QUESTION 6 IS AN AMENDMENT TO OUR NEVADA CONSTITUTION!

PROPONENTS SAY IT’S SIMPLY
ADDING CURRENT LAW TO OUR
NEVADA CONSTITUTION
BUT THAT’S NOT TRUE-READ IT YOURSELF.

Bold Text-Proposed amendment language
Blue Text-Additional information and citing

“All individuals [Regardless of age, No age restriction? Will also eliminate parental involvement. Regardless of sex, what’s a man’s right to abortion? Judges will decide] shall have a fundamental right to abortion [protecting abortion at the level of freedom of speech, religion, and press] performed or administered by a qualified health care practitioner [current physician only requirement removed, can be a school nurse, dental hygienist and more, see NRS 439A.0195]  until fetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health [life or health exception already exists in Nevada law] of the pregnant patient, without interference from the state or its political subdivisions. [Regulation and inspection of abortion clinics disallowed.] 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” [eliminates current 24 weeks/6 months fetal viability standard] means the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the patient's treating health care practitioner, [abortionist] there is a significant likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures [In non-hospital settings, letting a profit-driven abortion provider define ‘extraordinary medical measures’ leaves late-term babies—7th to 9th month—without real protection.]