck down before the repeal of Roe v. Wade had found constitutional.
Most states have parental involvement laws, whether they require parental consent or notification. Even many Democratic-leaning states with explicit protections for transgender rights require parental involvement before an abortion or gender-affirming care for minors, said Mary Ruth Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law.
A state Supreme Court would have to overturn such laws, which is highly unlikely given conservative majorities in many states where abortion is on the ballot, experts said.
In New York, a proposed amendment to the state constitution would expand anti-discrimination protections to include race, national origin, age, disability and “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcome, and reproductive health care and autonomy.” The constitution already prohibits discrimination based on race, color, creed or religion.
The measure makes no mention of abortion, and experts say it may be more vulnerable to attack from opponents.
The Coalition to Protect Kids-NY calls it the “Parent Replacement Act.” But Sasha Ahuja, campaign director for New Yorkers for Equal Rights, said the measure “does not change existing common sense laws that are already in effect.”
Rick Weiland, co-founder of Dakotans for Health, the group behind South Dakota’s proposed amendment, said it “almost verbatim” Roe v. Wade frame used.
“You just have to look again at what was allowed under Roe, and there were always requirements for parental involvement,” Weiland said.
Caroline Woods, spokeswoman for the anti-abortion group Life Defense Fund, said the measure “means loving parents are completely left out of the equation.” Weiland said those claims were part of a “steady stream of misinformation” from opponents.
If this campaign strategy failed in Michigan and Ohio, why are anti-abortion groups relying on it in the November election?
Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, said abortion opponents know they may be “playing on more favorable ground” in more conservative states like Missouri or in states like Florida that have higher thresholds for passing ballot measures.
“Anti-abortion groups are still looking for a winning formula,” Ziegler said.
___
Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, contributed to this report.
___
The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to improve its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. For more information about AP’s Democracy Initiative, click here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
