Thomas More Society celebrates defeat of ‘outrageously deceptive’ pro-abortion amendment in Nebraska

OMAHA, Nebraska (Thomas More Society) — On November 5, 2024, Nebraska voters rejected deceptive pro-abortion Initiative 439, which would have allowed late-term abortion and would have effectively abolished nearly 50 years of abortion legislative restrictions in the state. More than 55 percent of Nebraska voters instead opted for the pro-life alternative, Initiative 434, which gives constitutional protection to the unborn in the second and third trimesters and permits further legislative restrictions of abortion throughout pregnancy.

Prior to Election Day, Thomas More Society attorneys challenged Initiative 439 at the Nebraska Supreme Court, arguing that the amendment violated Nebraska’s Single Subject Rule. Although the Nebraska Supreme Court decided to allow the so-called “Protect the Right to Abortion” ballot initiative to stay on the November ballot, the Thomas More Society lawsuit was the first time all levels of the press reported on the actual effect of the language of the initiative, demonstrating for the public how deceptive it was.

Earlier in the year, Thomas More Society had also filed with the Nebraska Supreme Court the only amicus brief defending the constitutionality of LB574, a highly publicized 2023 bill that limited abortions to the first 12 weeks and also protected Nebraska minors from underage transgender surgeries. The Nebraska Supreme Court agreed and upheld the bill. Due to that success, LB 574 will continue to be the law in Nebraska, protected now in the Nebraska Constitution due to the successful passage of Initiative 434.

“As the last few remaining ballots are tallied, it is now clear that Nebraskans saw through the abortion industry’s smokescreen. When faced with a choice between a radical abortion expansion initiative and a pro-life alternative, voters in the Cornhusker State opted to choose life at the ballot box,” said Matt Heffron, Thomas More Society senior counsel.

“The pro-abortion constitutional amendment was an outrageously deceptive scheme from the start, and Big Abortion believed it could fool Nebraskans with vague and deceptive language,” he added. “They were wrong. I am glad that we at Thomas More Society were able to take a leading role in the fight against Initiative 439.”

Read background on the Thomas More Society legal challenge to Nebraska’s abortion expansion ballot initiative, State of Nebraska ex rel. LaGreca v. Evnen, here.