Conservative groups are trying out different strategies to prevent abortion from being put up for vote after suffering a string of notable losses.

Anti-abortion organizations in Arizona, Florida, Nevada, and other states are actively using television and online advertisements, door-to-door campaigning, and public events to dissuade individuals from signing petitions to place the issue on the November ballot.

The Republican party is attempting to prevent referendums from appearing on state ballots by appealing to state courts. Additionally, Republican legislators in states such as Missouri and Oklahoma are proposing to increase the requirements for an amendment to be passed or even make it onto the ballot in the first place.

The new approach is focused on stopping abortion rights organizations from achieving their third and most significant success with ballot measures since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. While those on the conservative side may have rejoiced at the demise of Roe as it returned the issue of abortion rights to the public, these endeavors are viewed as an indirect acknowledgement that anti-abortion groups do not have confidence in their ability to win through the ballot system – even in states that lean towards conservative beliefs. It is believed that the most effective method of maintaining limitations on abortion is by preventing voters from directly voicing their opinions on the matter.

The actions follow abortion-rights victories in Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio, and underscore abortion opponents fears’ that their monumental victory overturning Roe v. Wade is being undone one state at a time.

The recent vote in Ohio was a win for the pro-choice movement in conservative states. In response, various conservative organizations have urged states with citizen-initiated ballot processes to abolish them. If this is not possible, they are urging state officials to take action to prevent any future efforts in 2024.

Steven Aden, the chief legal officer of Americans United for Life, stated that all potential courses of action should be considered. He believes that abortion directly affects the right to life of unborn individuals and should not be subject to decision by majority vote.

The progressive movement is preparing for various strategies used by conservatives to stop abortion-related proposals from being voted on in November. They believe that these opposition campaigns demonstrate the enduring popularity of abortion rights, and that the only way to defeat them is through deceitful tactics.

Kelly Hall, the executive director of the Fairness Project, stated that elected officials are constantly finding new ways to oppose citizen-initiated ballot measures. They are getting more inventive in their attempts to prevent voters from having a say in these matters, and it’s like a race to see who can outsmart the other.

In an effort to prevent the issue of abortion rights from being put on the 2024 ballot, both national and local anti-abortion organizations have initiated “decline to sign” campaigns. These campaigns aim to stop groups from across the political spectrum from reinstating or officially establishing protections similar to Roe v. Wade.

Students for Life of America, a group, intends to purchase advertisements and organize events, collaborate with churches, and deploy employees and volunteers to canvass various states, such as Arizona, Florida, Nevada, and Missouri. Their goal is to convince individuals to not provide organizers with the necessary signatures.

Kristi Hamrick, the main policy strategist for Students for Life, advised against supporting the abortion lobby’s efforts to bolster Democratic votes. She stated that individuals are not obligated to sign anything just because they are pressured by someone with a clipboard.

Several anti-abortion organizations in Arkansas, Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota are employing a comparable tactic. One of these organizations, the Nebraska Catholic Conference, is encouraging its members to not only decline to sign but also to impede the efforts of canvassers in obtaining signatures from others.

“According to Tom Venzor, the executive director of the group, if you come across people who are petitioning, kindly engage them in conversation about the risky petition to discourage others from participating and signing.”

In Florida, the largest state with current restrictions on abortion, progressive groups are rushing to collect signatures before a February deadline in order to qualify for the November ballot. At least three anti-abortion groups have implemented this approach.

Andrew Shirvell, a member of the Florida Voice for the Unborn group, stated that his group has assigned 50 individuals as “captains” in various locations throughout the state to distribute flyers in both English and Spanish. These flyers discourage people from signing any petitions related to abortion and also direct individuals to a website where they can report any instances of abortion-rights campaigners. The goal is to alert nearby pro-life supporters to counteract the efforts of those who support abortion.

The Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops and Florida Right to Life are both engaged in comparable efforts. The latter is encouraging its members to peacefully intervene in cases where they witness individuals collecting signatures to codify abortion rights in the state’s constitution.

Shirvell attributes the challenges faced by Planned Parenthood and other organizations supporting the ballot measure as the deadline for collecting signatures approaches.

The speaker expressed confidence in the effectiveness of their efforts, citing a noticeable decline in verified signatures over the past three months. They believe that their actions will lead to a significant victory on February 1st, which will greatly benefit the pro-life movement and help them regain lost momentum from the previous year.

If these attempts are unsuccessful, conservatives have alternative strategies to prevent the measures from being included on the ballot.

The Republican attorney general of Arkansas has rejected the proposed name and wording for a constitutional amendment that would restore abortion rights up to 18 weeks after conception. The reasoning behind this decision was that the language used was misleading, contradictory, and potentially repetitive. Similarly, in Missouri, state officials belonging to the GOP spent several months disputing the phrasing of various competing amendments related to abortion rights. Conservative groups also sought to alter the ballot wording in Michigan and Ohio, managing to do so in the latter state. However, despite these efforts, the amendments still passed with a significant majority in Ohio.

Republican officials in Missouri have contended that permitting the previously prohibited procedure would result in significant financial burdens for the state, as future taxpayers would be terminated. Although they were unsuccessful in court, the resulting delays will pose challenges for pro-abortion organizations in terms of both fundraising and obtaining necessary signatures.

“The allotted timeline has greatly affected the interest of investors as they witness the increased difficulty in achieving their goals within a limited timeframe,” stated Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Abortion Action Missouri. “Despite losing four court cases in the past month, they remain unfazed as their primary aim was to exhaust the time limit.”

Abortion opponents in Nevada are filing a lawsuit based on the state’s single-subject rule. They claim that the amendment protecting abortion rights is unclear and deceptive because it addresses various reproductive health concerns, including infertility, postpartum care, and birth control, in addition to abortion.

In the previous month, a lower court ruled in favor of anti-abortion organizations. The case is being appealed to the state’s highest court, and it is expected that the court will review the case at the beginning of next year.

The Republican Attorney General of Florida, Ashley Moody, is taking legal action to prevent a proposed amendment protecting abortion rights from being included on the 2024 ballot. Their argument is that the language used, which ensures abortion access until fetal viability, is unclear and could confuse voters.

According to Moody, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that identifying when a fetus can survive outside the womb is not always straightforward. It is not solely based on the duration of the pregnancy and must be carefully determined by doctors considering multiple factors. ACOG has publicly criticized Moody’s description of their recommendations in a legal document.

Those in support of abortion rights are preparing for the possibility of other states using this strategy, particularly Nebraska where the governor has expressed concerns about a proposed ballot measure due to its vague definition of “fetal viability.”

Lawmakers in additional states with Republican majorities are considering modifications to the process of selecting justices for the state’s supreme court. This is being done in order to guarantee that the court makes favorable rulings on cases involving abortion, including potential legal challenges to ballot measures.

Senator David Bullard, a member of the Republican party in Oklahoma, expressed his view that the recent ruling by the state Supreme Court to temporarily halt laws that limit abortion access has sparked a push among conservatives to revise the process of selecting judges. He is in favor of a plan that would give the governor the authority to nominate judges instead of relying on a committee at the state level.

Bullard stated that the problem of a Supreme Court that does not represent its citizens needs to be addressed before the abortion issue can be resolved in Oklahoma. The recent ruling on abortion by the Court has sparked significant concern.