As an attorney representing pro-life organizations and causes, including the Coalition for Parents and Children PAC, I've been deeply involved in the legal issues surrounding abortion initiatives in Nevada. While my perspective is informed by my professional work and personal convictions, I believe it's crucial for all Nevadans, regardless of their stance on abortion, to understand the far-reaching implications of Question 6. This proposed constitutional amendment, ostensibly aimed at protecting abortion rights, actually threatens to dismantle a carefully crafted compromise that has served our state well for more than three decades.

As Nevadans, we've long prided ourselves on our ability to find balanced solutions to complex issues. Our current abortion law, established in 1990, is an example of this approach. It safeguards women's reproductive rights while setting reasonable limits that most Nevadans support. Now, Question 6 threatens to upend this carefully crafted compromise, replacing clarity with confusion and potentially burdening taxpayers with astronomical costs.

Let's be clear: Abortion is already legal in Nevada. Even after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion rights in Nevada remained protected under state law. This fact has distinguished Nevada law concerning women's reproductive rights from many other state laws. Our current law allows abortions up to 24 weeks without restriction and permits later procedures to protect a mother's life or health. This law can only be changed by a direct vote of the people — not by courts or the Legislature. It's a law that reflects the diverse views of our citizens. 

So why is Question 6 on the ballot? Its proponents claim it's necessary to protect abortion rights in Nevada. But this is a solution in search of a problem. Abortion rights are already secure. What Question 6 does is undermine existing law and introduces dangerous ambiguity into our Constitution.

Unlike our current law, which provides clear and specific guidelines, Question 6 is alarmingly vague about when abortions are legal. It fails to address critical questions: Is abortion permissible at four months? Six months? Even up to nine months? Instead of offering clarity, Question 6 relies on a dangerously ambiguous definition of "fetal viability," described as "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."

This vague language opens the door to potentially permitting abortions through the end of the third trimester. By hinging on the subjective "professional judgment" of practitioners and including the nebulous caveat of "without extraordinary medical measures," the petition could drastically extend the timeline for legal abortions far beyond current medical consensus and existing Nevada law.

Consider the stark contrast with our current law (NRS 442.250), which clearly prohibits abortions after 24 weeks except when necessary to preserve the mother's life or health. Question 6 threatens to obliterate this established boundary, replacing it with a framework ripe for misinterpretation and abuse.

The proposed constitutional amendment on abortion rights in Question 6 is also shrouded in ambiguity when it comes to the state's role in regulating abortion. In section one, the initiative would allow individuals to make decisions about abortion "without interference" from state or local governments, while adding that the state may still regulate abortion after fetal viability. This language, while seemingly straightforward, fails to capture the seismic shift in abortion policy that would occur if the amendment passes.

The phrasing leaves voters in the dark about crucial details. What exactly does "without interference" mean in practice? How would this change affect current regulations on informed consent, parental notification for minors, or health and safety standards for abortion facilities? The description's silence on these matters is deafening. By failing to clearly outline the extent to which the state's regulatory powers would be curtailed, the initiative's backers have created a potential minefield of misunderstanding. This lack of clarity doesn't just skirt the edge of voter confusion – it dives headlong into it.

The vagueness of Question 6 isn't merely confusing — it's a recipe for legal chaos. We need only look to other states that have recently altered their abortion laws to see the disastrous consequences: an avalanche of lawsuits draining public resources and leaving citizens in a state of perpetual uncertainty about their rights and obligations. Do we want Nevada to become the next battleground for endless, costly litigation? The ambiguity in Question 6 practically guarantees it. 

But the problems with Question 6 don't end there. Hidden within its vague language is the potential for a massive new financial burden placed on Nevada taxpayers similar to the one placed on taxpayers in California. The amendment will likely require the state to fund abortions without limit. The fiscal impact of this is unknown at this time, but the costs could be substantial,  exceeding $120 million annually. This estimate is derived from extrapolating data from California's taxpayer funding, federal reports on abortion-related funding and considering Nevada's specific context.

In this regard, according to the State of Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health (DPBH), Abortion Information for Nevadans, while the total cost of this change in the law cannot be known with certainty, we do know that a the average cost of a medical abortion is $535 but can be $1,600 or higher depending on the state or provider. For a later pregnancy using a procedure to induce labor and delivery, the cost is $8,000 to $15,000 or more. Consider these costs in light of the fact that approximately 8,000 to 9,600 abortions were performed annually in Nevada between 2017 and 2019. In a state where we're constantly debating how to fund essential services such as education and health care, can we really afford this blank check?

However, it's important to note that projecting these costs is speculative and challenging. Some studies argue abortion access could lead to cost savings, while others suggest significant expenses. The key point for voters to consider is that there will be a significant fiscal impact, even if the precise amount is uncertain — a cost that will be incurred by taxpayers that deserves careful consideration. 

In a normal legislative process, the financial implications would be thoroughly researched, debated and discussed before any vote. Unfortunately, the initiative petition process bypasses these crucial steps. As I've discovered through months of legal proceedings dealing with this ballot initiative and others like it, our Nevada courts no longer appear to require proponents of such measures to address the fiscal impacts of their proposed changes to the law. Whether intentional or not, this oversight leaves Nevada voters in a precarious position: They must either make an educated guess about potential costs or vote without full financial context, only to discover the true impact after the amendment becomes part of our Constitution. This approach to lawmaking not only undermines fiscal responsibility but also deprives voters of essential information needed to make an informed decision on a matter of significant public importance.

Even more alarming are the ways Question 6 could undermine important safeguards in our current law. By removing the state's ability to regulate abortion care, it could allow non-doctors to perform complex surgical procedures, even in late-term pregnancies. It might even permit secret abortions on minors without parental knowledge or consent. These aren't hypothetical concerns — they're the logical consequences of the amendment's sweeping language.

Under current Nevada law, specifically NRS 442.250(1)(a), abortions must be performed by "a physician licensed to practice in this state." However, the proposed amendment introduces the broader term "qualified health care practitioner," potentially opening the door for a wide range of non-physician providers to perform abortions. This shift could include nurse practitioners, physician assistants and midwives, among others. Such a change is not merely a technicality; it represents a fundamental alteration to existing law that could have far-reaching implications for abortion access and safety in the state.

Supporters of Question 6 might argue that these concerns are overblown. But when it comes to enacting amendments to our Nevada Constitution, we can't afford to be cavalier. The vague language of Question 6 virtually guarantees years of costly court battles to determine its true meaning and scope. And unlike our current law, which can be modified by voters if needed, a constitutional amendment is much harder to fix if problems arise.

As Nevadans, we've always valued clarity, fairness and fiscal responsibility. Our current abortion law embodies these principles. It keeps abortion legal and accessible while maintaining reasonable limits that most of us agree on. It ensures that only qualified medical professionals perform these procedures, protecting women's health. And it respects the rights of parents to be involved in major decisions affecting their minor children.

Question 6 would undo this careful balance, replacing it with a vague mandate that could have far-reaching, unintended consequences. It's not just unnecessary — it's potentially dangerous to women's health, parental rights and our state's fiscal stability.

We don't need to gamble with our Constitution to protect rights that are already secure under existing law. We don't need to invite a flood of lawsuits into our courts. And we certainly don't need to write a blank check for taxpayer-funded abortions at a time when our state faces so many other pressing needs. I urge all Nevadans, regardless of their personal views on abortion, to carefully consider the implications of this amendment. Let's preserve the clarity, balance and fiscal responsibility of Nevada's established legal framework addressing this complex issue.

Jason D. Guinasso is an attorney with Greenman Goldberg Raby & Martinez in Reno and Las Vegas. Licensed in Nevada and California, he is a litigator and trial attorney. He also teaches business law at UNR and is a graduate student in the MALTS program at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia. The opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author in his personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect the views of his law firm, its clients or any other organization with which the author may be affiliated.

The Nevada Independent welcomes informed, cogent rebuttals to opinion pieces such as this. Send them to [email protected].