The 2026 midterm election is Tuesday, and four states will vote on abortion. Three will vote on whether to expand abortion through all nine months of pregnancy without limits, while one would generally restrict abortion. Here is a breakdown of the four abortion ballot measures, all of which include some exceptions either to regulate abortion or allow it.

But pro-abortion doctors can easily exploit “medical emergency” or “health” exceptions to allow for abortion. Physicians and politicians have broadly interpreted “health” to mean concerns about future mental health issues from a pregnancy, such as anxiety or depression. It does not mean strictly a medical emergency where someone will die or become debilitated if she delivers the baby.

Idaho

Proposition 1 would repeal the state’s pro-life law that protects preborn babies from being killed through abortion. Instead, it would establish a “right to reproductive freedom and privacy.”

Courts could interpret this not only to allow the killing of preborn babies through all nine months of pregnancy, but also to forbid any attempts to regulate embryo-destroying in vitro fertilization and unethical surrogacy practices.

The law would allow for regulating abortion after “fetal viability,” generally around 24 weeks gestation, except in the case of a “medical emergency.” This means abortion has practically no limits, as a woman would simply need to get one doctor to attest to some sort of “emergency” or potential risk from giving birth.

Nevada

Question 6 is an almost exact copy of Idaho’s proposal. The ballot measure, if passed, would expand the state’s already liberal law that allows for abortion through the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. The law would ostensibly allow for regulating abortion, but it offers a broad exception. The fact that Nevada law already allows for killing preborn babies through the second trimester should cause voters to wonder why they need this expansive law.

The proposal would “create an individual’s fundamental right to an abortion, without interference by state or local governments, whenever the abortion is performed by a qualified healthcare professional until fetal viability,” the measure states. But it also grants an exception “to protect the health or life of the pregnant individual at any point during the pregnancy.”

Virginia

Since 2019, Virginia Democrats have worked relentlessly to try to legalize abortion up until the moment of birth. Then-Governor Ralph Northam even appeared to defend the infanticide of innocent babies who were born and in a hospital room.

That goal continues with Question 1, which would also establish a so-called “right to reproductive freedom.”

As with Idaho’s and Nevada’s laws, it ostensibly creates room for the state to regulate abortion at fetal viability, but with a giant exception that makes any regulation meaningless.

“Under Question 1, the state would be able to regulate abortion for women in the third trimester of pregnancy, but would not be able to prohibit abortions if the fetus/baby is not viable or a physician determines an abortion is necessary to protect the life, mental health, or physical health of the mother,” Ballotpedia explains.

Activists can easily exploit the “mental health” exception, as it is hard to disprove a future prediction that a woman might suffer some mental anguish from giving birth.

Missouri

This referendum could be a victory if the pro-life movement pulls through, as it would repeal an expansive abortion measure voters passed in 2024.

Amendment 3 would repeal the “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” and replace it with “a new section that would prohibit abortion, except in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest.”

“For cases of rape and incest, the abortion could only be performed before 12 weeks. It would prohibit abortions based on a fetal disability diagnosis, except in cases of fetal anomaly,” Ballotpedia reports. “It would require parental or guardian consent for minors seeking an abortion and prohibit fetal organ harvesting.”

The amendment would also prohibit permanently damaging chemical and surgical procedures on gender-confused minors.

However, there are still concerns about this measure. While it would protect some human life, it still includes controversial exceptions for babies who may be born with special needs or who are conceived in rape or incest. The pro-life movement recognizes that the circumstances of conception or potential medical problems do not diminish someone’s worthiness to be protected from abortion. Furthermore, abusers can exploit rape exceptions to cover up their abuse.

 Abortion will continue to be a key issue for years to come, and it is imperative pro-life citizens continue to fight for protections for all preborn babies.