Connect with us

News

How Ballot Measures Will Change Abortion Access

Published

on

How Ballot Measures Will Change Abortion Access

How abortion rights measures fared

Abortion rights found support at the ballot box in seven states on Tuesday, expanding access in already legal states and lifting bans in two others.

But support for abortion rights fell short in three contests. Proposed rights measures failed in Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota — and in Nebraska, an opposing measure to restrict abortion won — meaning bans and restrictions will remain in place.

Abortion will become broadly legal again in Arizona and Missouri, and existing protections will be strengthened in at least four other states.

How abortion laws will change

Advertisement

*Note: In Nevada, a winning measure to protect abortion until viability must pass again in the next general election before it can be added to the state’s Constitution.

In Florida, more than 57 percent of voters supported a measure to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s Constitution, but it failed because the state requires a supermajority of 60 percent for ballot measures to pass. Florida had been a critical access point for abortion patients across the South before a six-week ban took effect in May.

Nebraska voters faced dueling abortion ballot measures, and misleading ad campaigns may have caused confusion. A measure that will amend the state’s Constitution to restrict abortions after the first trimester, enshrining current law, won a majority of votes, while a measure to protect abortion rights fell just short at 49 percent.

South Dakota will continue to have one of the strictest bans in the country.

Advertisement

Before the election, 21 states banned abortion or placed gestational limits on the procedure. The winning rights measure in Missouri is the first to undo a full ban — one of the strictest in the nation and one of the first enacted after the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Arizona’s 15-week ban will also become void in the coming weeks.

Where ballot measures will lift abortion bans

Five states with bans had abortion on the ballot. Two flipped to legalize the procedure.

In Arizona, Missouri and Montana, the winning measures will recreate the standard set by Roe v. Wade, which protected abortion until “viability” — the point at which a fetus could survive outside the uterus, or around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Advertisement

New constitutional amendments will expand protections for abortion in Colorado, Maryland and New York, where the procedure was already broadly legal. Colorado’s measure also repealed an earlier law prohibiting the use of public funds to pay for abortions.

In Nevada, a winning measure to protect abortion until viability must pass again in the next general election before it can be added to the state’s Constitution.

Abortion ballot measures since Roe v. Wade was overturned

Results as of 11:30 a.m. Eastern, Nov. 6.

Arizona Nov. 5, 2024

Advertisement

Right to abortion until fetal viability

Colorado Nov. 5, 2024

Right to abortion and public funding

Advertisement

Maryland Nov. 5, 2024

Right to reproductive freedom

Missouri Nov. 5, 2024

Right to abortion until fetal viability

Advertisement

Montana Nov. 5, 2024

Right to abortion until fetal viability

Nebraska Nov. 5, 2024

Advertisement

Ban on abortion after the first trimester

Nevada Nov. 5, 2024

Right to abortion until fetal viability

Advertisement

New York Nov. 5, 2024

Equal rights including protection from pregnancy discrimination

Florida Nov. 5, 2024

Right to abortion until fetal viability

Advertisement

Nebraska Nov. 5, 2024

Right to abortion until fetal viability

South Dakota Nov. 5, 2024

Advertisement

Right to abortion in the first trimester

Ohio Nov. 7, 2023

Right to reproductive freedom

Advertisement

Vermont Nov. 8, 2022

Right to reproductive freedom

California Nov. 8, 2022

Right to reproductive freedom

Advertisement

Michigan Nov. 8, 2022

Right to reproductive freedom

Montana Nov. 8, 2022

Advertisement

Medical care requirements for “infants born alive”

Kentucky Nov. 8, 2022

Remove abortion rights protections

Advertisement

Kansas Aug. 2, 2022

Remove abortion rights protections

The 2024 election broke a ballot measure winning streak for abortion rights advocates. Voters in seven states, including Republican-led ones, had previously sided with abortion rights in every contest since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022.

Advocates for abortion rights caution that opportunities to protect those rights through ballot measures may be dwindling. Most remaining states with abortion bans do not allow citizen-initiated measures to be placed on the ballot, and their Republican leaders are unlikely to put the issue to voters.

Advertisement

And while former President Donald J. Trump has most recently said he would leave abortion laws to the states if re-elected, abortion rights organizations are bracing for federal action on abortion under his presidency.

“Donald Trump’s election as president of the United States is a deadly threat to reproductive rights,” said Nancy Northup, the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “We have many states that protect abortion rights, and if a federal ban passes they will lose that ability to protect their residents’ access.”

News

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

Published

on

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

new video loaded: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

transcript

transcript

Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

“What a [expletive] embarrassment.” “Look at this guy.” “What’s with all the fascists?” “The Lord is with you.” “Where’s the bad hombre? What did this guy do?” “He’s out here working to support his [expletive] family.” “Gestapo agents.” “Oh yeah, shake your head, tough guy.” “This is where you get the worst of the worst right here, hard-working builders.” “Crossing the border is not a crime. Coming illegally to the United States is not a crime, according to you.” “C’mon, get out of here.” “Take him to a different hospital.”

Advertisement
A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

By Ernesto Londoño, Jackeline Luna and Daniel Fetherston

December 17, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Published

on

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP

Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.

Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.

A sloppy edit

At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.

Advertisement

The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”

Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”

The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”

Advertisement

While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.

A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.

Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.

The appeal of BritBox

For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.

That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.

Advertisement

Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”

Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)

It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.

Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.

Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)

Advertisement

“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.

NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.

Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn

Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.

Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.

In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.

Advertisement

Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.

Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.

“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”

An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.

“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”

Advertisement

Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement

Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.

“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”

Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Published

on

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

transcript

transcript

Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.

Advertisement
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

By Shawn Paik

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending