Abortion activists claim that misleading language on a Nebraska ballot initiative is leading people to sign a petition they don’t actually support. Interestingly, using misleading language on a referendum is a common tactic — used by the abortion industry.
Protect Our Rights Nebraska, a pro-abortion ballot drive, is accusing Protect Women and Children for misleading voters on what their ballot initiative calls for. Tea Rohrberg told the Associated Press she was asked to sign a “pro-choice petition,” and being an abortion supporter, she agreed; she then learned that the ballot drive she signed, from Protect Women and Children, would codify Nebraska’s law protecting preborn children from abortion after 12 weeks gestation into the state constitution. When Rohrberg found out what the petition called for, she claimed she asked for her name to be crossed off, and allegedly was told no.
She then went to the Omaha office of Protect Our Rights to report what happened, and filed a notarized affidavit to ensure her name was officially removed. She then signed their petition instead, which would enshrine abortion as a right within the state constitution. Rohrberg is evidently not alone; the Nebraska Secretary of State’s office said they have received 91 affidavits seeking for names to be removed.
Megan Hunt, a state senator who supports abortion, told 3NewsNow she thinks the language is deliberately misleading. “There are two petitions circulating that have deliberately confusing languages that talk about the relationship between a doctor and a mother and then there is one that talks about exceptions for rape and incest,” she said. “Those petitions are organized and funded by abortion opponents and they will not protect the right to abortion in Nebraska.”
Protect Women and Children Campaign Manager Allie Berry told KETV that they had heard these reports, and that their organization didn’t support these petitioners. “This is nothing to do with the voters,” she said. “It really is on the collector to make sure you’re representing the petition correctly.”
Treasurer Brenna Grasz, however, framed it as a pro-abortion witch hunt. “The short object statement is not only printed on the petition, but our petitioners read it to voters, and we also offer a handout with the object statement and a link to our website,” she said. “This sounds like a desperate, last-ditch effort to keep voters from voting to protect women and children.”
If pro-life petitioners did misrepresent their ballot initiative, that isn’t acceptable — but abortion activists have no room to criticize anyone for misleading people.
In Kansas, after the reversal of Roe v. Wade, a coalition led by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other pro-abortion groups calling themselves “Kansans for Constitutional Freedom,” formed in opposition to a proposed amendment which would have affirmed there is no ‘right to abortion’ in the state constitution. However, the abortion group framed the amendment as a “ban” that would make abortion illegal within Kansas — something that wasn’t even remotely true. This disinformation was a key part of their campaign, as the following image shows:
Field organizer Jae Grey places signs on the podium before the pro-choice Kansas for Constitutional Freedom primary election watch party in Overland Park, Kansas, August 2, 2022. – Voters headed to the polls in the Midwestern US state of Kansas Tuesday to weigh in on the first major ballot on abortion since the Supreme Court ended the national right to the procedure in June. (Photo by DAVE KAUP / AFP) (Photo by DAVE KAUP/AFP via Getty Images)
In another example, Liberty Counsel pointed out the deceptive and vague language used in a pro-abortion Florida ballot initiative, to be voted on in November. The legal group noted:
The proposed amendment, “Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion,” would create a new section in the Florida Constitution “limiting government interference with abortion.” The full text of the accompanying ballot summary 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. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”…
The proposed amendment misleads voters and hides the true purpose behind the amendment and its effect, which is to enshrine a right of abortion in Florida for any reason, at any stage of the pregnancy. The effect of the proposed amendment would prevent the State of Florida from regulating all abortions that a vague and undefined “healthcare provider” may deem “necessary” to protect the woman’s “health.” The amendment leaves the terms “necessary” or “health” purposefully undefined and vague, concealing that the true purpose is to confuse Florida voters and create an unrestricted right to abortion at all stages of pregnancy up to birth.
For example, if adopted, the proposed amendment would authorize, as a matter of state law, activities that would constitute violations of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. This conflict alone with the federal law disqualifies the proposed amendment.
The proposed amendment also violates the Florida Constitution’s single-subject requirement by addressing multiple subjects, including pre-viability abortions and protection of women’s health, in the same proposal.
Pro-abortion billionaires have been funneling huge amounts of money into promoting these state initiatives, as opposed to voters from within the individual states supporting them.
Additionally, since Roe fell, abortion activists have been spreading endless amounts of misinformation. This includes lying about supposed “pro-life violence,” denying the reality of late abortions, and more.
Lies and misinformation are a key part of the pro-abortion toolkit.
