A Life or Death Decision

Reasons to Abort Question 6 in November

 

Authored by Katriel Van Cleve

July 27, 2026

 

Question 6 will be appearing on Nevadans’ ballots this year and, if passed, will amend our state constitution so that abortions become an enshrined right of our people. Unsurprisingly, such an amendment will not only harm countless unborn lives; but it will also have serious, unintended consequences that will infringe upon Nevadans’ current Constitutional rights.

 

The language of Question 6 itself is vague and open to considerable private interpretation depending on the personal preferences of whatever interpretive body (whether judges or health care practitioners) it comes before.

 

The amendment reads as follows:

 

“Sec. 1. All individuals shall have a fundamental right to abortion performed or administered by a qualified health care practitioner until fetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient, without interference from the state or its political subdivisions. The right established by this section shall not be denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means

“Sec. 2. As used in this section: A ‘compelling state interest’ means an interest which is limited exclusively to the state’s interest in protecting, maintaining, or improving the health of an individual who is seeking abortion care that is consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice; and

“’Fetal viability’ means the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the patient's treating health care practitioner, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.”

 

Notice how this amendment defines “fetal viability.” The amendment makes it clear that the only determinant of fetal viability is the physician’s opinion. This is not a steady standard and, as such, is open to wide variations of interpretation per doctor and per each doctor’s own experience and training, level of understanding over any given situation, and even their level of alertness and care on any given day under any given circumstance. Such uneven conditions will result in uneven decisions and potentially even more needless death than there already will be.

 

Let’s not forget, too, that not all doctors are scrupulous. Unscrupulous healthcare practitioners can easily manipulate the definition of “fetal viability” to suite their own goals. The amendment proposed by Question 6 is not strict enough to enforce proper safeguards against faulty diagnoses let alone genuine abuse.

 

Notice also that the amendment would establish that the new right to abortion could not “be denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest” which would be defined as "an interest which is limited exclusively to the state’s interest in protecting, maintaining, or improving the health of an individual who is seeking abortion care that is consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice."

 

Basically, while doctors may essentially concoct any number of reasons to perform an abortion, they may not deny an abortion even on the basis of religious beliefs. The language of the amendment makes it clear that only the state’s interests are of any weight in denying abortions, and their interests are limited. Religious freedom becomes subservient to the “right to kill.”

 

Under a Nevada Constitution amended by Question 6, good doctors will likely face the threat of lawsuits, business closures, and other punitive measures should they simply choose to exercise their already held religious freedoms.

Now let’s review the definition of “fetal viability” once again. It is defined as a point wherein "there is a significant likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures." This is the clause that has sparked fears of the allowance of abortions through the ninth month.

 

Recall to mind that often mothers and doctors face premature births. These babies usually are not released from the hospital but rather placed in incubators until it is safe for them to go home. Naturally, this brings to mind a disturbing question that is not answered explicitly by the language of Question 6.

 

Would the use of an incubator be considered “the application of extraordinary medical measures"?

 

Again, the language of the amendment leaves the answer of that question in the lap of the healthcare practitioner. One can hope that such a situation never occurs; but with no specific language to prevent it, it becomes feasible that a mother and doctor determined to abort the baby could deem even a late term baby fair game for aborting because the baby would still require incubation at that time if it were outside the womb.

 

Another fear instigated by the vagueness of Question 6 is whether or not abortions may be performed by all “qualified healthcare practitioners”. This term does not come with a definition; and, while most would assume that OB-GYNs or at least licensed doctors are who the amendment is referring to, the language is never made specific.

 

Does “qualified” refer to licensure ... to type of doctor ... to what? This vagueness poses an interesting situation in which any healthcare provider whether a doctor, nurse, or dentist could legally perform abortions; they are all qualified healthcare practitioners.

 

Again, unscrupulous individuals, while not common, do exist. It is not wise to leave untouched dangerous loopholes for exploitation. Abortion is already dangerous enough to women without them being performed by novices to abortion.

 

Finally, Question 6 claims that “all individuals shall have a fundamental right to abortion...”. This naturally would include the fathers of the unborn. Unfortunately, Question 6 could open the door for men to legally demand abortions from their pregnant partners.

 

Would they legally have the right to force an abortion on an eagerly expectant mother because they wish to avoid child support or because they suspect a different father or for any number of other reasons? If a judge did side with the mother to allow the baby to live, would he compromise by allowing the father to avoid child support?

 

The language of Question 6 holds no answers and no safe guards.

 

In conclusion, Question 6 is wrong for Nevada. It not only will encourage and enshrine in Nevada’s constitution a right to murder defenseless infants, but it is also so vague as to encourage abuse and stymie Nevadan’s previously held Constitutional rights. For the sake of Nevada's most vulnerable and for the sake of our precious rights, we must abort Question 6's passage in November.