Where Abortion Policies Stand Now

The Story: Voters in 10 states were asked to decide whether legalized abortion would be protected in their state constitutions. Here’s how they voted—and what it portends for the pro-life cause.

The Background: In nine of the 10 states, voters were asked to adopt the incoherent and arbitrary standard of “viability” as the line for when restrictions on abortion could be allowed. In the United States viability is considered to be at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age, late in the second trimester of pregnancy. (New York was the outlier, voting to prevent the state legislature from enacting any new laws to protect ​​the unborn at any stage of pregnancy.)

The initiative to expand abortion rights failed in only three states—Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Here are the initiatives each state adopted or rejected.

Arizona

• Overturns the current ban on abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.
• Makes abortion legal any time prior to fetal viability.
• Prevents the state legislature from enacting any new laws to protect ​​the unborn prior to viability.
• Allows late-term abortion if keeping the child would affect the mother’s “mental health.”
• Overturns current regulations on abortion: a parental consent requirement for minors, requirement that abortions be conducted by a licensed physician, requirement that the pregnant mother must undergo an ultrasound, and requirement for in-person notification of possible risks of abortion.

Colorado

• Establishes a constitutional right for “reproductive freedom,” defined as “the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.”
• Prevents the state legislature from enacting any new laws to protect ​​the unborn prior to viability.
• Allows late-term abortion if keeping the child would affect the mother’s “mental health.”
• Overturns current regulations on abortion: a parental consent requirement for minors, a waiting period to schedule an abortion, and restrictions on late-term abortions.

Florida

• An attempt to overturn the current ban on abortion after the first six weeks of pregnancy failed. That amendment needed 60 percent of the vote, and only achieved 57 percent.

Maryland

• Overturns the current ban on all abortion.
• Establishes a fundamental right to abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
• Prevents the state legislature from being able to “directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”
• This change will likely lead to the overturning of the parental consent requirement for minors to obtain an abortion.

Missouri

• Makes abortion legal any time prior to fetal viability.
• Prevents the state legislature from enacting any new laws to protect ​​the unborn prior to fetal viability.
• Overturns current regulations on abortion: a parental consent requirement for minors, a waiting period to schedule an abortion, and restrictions on late-term abortions.

Montana

• Prevents the state legislature from enacting any new laws to protect ​​the unborn prior to fetal viability. (Abortion before viability was already the standard before the amendment.)

Nebraska

• Nebraska had dueling initiatives. The one that passed amends the state constitution to not allow abortion in the second or third trimester, except in cases of medical emergency or for pregnancies resulting from incest or sexual assault.
• The initiative that was rejected would have overturned the current ban on abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and added a new section to the Nebraska constitution establishing a right to abortion until “fetal viability.”

Nevada

• Prevents the state legislature from enacting any new laws to protect ​​the unborn prior to fetal viability. (Abortion before viability was already the standard before the amendment.)
• Nevada requires constitutional amendments to pass in two consecutive general elections, so this amendment will have to pass again in 2026 in order to take effect.

New York 

• Prevents the state legislature from enacting any new laws to protect ​​the unborn at any stage of pregnancy.
• Changes the state’s civil rights protections to prevent discrimination based on “pregnancy outcomes and reproductive healthcare and autonomy” by considering it a protected class.

South Dakota

• An attempt to overturn the current ban on all abortion failed.
• If the initiative had passed, the state would have resorted to a trimester framework for regulation: During the first trimester, the state would be prohibited from regulating abortion; during the second trimester, the state could regulate abortion, but “only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman;” and during the third trimester, the state could not regulate or prohibit abortion, except “when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman’s physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman.”
• The rejected initiative would have allowed late-term abortions if a physician claims it is necessary to protect the mother’s health, including “mental health.”

What It Means: Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Americans have voted 17 times on ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights. During those two years, the pro-abortion cause has won 14 times and lost three. The outcomes of these votes point to two crucial realities that both the church and the pro-life movement must confront.

While millions of Christians consistently voted to protect life in each of these 17 states—including where abortion initiatives ultimately passed—the sobering reality is that pro-life Christians do not constitute a majority of American voters. This highlights our need to build broader coalitions and find allies both within the church and beyond. The creeping secularization of our culture, affecting both the political left and right, has eroded the moral foundations that once made Christian pro-life advocacy more effective.

The national pro-life movement and the Republican Party also focused intensely on overturning Roe v. Wade but failed to sufficiently prepare for what came next. This oversight was both predictable and predicted by many within the movement. When nine judges gave the issue back to the states, ballot initiatives quickly showed there was not yet a pro-life majority willing to support restrictions on legal abortion.

The path forward requires a dual strategy. First, we must continue strengthening pro-life education and formation within our churches. While many Christians already stand firm for life, we can always do more to articulate the profound moral and theological foundations for protecting the unborn. Yet we must also recognize that church-based advocacy alone will not be enough.

As ballot initiatives continue across the country, protecting unborn life will require both strengthening our existing pro-life movement and expanding our outreach to new allies.

The pro-life movement needs to broaden its approach beyond relying primarily on national organizations, which have begun to compromise their values by endorsing pro-choice candidates. We need to develop new strategies for engaging with Americans who might be open to protecting life even if they don’t fully embrace our religious convictions. This could involve emphasizing scientific evidence about fetal development, promoting discussions about human rights and dignity, and building coalitions around specific policies that protect both mothers and children.

The future success of the pro-life cause will depend on our ability to build these broader coalitions while maintaining our core principles. We need to engage sympathetically with Americans who harbor reservations about stronger restrictions, understanding their concerns while making a compelling case for protecting life. This requires developing more nuanced and persuasive arguments that can reach beyond our existing base of support.

As ballot initiatives continue across the country, protecting unborn life will require both strengthening our existing pro-life movement and expanding our outreach to new allies. While the challenges are significant, we are not without hope. The same God who turned the hearts of slave owners against slavery and moved Christians to lead the civil rights movement can transform hearts today. The question is whether we will have the courage to speak truth in a way that lovingly challenges our fellow citizens to align their votes with their professed beliefs, and to rebuild a culture of life within America before it’s too late. The lives of countless unborn children depend on our answer.