Telegram is where we really talk. Don't miss out!
In a recent decision, Carson City District Court Judge James Russell dismissed a petition by Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom (NRF) aiming to establish abortion rights in the Nevada state constitution. The legal challenge to this petition came from the Coalition for Parents and Children (CPC) PAC.
Judge Russell’s ruling centered on the violation of the “single subject rule.”
“The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the Petition embraces a multitude of subjects that amount to logrolling,” stated Judge Russell.
He further detailed the various subjects encompassed in the petition: “Subsection 1, alone, embraces the following subjects: prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, abortion, abortion care, management of a miscarriage, and infertility care… Thus, it is improper to characterize these broad categories as a ‘single subject’ because there is no explanation as to how these provisions are functionally related.”
If passed, the petition would have prohibited Nevada from banning abortion until after the point of viability. It also asserted that the state could not restrict doctors from performing post-viability abortions if deemed necessary to “protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.”
Additionally, the petition declared that the state should not interfere with “all matters relating to pregnancy, including, without limitation, prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, abortion, abortion care, management of a miscarriage, and infertility care.”
CPC’s lawsuit against NRF’s petition argued that the inclusion of such a broad spectrum of rights, rather than focusing solely on abortion, directly violated Nevada’s ballot requirements, which stipulate that petitions be limited to one subject. Judge Russell concurred with this argument, noting that the petition was also misleading as it did not clearly define the legal meaning of “equality,” another listed right.
“While the right to ‘equal protection’ is well established in American jurisprudence, it is unclear what the term ‘equality’ means legally. Given the breadth of this petition, it is unclear how the Intervenor-Defendants could describe it accurately in 200 words, which further supports this Court’s conclusion that the Petition fails to embrace a single subject,” the judge stated.
Attorneys for both CPC and NRF did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling. This decision comes amid a broader national context where several states have introduced language for abortion amendments following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022.
