Prop 139’s vague language poses a big problem. The broad generalities and exceptions, and the undefined terms in the language of the proposed constitutional amendment leave girls & women at risk, and unborn babies in jeopardy. And it’s by design.

Read the language of Prop 139 and note the vagueness. The It Goes Too Far campaign has highlighted the problem areas here. You will find terms such as ‘based on the good faith judgement of the healthcare professional,” and “based on the particular facts of the case,” and “for the mental and physical health of the individual.” You will also see that Prop 139 creates a new ‘fundamental right’ to abortion and prohibits any regulation that ‘infringes’ on that new right. This combination makes any regulation or limitation on abortion unenforceable.

Under Prop 139:

• Limits on late term abortions when the baby can survive outside the womb and it’s more dangerous for women are unenforceable
• Parents lose their right to know if their minor daughter is having an abortion
• Women lose their right to be informed of the risks of abortion and alternatives
• Women lose their right to see a qualified medical doctor. The word ‘doctor’ or ‘physician’ isn’t even in the amendment
• Women lose critical safety precautions, including an ultrasound to detect a deadly ectopic pregnancy or other complication
• The door is wide open to taxpayer-funded abortions and the violation of conscience rights of healthcare professionals
• Sex abusers will be shielded from prosecution for forcing their victims to get abortions to cover their crimes

How do we know this? Beyond analysis by several attorneys, we can see what happened in other states that passed similar measures.

Both Michigan and Ohio passed similar constitutional amendments and quickly began losing their basic safety precautions. In both states:

• Women lost their right to see a qualified medical doctor to rule out an ectopic pregnancy before taking the abortion pill, which could be deadly
• They lost their right to be informed of the risks and alternatives before getting an abortion
• In Michigan, they removed reporting requirements to avoid accountability. Clinics do not have to report abortion complications, even if they result in the death of the woman
• And the ACLU filed a lawsuit there claiming the abortion amendment also requires taxpayers to pay for abortions
• In Ohio, clinics can ignore the FDA’s safety regulations for the abortion pill

In Ohio, courts have simply placed injunctions on many safety regulations, citing amendment language. Courts are allowing the abortion pill to be given to girls and women beyond the FDA’s 10-week limitation, pharmacies can now dispense the abortion pill, and the court blocked the 24-hour waiting period tied to informed consent – which was also blocked. The courts based their decisions on “the implementation of the ‘Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment.”

So, while proponents of Prop 139 denounce our claims, the ACLU proves them by admitting that the regulations they want dropped “are now in clear violation of the newly amended Ohio Constitution, which enshrines the explicit and fundamental right to abortion…”

Pro-abortion activists there now also admit that the extreme abortion amendment goes far beyond Roe v Wade. And so does Arizona’s Prop 139. Under Roe, states could implement safety regulations, doctor requirements, and limitations on abortion; not so under Ohio’s and Michigan’s amendments, and not so under Prop 139.

This betrays the claims of political candidates and proposition 139 proponents who claim the proposed amendment will take us “back to Roe.” So, prior to a vote, the amendments will bring Roe back. However, once passed, they tell courts the language goes far beyond Roe, demanding virtually all regulations and limits are null and void.

Note, the safety regulations and limitations lost in other states to protect unborn life and women were not spelled out in the respective amendments, the regulations all fell under the vague language used in each of the amendments. When abortion becomes a ‘fundamental right’ and ‘no regulation … can interfere’ with that right, virtually no regulation can legally stand, especially with the added undefined terms and exemptions.

I encourage you to take a minute to watch Skyler’s story and then visit ItGoesTooFar.com to get informed on Prop 139, download shareable info handouts, spread the word, and vote NO on Prop 139.

CAP is focusing on the sanctity of life and the threats to it through the month of September. Next Wednesday, the 18th, I will host a webinar with Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and co-author of Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing, and Seth Troutt, Teaching Pastor at Ironwood Church.

I hope you will join us Wednesday, September 18, 7:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.