There are a few points regarding Initiative Measures 434 and 439, both regarding abortion in Nebraska, that need clarifying. I erred in my blog of 29 October, by failing to properly research the voter approval process of initiative measures.
Ultimately, if we are pro-life, we must vote “No” on both 434 and 439. And voting our conscience, without compromise, especially when it is consistent with biblical truth, is always correct.
There has been significant confusion about these ballot questions for various reasons, primarily, perhaps, for lack of understanding what happens when conflicting questions appear on the same ballot. In the present case, both questions are pro-abortion. 434 is more restrictive and less radical, so the pro-life perception is that it is favorable over 439. Also, a great misunderstanding is that one of the questions will be approved, as a matter of fact. And there lies the basis for the pro-life vote for 434.
My failure in my earlier blog is that I did not use original source information regarding conflicting ballot questions. I have since discussed the matter with the Secretary of State’s office and, in the current matter, it is possible for both questions to be approved, both denied, or one approved and the other denied. The idea, and therefore the strategy, to vote for the less evil (434) question, is that one question will definitely be approved, is false.
There are numerical standards required for the approval of these initiatives. At least 35% of the voters casting ballots must vote on the question, and at least 51% of those who vote on a particular question must vote “yes.” That means that only 18% of those who vote in this election could enshrine one of these measures in our state constitution. That should be a chilling thought to all that such a small number of people could amend our constitution, and even more so when we are presented with the confusion that is pervasive in the event of conflicting questions.
As we look at the requirements for initiative approval, we see that it is very possible for both initiatives to be approved. And, in fact, there have been such outcomes.
When two conflicting initiatives are approved, then the one that receives the greater number of “yes” votes is ultimately approved and becomes law. According to the gentleman I spoke with at the Secretary of State’s office, court challenges can, and do, result when two conflicting initiatives are approved. A strong turnout of pro-life voters, voting “no” on both 434 and 439, can prevent that debacle.
Regardless of opinions about abortion, there is another consideration that we should all agree on. We enter dangerous legal and moral territory when we create “rights” and enshrine them in our constitution and laws. Our nation’s organic documents include the clear statement and fundamental belief that, we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Our rights come from God, our Creator. It can be said that those rights are infinite. However, there is a point where our rights run up against a brick wall. That is when they infringe on someone else’s rights. With some thought, it is apparent that this limitation on rights is that, ultimately, they must not compromise God’s command to love our neighbor.
Abortions are commonly used as a matter of convenience for one party (the mother and/or father) and the destruction of another (the baby). There is no way to rationalize, then, that abortion is a right. While the pro-abortion movement calls abortion a right – abortion rights, women’s rights, etc. – I challenge all to imagine a scenario when another law or constitutional amendment is proposed where you are the victim of someone else’s claim to a “right.” That must be repugnant to the human conscience.
Please vote “No” on both 434 and 439.
J. Drew Foster
Emmet, Nebraska