In Chicago, billboards proclaiming “STOP Child Gender Surgery” and pamphlets cautioning against the potential dangers to minors have taken center stage. The message “PROTECT PARENT RIGHTS” can be seen on church bulletins as well. As voters in nine states prepare to decide on amendments to enshrine abortion rights within their state constitutions, opponents are leveraging parental rights and anti-transgender sentiment to sway public opinion against these initiatives.
Despite the ballot measures not directly referencing gender-affirming surgeries, experts note that any alterations to existing laws concerning parental notification and consent for both abortions and gender-affirming care for minors would necessitate legal action. Anti-abortion organizations, eager to reverse a pattern of losses in ballot initiatives, are adopting the rhetoric often utilized by Republican candidates nationwide in a bid to galvanize conservative Christian voters.
Matt Harris, a political science associate professor at Park University in Missouri, describes the linkage of these amendments to gender reassignment surgery for minors as “outlandish.” Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that negated constitutional protections for abortion, voters in several states—including traditionally conservative locales such as Kentucky, Montana, and Ohio—have either safeguarded abortion rights or successfully thwarted efforts to restrict them.
Dr. Alex Dworak, a family medicine practitioner in Omaha, Nebraska, emphasizes that if the truth isn’t enough to win over voters, opponents look for more compelling arguments, even if that requires vilifying transgender youth. This approach mirrors strategies employed in states like Michigan and Ohio, where voters still opted to protect abortion rights despite similar opposition tactics.
According to David Cohen, a Drexel University law professor, both Michigan and Ohio continue to require parental consent for minors seeking abortions, and recent amendments have not altered laws regarding parental involvement or gender-affirming care. Cohen indicates that this is merely a repetition of previously used tactics.
As voters in states such as Missouri and Nebraska consider constitutional amendments this fall, the abortion-related measure in Missouri has become particularly contentious. The proposed amendment aims to prevent the government from infringing upon “a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom.” Republican Governor Mike Parson and U.S. Senator Josh Hawley argue that the proposal could enable minors to access both abortions and gender-affirming surgeries without parental consent.
While the amendment lists various reproductive health services to be protected—including prenatal care and contraception—it does not specify gender-affirming procedures. Nevertheless, Missouri State Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman has suggested that these could potentially be categorized as reproductive health services. However, several legal experts contend that such a classification would require an unlikely court ruling.
Marcia McCormick, a professor at Saint Louis University, highlights that various examples of reproductive health care included in the Missouri amendment directly relate to pregnancy. Current state laws mandating parental involvement in minors’ abortions reflect similar regulations that the Supreme Court deemed constitutional even prior to the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Numerous states uphold laws requiring parental involvement when minors seek abortion or gender-affirming procedures, including many typically aligned with Democratic ideals that protect transgender rights. Mary Ruth Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, asserts that it would be highly improbable for a state high court to overturn such regulations given the conservative majority present in many states reviewing these amendments.
In New York, a proposed constitutional amendment seeks to expand anti-discrimination protections, covering various aspects including sexual orientation and gender identity, without directly mentioning abortion. Experts warn that this omission may leave it susceptible to challenges. The Coalition to Protect Kids-NY labels it the “Parent Replacement Act,” while campaign director Sasha Ahuja counters that the proposal does not alter existing laws.
Rick Weiland, co-founder of Dakotans for Health, notes that South Dakota’s proposal mirrors the Roe v. Wade structure closely, reminding that previous regulations required parental involvement. Caroline Woods, a spokesperson for the anti-abortion Life Defense Fund, expresses concerns that the proposal could exclude loving parents from the decision-making process. Weiland refutes these claims as misinformation propagated by opponents.
Despite these strategies failing in states like Michigan and Ohio, anti-abortion advocates may still rely on them for the upcoming November elections. Ziegler suggests that these groups might believe that conservative states such as Missouri or those with elevated thresholds for ballot measure passage provide a more favorable landscape for their arguments. As anti-abortion advocates continue to search for effective strategies, the outcome remains uncertain.