This proposed amendment provides that public funds may not be expended for any abortion or for health-benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. This prohibition does not apply to an expenditure required by federal law, a case in which a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, or a case of rape or incest.
This proposed amendment provides that the State Constitution may not be interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution. With respect to abortion, this proposed amendment overrules court decisions which conclude that the right of privacy under Article I, Section 23 of the State Constitution is broader in scope than that of the United States Constitution.
Proposes an amendment to prohibit public dollars from funding abortions. This would prohibit the State Constitution from being interpreted to create broader rights than those contained in the U.S. Constitution. Exempts federal law requirements, physician-certified physical danger to the mother and instances of rape or incest.
The group Citizens for Protecting Taxpayers and Parental Rights has come out in support of the amendment. Randy Armstrong, president of the group, says because abortion can have lasting effects, parents should have the right to be a part of the decision.
Vote No on 6 was formed to oppose the amendment. Campaign manager Judith Selzer points out that if passed, Amendment 6 would allow politicians to interfere with a woman’s right to make decisions about her own reproductive health.
"Every woman deserves to make her own personal decisions based on her values and her doctor’s advice without politicians interfering," Selzer says.