Republicans plow ahead with anti-abortion agenda in states where voters approved constitutional amendments
Even as Republicans swept into power in Washington in last year's elections, abortion rights supporters found success at the ballot box across the country. But that hasn't deterred abortion opponents.
Republican lawmakers have moved forward this year with bills to restrict abortion in more than half of the states where voters passed constitutional amendments in November to protect or expand reproductive rights.
They've also advanced bills in a bevy of states that would make if more difficult for groups to place similar measures on the ballot in the future. Those efforts extend to three states where amendments to enshrine a constitutional right to an abortion fell short last November.
'The abortion industry's attempts to completely deregulate their industry via ballot measures is putting women and girls in danger,' Kelsey Pritchard, the director of state public affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in an email. 'Republican leaders in states with pro-abortion ballot measures should be doing all that they can to protect health and safety protections for women and girls.'
Reproductive rights groups say the actions — even if ultimately unsuccessful — amount to an overt rejection of the desires of voters on the issue of abortion.
'Even when their voters made their support of abortion access extremely clear with these ballot amendments, Republicans are still willing to trample them,' said Yari Aquino, who helps advise candidates for EMILY's List, a national group that backs Democratic women who support abortion rights.
Aquino suggested that if conservatives' efforts continue, Democrats would be wise to keep abortion rights at the center of their platform heading into next year's midterms.
'This is why abortion rights and reproductive rights continue to be such a salient issue,' she said.
In Arizona, where voters overwhelmingly chose to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitution five months ago, Republicans in the state Legislature have advanced bills that would create new restrictions on the use of abortion-inducing drugs. Those include the requirement that a doctor must examine a patient before the patient can obtain the drugs. Another bill would ban doctors in the state from introducing abortion care to their patients as a prospective treatment option.
The bill proposes punishing doctors and practices who 'promote' abortion care as a potential treatment option by stripping them of any contracts or funding from any state agencies.
Critics argue the bills are a 'backdoor' way to eliminate Medicaid funding for any practice that even mentions abortion to a pregnant patient.
'Arizonans spoke their voice. They used their voice to say what they wanted,' said Arizona state Rep. Stephanie Simacek, a Democrat who has co-sponsored multiple bills that seek to protect or expand abortion rights. 'This is just another way for [Republicans] to push exactly what they did not get.'
'It's a backdoor way for them to try to come in and overrule the voice of the people here in Arizona,' she added.
Republicans in Missouri are teeing up a ballot measure that would reverse the one voters approved in November that effectively protected abortion rights until fetal viability and undid a near-total abortion ban on the books.
Conservative lawmakers in the state have also introduced legislation that would allow Missourians to wipe out most all of their tax bill if they donate what they owed in state income taxes to pregnancy resource centers, which reproductive rights advocates say are designed to steer pregnant women away from abortions.
In Montana, where voters enshrined abortion access into the state constitution, GOP lawmakers responded by introducing a bill that seeks to make traveling to or from the state for an abortion later in pregnancy a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. The bill, which compared that action to human 'trafficking,' was eventually tabled.
In Colorado, where abortion had already been legal through fetal viability, voters passed a measure to formally enshrine those rights. Republican legislators there introduced a bill that would make bringing a minor to the state for an abortion a felony crime.
Voters in Kentucky, a Republican stronghold that has a near-total ban on abortion, rejected an initiative in 2023 to amend the state constitution to explicitly state that there isn't a right to abortion.
Republican lawmakers still passed a bill that abortion advocates said further narrowed the medical exceptions that had been allowed under the existing abortion ban. Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed the bill, but Republicans in the Legislature used their supermajority to override it.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in at least 15 states have advanced bills in recent weeks that would make it more difficult for proposed constitutional amendments to qualify for the ballot.
In Arizona, Missouri and South Dakota, legislators are attempting to raise the threshold for passage for ballot measures to 60% from a simple majority.
In those states, as well as Montana, Nebraska, Florida and Arkansas, Republicans have also advanced bills that create more onerous signature requirements for proposed amendments to qualify for the ballot. (Voters rejected amendments to enshrine abortion rights in the constitution in 2024 in Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota.)
Groups that advocate for reproductive rights and for ballot measures said these actions are an effort to roll back voters' rights.
'Ballot measures have been a lifeline to working people in red and purple states, allowing them to make change even when politicians fail to represent their interests. Legislators are trying to systematically take that power away,' Kelly Hall, the executive director of the Fairness Project, a nonprofit organization that helps progressive groups advance citizen-led ballot initiatives, said in a statement.
'This is their playbook,' Hall said, adding that when 'politicians know they can't win with voters on the issues, they try to change the rules of the game.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Israel-Iran conflict splits Trump's MAGA backers
As the percussion of Israeli munitions rattled Tehran on Thursday night, President Donald Trump's MAGA movement observed a rare silence — a sign, influential Republicans say, of the divide within their own party when it comes to the prospect of a war between Israel and Iran. It took Trump, who comments publicly more often than any president in recent memory, about 10 hours to put out a statement on his Truth Social platform, in which he urged Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program. The first official U.S. assessment had been issued by the White House under Secretary of State Marco Rubio's name, and it emphasized that America was 'not involved' in the strikes. In the meantime, Charlie Kirk, the co-founder of Turning Point USA, polled his 5 million X followers on the question of whether America should 'get involved in Israel's war against Iran.' By Friday afternoon, the poll showed more than 350,000 votes, with an overwhelming proportion in the 'No' column. When Kirk read Rubio's statement on the strikes during a podcast Thursday night, Jack Posobiec, a right-wing activist popular with the MAGA audience, interjected that it was 'not a supportive statement at all.' Earlier Thursday, before the strikes, Posobiec had warned on X that a 'direct strike on Iran right now would disastrously split the Trump coalition.' And Steve Bannon, host of the 'War Room' podcast, which is influential with MAGA adherents within the administration and outside of it, steered clear of public commentary Thursday night. It all adds up to a demonstration of the quandary facing Trump as he and other elected Republicans seek safe political turf. Trump's electoral success owes in no small part to his isolationist-leaning 'America First' platform and his fierce criticism of drawn-out U.S. engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan that were launched by Republican President George W. Bush and continued by Democratic President Barack Obama. But Israel's latest action pits traditional Republican support for the Jewish state — and antipathy toward Iran — against the MAGA base's fear that the U.S. will be drawn into a new foreign war. And even within Trump's MAGA wing, there's a long-running split over American backing of Israel. Trump has always been on the pro-Israel side of the divide. 'Republicans are a pro-Israel party, and the president hasn't wavered on that,' said one longtime Trump adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity within the MAGA movement. 'I think the challenge here is not how to move forward. The question is how to sell that to the recalcitrant base.' If Trump is able to do that, it will be despite powerful voices on the other side of the debate weighing in. Tucker Carlson, one of Trump's most influential supporters, wrote in his newsletter Friday that the U.S. should "drop Israel." "If Israel wants to wage this war, it has every right to do so. It is a sovereign country, and it can do as it pleases,' Carlson wrote, according to Jewish Insider. 'But not with America's backing.' Israel launched its attack to forestall Iran's development of a nuclear weapon and perhaps pressure Tehran into giving up that goal. Trump has been trying to construct a new version of an Obama-era nuclear deal that he shredded during his first term, and he articulated his hope Friday that Israel's campaign will help serve as a catalyst for Iran to sign a new pact. But it is not at all clear that the fighting won't have the opposite effect and spark a broader war between the two Middle Eastern powers. That's a showdown that establishment Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have been itching for. 'Game on,' Graham — whose hawkish worldview predates the rise of the MAGA movement — wrote on X on Thursday night as video of explosions in Tehran bounced around the world. On the other side of the spectrum, Infowars host Owen Shroyer, one of the hundreds of people pardoned by Trump in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, posted a video to X that framed the new conflict as an existential question for the president's base. 'America, the Trump movement, MAGA — however you want to say it, there's going to be a lot of soul-searching as these events go on, because a lot of MAGA is anti-war,' Shroyer said. 'What good is 'Make America Great Again' if we can't even be isolated from this war-torn region of the world, if we can't even be isolated from these foreign countries and these foreign conflicts that are just filled with hate?' 'We'll never be able to make America great again,' he added, 'as long as we're entangled in the Middle East.' With Trump signaling approval for how Israel conducted strikes while cajoling Iran to make a deal Friday morning, some of the president's MAGA faithful seemed to settle on a narrative that U.S. involvement is acceptable to a point: troops on the ground. On a call with reporters Friday, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., asserted his own opposition to U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts while expressing confidence that Trump feels the same. 'It's one thing to support our ally, which we're doing, and we should do, unequivocally,' Hawley said. 'It's one thing to provide them with arms for their own self-defense, which we have done and should do. But I can't imagine a world in which we would send United States troops, in which we would be involved in any kinetic activity, as the defense people like to say, there in the region, unless it's just defending our own installations.' Israeli airstrikes on Iran are a far cry from American troops invading a nation that has been far more vulnerable to internal revolution than foreign conquest over the course of thousands of years of existence. Even the Republicans who are most aggressive when it comes to Iran talk about missiles and bombs rather than staging an incursion with American ground forces. But drawing a line on that is a middle ground that may satisfy most, if not all, Trump supporters for the moment. In the hours after the strikes, Trump allies hewed closely to the administration's sparse talking points. Alex Bruesewitz, a Republican consultant with close ties to the White House, shared Rubio's statement on X, emphasizing that the 'US WAS NOT INVOLVED IN STRIKES AGAINST IRAN.' Meanwhile, Laura Loomer, the right-wing conspiracy theorist aligned with Trump, posted several messages supportive of Trump and Israel. 'Iran,' Loomer wrote, 'must never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.' Mehek Cooke, an attorney and pro-Trump political commentator active in the MAGA movement, said Friday that her recent visit to Israel opened her eyes to the 'devastation of Iran's Oct. 7 proxy war' there. Israel's strikes, Cooke added, 'were not just justified; they were inevitable. This matters to every American, including the MAGA movement. You can't negotiate with regimes chanting 'Death to America.'' Cooke also pointed to recent polling from Rasmussen, a right-leaning firm, that found that 57% of respondents favored U.S. military action to combat Iran's nuclear weapons program. She said she believes MAGA loyalists will 'remain united' behind Trump. 'MAGA wants peace, but we're not blind,' Cooke added. 'Yes, some in MAGA lean isolationist. But appeasement is not an option. Iran's leaders just threatened both Israel and the U.S., bringing us to a dangerous tipping point. Trump's 60-day deadline — blatantly ignored by Iran was followed by real consequences.' Still, the political perils of taking sides in the early stages of what Israel says could be a sustained campaign were underscored by the reluctance of some MAGA figures to deal with the question head-on. Asked to explain the tension within the MAGA movement, former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., a close Trump ally, texted: 'MAGA is more concerned with the Battle for Los Angeles,' where Trump has deployed the National Guard and Marines in a standoff with Americans protesting against immigration raids, 'than the Battle for Tehran.' What the White House appears to be most concerned about, at least in terms of Trump's domestic politics, is portraying the U.S. as uninvolved in the Middle East conflict. The word that trickled out overnight from the White House, and from a phone interview Trump gave to Fox News, emphasized that U.S. military had no role in the strikes. It wasn't until Friday morning that Trump weighed in directly — and ominously. 'There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. God Bless You All!'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
British investors face £5bn blow from Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
British investors are facing a $7bn (£5bn) tax blow from Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill', analysts have warned. The UK Government alone could have to pay $400m a year as part of the 'revenge' tax outlined in the Republican tax and spending bill that has recently been passed by the House of Representatives. Mr Trump's bill is set to charge a retaliatory tax on some foreign investments made by entities from countries that the US deems to have 'unfair' tax systems – which includes the UK. The tax, known as Section 899, would levy a 5pc rate on gains made by UK investors – a rate that will increase by five percentage points each year up to a maximum rate of 20pc. Crucially, analysts have warned the wording of the policy documents open the door to taxing interest earned on holdings of US Treasuries, which are usually tax-exempt. The UK will be hit particularly hard if America starts charging a new tax on yields from US Treasuries because of its vast ownership of this debt. Britain recently overtook China as the world's second largest holder of US Treasuries, behind only Japan. UK entities, such as pension funds and private investors, hold a total of $779bn in US government bonds.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US Senate Republicans seek to limit judges' power via Trump's tax-cut bill
June 13 (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans have added language to President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that would restrict the ability of judges to block government policies they conclude are unlawful. Text of the Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's contribution to the bill, opens new tab released by its chair, Senator Chuck Grassley, late on Thursday would limit the ability of judges to issue preliminary injunctions blocking federal policies unless the party suing posts a bond to cover the government's costs if the ruling is later overturned. The bond requirement in the Senate's version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is different from the provision the Republican-controlled House of Representatives included when it passed the bill last month that would curb courts' power in a different way. The House version curtails the ability of judges to enforce orders holding officials in contempt if they violate injunctions. Judges use contempt orders to bring parties into compliance, usually by ratcheting up measures from fines to jail time. Some judges who have blocked Trump administration actions have said officials are at risk of being held in contempt for not complying with their orders. Congressional Republicans have called for banning or curtailing nationwide injunctions blocking government policies after key parts of Trump's agenda have been stymied by such court rulings. The House in April voted 219-213 along largely party lines in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act to do so, but the Senate has not yet taken up the measure. A White House memo in March directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post bonds if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. Such bonds can make obtaining an injunction a cost-prohibitive option in cases concerning multi-billion-dollar agenda items. Grassley's office said in a statement the language the Judiciary Committee proposed would ensure judges enforce an existing requirement that they make a party seeking a preliminary injunction provide a security bond to cover costs incurred by a defendant if a judge's ruling is later overturned. Judges rarely require such bonds when a lawsuit is not pitting two private parties against each other but instead challenging an alleged unlawful or unconstitutional government action. Several judges have denied the Trump administration's requests for bonds or issued nominal ones. Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, are using complex budget rules to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 votes needed to advance most legislation in the 100-seat chamber. The Senate Judiciary Committee's piece of the bill would also provide the judiciary funding to study the costs to taxpayers associated with such injunctions and provide training for judges about the problems associated with them. A spokesperson for Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, criticized the Republican-drafted legislative text, saying "Republicans are targeting nationwide injunctions because they're beholden to a president who is breaking the law — but the courts are not."
