For the second time, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin has declined to approve proposed ballot language for a constitutional amendment on abortion proposed by the Arkansans for Limited Government committee.
In a three-page letter addressed to Steven Nichols of Little Rock, the attorney general rejected the latest proposed popular name and ballot title for the proposed amendment and requested that Nichols redesign the proposed amendment, as reported by Michael R. Wickline in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. The Committee concurred with the suggestion to submit a third version.
Wickline proceeded to explain that certifying the popular name and ballot title would facilitate the Arkansans for Limited Government committee’s ability to commence the process of collecting signatures from registered voters in order to qualify the proposal for the 2024 general election ballot.
Those sponsoring proposed constitutional amendments are required to submit 90,704 signatures to the secretary of state’s office by 5 July. The total must include signatures from at least 50 counties, according to the secretary of state’s office.
In his missive, Attorney General Griffin observed that the deficiencies in the inaugural iteration had been rectified in the second version, with the exception of a single critical shortcoming. In his letter dated Thursday to Steven Nichols, Wickline states that Griffin indicated in the previous version that several issues prevented him from certifying the proposed popular name and ballot title. However, Wickline notes that the issues have now been resolved, with the exception of one remaining issue.
The previous version of your proposed text allowed abortion when, among other things, it was “necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant woman”. I noted that the term “health” was unclear in this context, as it could mean physical health, emotional health, etc. I concluded that this needed to be clarified to ensure that a ballot title summarising the measure would not mislead the voter in any way.
Your current proposed text attempts to address this by clarifying that abortion would be permitted when, among other things, it is “necessary to protect the life or physical health of the pregnant woman”. Section 3(B) of your proposed text defines “physical health” as “a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury…caused by or arising out of the pregnancy itself, or where the continuation of the pregnancy would create a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function…” ….
This definition is misleading because it defines “physical health” not as the absence of disorder, disease or injury, but as the presence of these things. This is the opposite of the common meaning of “health”. This confusion is compounded if, for the sake of analysis, your definition of “physical health” in Section 3(B) is substituted for the term “physical health” you use in Section 1. This sentence would read: “Abortion services” are permitted if, among other things, they are “necessary to protect the pregnant woman from a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury…caused by or resulting from the pregnancy itself, or if continuation of the pregnancy would create a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function….” As the above sentence shows, it is readily apparent that what you probably meant to say is not what the text says. This problem in the text is imported directly into your proposed ballot title.
Rose Mimms, the executive director of Arkansas Right to Life, stated that…
The broadly written language is so extreme that even those who support abortion rights will perceive it as going too far. The amendment is clear in its allowance of abortions up to the moment of birth and in its mandate that even the most basic limits on the profit-driven abortion industry are removed. The proposed constitutional amendment is not about limited government; rather, it is about forcing unlimited abortion on the people of Arkansas.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
