Dueling Nebraska Amendments

[Alien826]

There are two conflicting amendments on the Nebraska ballot.

Amendment 434: Limits abortion to the first trimester, with exceptions for medical emergency, sexual assault and incest.

Amendment 439: Allows abortion up to fetal viability, with exceptions for the life or health of the woman "without interference from the state or its political subdivisions".

Oddly it's possible that both could pass, which would result in a legal problem. Obviously voters should vote for one and against the other, depending on their desired result.

(The above wordings are not the exact text, but convey the meanings I think.)

 

[Twilight Hue]

There are two conflicting amendments on the Nebraska ballot.

Amendment 434: Limits abortion to the first trimester, with exceptions for medical emergency, sexual assault and incest.

Amendment 439: Allows abortion up to fetal viability, with exceptions for the life or health of the woman "without interference from the state or its political subdivisions".

Oddly it's possible that both could pass, which would result in a legal problem. Obviously voters should vote for one and against the other, depending on their desired result.

(The above wordings are not the exact text, but convey the meanings I think.)

Lawyers are chomping their lips and drooling. More money for them trying to get this straightened out.

 

[Pogo]

There are two conflicting amendments on the Nebraska ballot.

Amendment 434: Limits abortion to the first trimester, with exceptions for medical emergency, sexual assault and incest.

Amendment 439: Allows abortion up to fetal viability, with exceptions for the life or health of the woman "without interference from the state or its political subdivisions".

Oddly it's possible that both could pass, which would result in a legal problem. Obviously voters should vote for one and against the other, depending on their desired result.

(The above wordings are not the exact text, but convey the meanings I think.)

Why obviously? if the vote splits, neither will pass.

 

[Alien826]

Why obviously? if the vote splits, neither will pass.

These are two separate amendments and voters can vote for both, either or none. So theoretically, both could get enough votes to pass. I agree that if people read them carefully they will vote for one and against the other, but that doesn't have to happen.

 

[Pogo]

These are two separate amendments and voters can vote for both, either or none. So theoretically, both could get enough votes to pass. I agree that if people read them carefully they will vote for one and against the other, but that doesn't have to happen.

Yes but either of them has to cross the threshold, if the vote is split using your argument then very possibly if not probably neither will.
Also in general the later date would take precedence if there was a conflict as it would be legal to that date.

Lots of laws were passed pre Dobbs but were unenforceable until the Dobbs criteria were removed, hence the 6 weeks that came in to effect immediately.

 

[Alien826]

Yes but either of them has to cross the threshold, if the vote is split using your argument then very possibly if not probably neither will.
Also in general the later date would take precedence if there was a conflict as it would be legal to that date.

Lots of laws were passed pre Dobbs but were unenforceable until the Dobbs criteria were removed, hence the 6 weeks that came in to effect immediately.

I'm just saying it's possible.

There wouldn't be a "later date" as both amendments are on the ballot at the same time. Also these are state constitutional amendments, which override any state law. The US Constitution would override them (already or by an Amendment) and I'm not sure if a Federal law would do so.

 

[Alien826]

Lawyers are chomping their lips and drooling. More money for them trying to get this straightened out.

I suspect that if it did happen the State Government would just declare that the results were inconclusive and continue to enforce the current 12 week law (which is essentially the same as amendment 434). It would then be up to the amendment supporters to take it to court where the SCOTUS would rule for the State.

 

[Pogo]

I'm just saying it's possible.

There wouldn't be a "later date" as both amendments are on the ballot at the same time. Also these are state constitutional amendments, which override any state law. The US Constitution would override them (already or by an Amendment) and I'm not sure if a Federal law would do so.

The later date is trimester vs viability, if both were enacted the earlier date would be in the constitution but subservient to the later date that was also there, though since lawyers can argue anything, it could be a problem. The problem is not enacting either because some picked one and others picked another when what they really wanted was the protection that each offered.
The better choice is to vote for both and hope that at least one of them is adopted rather than pick nits over perfection. Viability could come back to first trimester at some point in the future.
The point is to guarantee the right to abortion beyond the legislature and courts easy reach.

 

[Alien826]

The later date is trimester vs viability, if both were enacted the earlier date would be in the constitution but subservient to the later date that was also there, though since lawyers can argue anything, it could be a problem. The problem is not enacting either because some picked one and others picked another when what they really wanted was the protection that each offered.

I don't see why either one would be favored. They are contradictory.

The better choice is to vote for both and hope that at least one of them is adopted rather than pick nits over perfection. Viability could come back to first trimester at some point in the future.
The point is to guarantee the right to abortion beyond the legislature and courts easy reach.

You're right that either one would "freeze" the rule beyond it being changed by legislation. That's what the Pro-life people are trying to do with their version, as it simply fixes it at what it already is under the law. I would say pick the one you want and vote for it and against the other. For a pro-choice person neither one winning would be better than the pro-choice version.

 

[Pogo]

I don't see why either one would be favored. They are contradictory.


You're right that either one would "freeze" the rule beyond it being changed by legislation. That's what the Pro-life people are trying to do with their version, as it simply fixes it at what it already is under the law. I would say pick the one you want and vote for it and against the other. For a pro-choice person neither one winning would be better than the pro-choice version.

Ok, that explains our misunderstanding. then I will say pick viability or both rather than hope the other is enough to guarantee your rights because neither is the worst option.