Disinformation campaign against the RI constitutional convention

The “No” campaign itself began with a broad investment in the argument that a constitutional convention could jeopardize women’s reproductive rights. The last time the constitutional convention question went to the polls in 2014, as it does every 10 years, the “no” campaign created a backlash. direct mail To registered Rhode Island voters having this debate just days before the election. Later, argument was on a large scale ridicule Because Rhode Islanders Support women’s reproductive rights, including abortion.

But what if voters are tricked into voting against their own core interests? This is the main aim of the current “no” campaign argues It happened in 1986.

That year, the voter-approved amendment included a provision that, taken out of context, appeared to restrict women’s reproductive rights: “Nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring or securing any right relating to abortion or the financing thereof.”

What makes this claim so interesting is that the ACLU of Rhode Island, the leader of the “no” coalitions in both 2014 and 2024, made this claim: 2019 with 2021 against Catholics for Life, an anti-abortion group. 2019 filed a lawsuit making essentially the same argument the “no” coalition is making now. This lawsuit unsuccessfully sought to prevent Reproductive Privacy ActThe amendment, made in 1986, was accepted by the Rhode Island General Assembly on the grounds that it made the legislation unconstitutional.

Like the “No” coalition, Catholics for Life argued that the clause restricts women’s reproductive rights.

Explaining voter support, the amendment included: “No person otherwise qualified shall be subject to government discrimination solely on the basis of race, sex, or disability.”

Anti-abortion advocates among convention delegates worried that a future court might interpret these vaguely defined rights as affirming the right to abortion. So they ended the amendment with the clause stating that the new rights should not be interpreted in this way. As the ACLU successfully argued in its briefs, the General Assembly was free to advance women’s reproductive rights, and courts could protect those rights based on any constitutional provision other than this new provision.

In contrast, the anti-abortion group interpreted this provision to mean that the General Assembly was prevented from proposing any legislation that would advance women’s reproductive rights without a constitutional amendment allowing it. To support his claim, observed He said that the “No” coalition made such a claim during its campaign against the congress call in 2004. replyThe ACLU argued that the “no” coalition’s 2004 rebuttal arguments were in the context of advocacy and should not have “independent weight” in the court.

I agree with the ACLU’s legal briefs filed in this case, criticizing the anti-abortion group’s argument that the clause prevents the General Assembly from protecting and advancing women’s reproductive rights.

I also agree with the briefing’s argument that the draft date of the amendment indicates that the convention was not intended to covertly restrict women’s reproductive rights. Additionally, the ballot measure’s failure to disclose this item in the ballot summary was not misleading. That is, unlike the current implicit assumption of the “no” coalition in its advocacy claims, there was no conspiracy to hide the impact of this article from congress delegates and the public.

The “No” coalition will undoubtedly find reasons to object to this analysis. I recommend this One Part of the ACLU’s legal brief includes the briefest rebuttal to such claims: “(The 1986 election clause) was neither understood nor intended to affirmatively restrict or interfere with the exercise of reproductive rights.”

The “No” coalition has introduced such bogus arguments to the public because the real reason its supporters oppose an independently elected convention (to preserve their power over the legislature) cannot be said publicly.

J. H. Snider is the editor Rhode Island State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse.