Alabama Voters Just Approved a Sweeping Anti-Abortion Amendment

While Oregonians voted to keep public funding for abortions.

Mother Jones illustration; Getty Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Abortion rights were on the ballot in three states today: Alabama, West Virginia, and Oregon. In a blow to pro-choice advocates, Alabamans and West Virginians each voted in favor of stricter anti-abortion policies. In Oregon, widely considered the country’s most pro-choice state, voters prevented anti-abortion activists from enacting a ban on state funding for the procedure. Here’s how those races played out: 

Alabama: In April, state legislators decided to send to voters a constitutional amendment that would codify “the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life,” and also ensure that state funds do not go to funding abortion care. “It’s going to be a testament to the conservative values of Alabama,” Rick Renshaw, political director of the Alliance for a Pro-Life Alabama, which sponsored the amendment, told AL.com. The amendment passed by 19 points

Compounding the threat to reproductive rights in the state, voters also elevated Alabama Supreme Court Associate Justice Tom Parker to the chief justice’s seat. Parker is a Roy Moore protégé who has positioned himself as an extreme anti-abortion scholar. He’s said that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was “invented out of whole cloth just to satisfy a political agenda,” and his legal writing puts him at the forefront of the so-called personhood movement, which contends that fetuses should have the same legal rights as people. 

Amendment 2 is a trigger law, meaning it would go into effect if the US Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade, an increasing concern for reproductive advocates with the recent appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the high court. Jenny Carroll, a law professor at the University of Alabama, told Mother Jones last week that as chief justice in the state, Parker may refuse to hear lawsuits over Amendment 2’s legal standing. “You face the possibility that he tries to block a discussion about whether it’s constitutional at the state level,” she said. 

As I reported in August, the amendment’s sponsor, Republican state Rep. Matty Fridy, said the initiative is based on Tennessee Amendment 1, a 2014 ballot measure that added similar language to Tennessee’s constitution. It also empowered state legislators to “enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion.” Shortly after that amendment was approved by voters, eight Tennesseans challenged it in court. In January, a federal appeals court upheld the amendment.

West Virginia: West Virginians just enacted an amendment that is nearly identical to Alabama’s and Tennessee’s. It passed by just 3.4 points with 99 percent of precincts reporting.

The “No Constitutional Right to Abortion Amendment” will amend the state constitution with exactly the same sentence that appeared in the 2014 Tennessee amendment. It is also a trigger law, presumed to pave the way for the state legislature to ban abortion outright if Roe‘s is overturned. 

Oregon: Meanwhile, Oregonians voted overwhelmingly against banning public funding for abortion. Measure 106 was the product of six years of grassroots campaigning by anti-abortion activists, led by Jeff Jimerson, who had failed to qualify similar ballot initiatives in the previous three election cycles. It closely mirrored a national ban on federal funding for abortion that was passed in 1976, three years after Roe. The Oregon measure was the first abortion-related ballot initiative in the state since 2006, but it was seen as a long shot. Several prominent local political and civil rights groups campaigned against it—and significantly outspent its proponents.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate