As the November election approaches in eight weeks, abortion will be front and center with 10 ballot initiatives in states across the country asking voters to enact or reject measures addressing the issue. While most of the proposed measures are pro-abortion and would dramatically expand the practice, experts say that some also have hidden agendas that could impact parental rights and controversial gender transition procedures for minors, among other issues.

Missouri

Last week, a Cole County Circuit judge ruled that Missouri’s pro-abortion ballot initiative failed to list what laws would be repealed in violation of state law. Whether or not the proposed state constitutional amendment will be allowed to remain on the ballot will be decided by the Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday.

“The people of the state of Missouri are being sold a bill of goods, and it is a blatant violation of the law, as the judge identified, to fail to notify the people of the state of all of the statutory provisions that this dangerous amendment seeks to overturn,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) argued during Monday’s “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.”

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!

He went on to point out that the proposed amendment does far more than address abortion. “The proponents of the amendment would tell you that it’s merely restoring the framework that existed under Roe v. Wade, and that is a lie,” Bailey emphasized. “This will turn Missouri into the state of California, or worse, by getting the government out of any kind of safety control or regulation when it comes to the health of women and children. [T]he General Assembly just recently enacted a ban on gender mutilation of youth here in the state of Missouri, and that would overturn that statute and so many others.”

Bailey further detailed how the ballot initiative would affect parental rights. “The General Assembly has set contours and guardrails around what can be introduced in the sex ed programs in schools, and parents have a chance to object and say, ‘Well, my kid’s not going to participate. [They] need to be excused from that portion of the class.’ This would undo that and eliminate a parent’s right to object to sexually explicit content or other education in the public school system that might not be consistent with the parents’ values or consistent with objective reality, for that matter.”

Florida

Florida’s Amendment 4 states, “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” The amendment was drafted by a statewide alliance of pro-abortion organizations called Floridians Protecting Freedom (FPF).

Critics say the amendment is so ambiguously worded that it could potentially allow abortion up until the moment of birth. “It is a very radical, extreme, deceptive amendment that would overturn every law related to abortion, except for parental notification,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “That includes parental consent, informed consent, waiting periods, doctor qualifications, and health and safety regulations.”

Jim Davis, a pastor at Orlando Grace Church, wrote Tuesday that Amendment 4 “essentially divests the government of its role to protect both the lives of the unborn and the health of the pregnant mothers.”

Montana

A measure called CI-128, sponsored by Planned Parenthood, Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights (MSRR), ACLU Montana, and other pro-abortion groups, would amend the state constitution to create a right to “make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion” and would “prohibit the government from denying or burdening the right to abortion before fetal viability.”

South Dakota

“Freedom Amendment G” would amend the state’s constitution to prohibit the state from regulating “a pregnant woman’s abortion decision and its effectuation” in the first trimester.

Arizona

“[There’s] going to [be] a proposed amendment to the state constitution providing a fundamental right to abortion the state cannot interfere with before viability,” Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council, explained during Monday’s “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.” “Arizona’s current law is at 15 weeks protection, so basically this would take some protections and roll them back to have far fewer protections after such an amendment to the state constitution is enacted — assuming that it doesn’t get interpreted by courts … in ways that are even more vague.”

Nebraska

A legal battle before the state Supreme Court is currently underway to determine whether competing pro-life and pro-abortion initiatives will be allowed on the ballot. The pro-life measure would enshrine Nebraska’s current 12-week protections into the state constitution, while the pro-abortion measure would codify “the right to have an abortion until viability, or later to protect the health of the pregnant woman” into the constitution.

Colorado

Despite the fact that there are no limitations on abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy in Colorado, the pro-abortion group Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom was able to get a measure on the ballot that would enshrine abortion into the state’s constitution and lift a ban on public funding.

Maryland

There are also no limitations on abortion up until the moment of birth in Maryland, but that didn’t stop pro-abortion activists from enacting a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to include a right to “reproductive freedom,” defined as “the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one’s own pregnancy.”

Nevada

The pro-abortion group Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom was able to get a proposed amendment to the state constitution on the ballot that would enshrine access to abortion.

New York

A ballot initiative in the Empire State seeks to expand an Equal Rights Amendment to include abortion through various euphemistic terms. The language would prohibit discrimination based on “sex” with an expanded definition, which would include “sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care and autonomy.”

During Monday’s “Washington Watch,” Weber observed that the potential codification of pro-abortion measures within state constitutions will be difficult to overcome. “Some of this is going to be left up to court interpretation, but a state constitution is going to trump any other provision of state law,” he explained. “In essence, even frankly, even if there’s an issue of federal law, depending on what the issue is, state law may trump it. But a state constitution is going to trump a state statute.”

Weber gave further perspective on what the broader implications are from the multitude of pro-abortion initiatives that have already passed and will be before voters in November.

“[E]ven non pro-lifers … criticized the decision in Roe v. Wade as flimsy without legal basis,” he noted. “And we know the Dobbs decision overturned Roe … which returned this issue to the voters and to the state’s voters at the federal level and the state level. Now, the battleground — we can see the spiritual response from the culture of death and the spiritual forces behind that culture. Their response is to push abortion.”

Weber continued, “Even since the midterms, we saw seven referenda on this issue go to votes in the states and fail in Kansas, California, Vermont, Michigan, Montana, Kentucky, two pro-life provisions fail there in Ohio, enshrining abortion into their constitution. So we saw a wave sweeping across. Now we’re seeing 10 states [with] 11 measures coming up in a few months on the same issue. So we’re seeing a wave sweep [across the country], and so it’s important for believers to understand this, look at their own individual state, but understand the larger spiritual dynamic.”

“This could be worse than what it was before the Dobbs decision,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins remarked.

“[W]e need to be asking the Lord to intervene and we need to be taking action,” Weber concluded.

LifeNews Note: Dan Hart writes for the Family Research Council. He is the senior editor of The Washington Stand.