In plain English
Adds a new section to the Nevada Constitution creating a fundamental right to abortion up to fetal viability (roughly 24 weeks), performed by any "qualified health care practitioner" — not just doctors — with exceptions to protect the patient's health or life after viability.
Creates a constitutional right to abortion until viability, expands the types of providers who can perform the procedure, and restricts the government from imposing new regulations below viability.
Abortion remains legal under Nevada's existing voter-protected statute (NRS 442.250, up to 24 weeks). No immediate change — but no constitutional protection is added either.
- What it adds: A new Section 25 to Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution.
- Who can perform abortions: Any "qualified health care practitioner" — a broader category than current law, which limits the procedure to physicians. Could include nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
- Time limit: Right extends through fetal viability (generally around 24 weeks), with exceptions afterward for the health or life of the patient.
- Government regulation: Below viability, the state would be restricted from imposing new regulations that burden the right.
- Current Nevada law: A 1990 voter-approved statute already protects abortion up to 24 weeks. Statutes can only be repealed by another statewide vote, but they are not in the Constitution.
- Why two votes: Citizen-initiated constitutional amendments in Nevada must pass in two consecutive general elections.
Arguments for YES
- Locks in protections after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision overturning Roe.
- Existing statute is voter-protected but could be repealed by a future vote — the Constitution is harder to undo.
- Rural access improves by allowing trained nurse practitioners and PAs to perform first-trimester procedures.
- Reflects the will of 64% of Nevada voters who supported it in 2024.
Arguments for NO
- Abortion is already legal in Nevada under a voter-approved statute — no change is needed.
- "Qualified practitioner" language removes the physician-only requirement, which opponents say lowers safety standards.
- Could invalidate existing health regulations and parental notification rules through court interpretation.
- Constitutional language is harder to amend if unintended consequences emerge.