The “no” campaign itself began with a broad investment in the claim that a constitutional convention could endanger women’s reproductive rights. When the constitutional convention question was last on the ballot in 2014, as it is every 10 years, the “no” campaign sent a direct mailer to registered Rhode Island voters making this argument just days before the election. Subsequently, the argument was widely ridiculed because Rhode Islanders support women’s reproductive rights, including abortion.

But what if voters could be hoodwinked into voting against their own core interests? That’s essentially what the current “no” campaign argues happened in 1986.

That year, the amendment approved by voters included the following clause, which, taken out of context, appears to restrict women’s reproductive rights: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.”

What makes this argument so interesting is that the Rhode Island ACLU, a leader of both the 2014 and 2024 “no” coalitions, rebutted this claim in three legal briefs filed from 2019 to 2021 against Catholics for Life, an anti-abortion group that in 2019 brought a lawsuit making essentially the same argument the “no” coalition is now making. That lawsuit sought, unsuccessfully, to block the Reproductive Privacy Act, which had been passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly, on the grounds that the 1986 amendment made the legislation unconstitutional.

Like the “no” coalition, Catholics for Life argued that this clause restricted women’s reproductive rights.

The amendment included the following clause that explains its voter support: “No otherwise qualified person shall, solely by reason of race, gender or handicap be subject to discrimination by the state.”

Anti-abortion advocates among the convention delegates worried that a future court could interpret these vaguely specified rights as endorsing the right to an abortion. Thus, they ended the amendment with the clause stipulating the new rights shouldn’t be construed that way. As the ACLU successfully argued in its briefs, the General Assembly was free to enhance women’s reproductive rights, and the courts could protect those rights based on any constitutional provision except this new one.

In contrast, the anti-abortion group interpreted the clause as preventing the General Assembly from proposing any legislation enhancing women’s reproductive rights without first getting a constitutional amendment allowing it to do that. To support its argument, it observed that the “no” coalition made such a claim during its campaign against calling a convention in 2004. In response, the ACLU argued that the “no” coalition’s 2004 claims to the contrary were in an advocacy context, and should have “no independent weight” with the court.

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

I also agree with the briefs’ argument that the drafting history of the amendment shows that the convention did not intend to surreptitiously restrict women’s reproductive rights. Further, it wasn’t misleading when the ballot measure did not describe this clause in its ballot summary. That is, unlike the “no” coalition’s current implicit assumption in its advocacy claims, no conspiracy existed to hide the impact of this clause from the convention delegates and the public.

The “no” coalition will undoubtedly find reasons to dispute this analysis. I’d suggest that one of the ACLU’s legal briefs includes the best brief rebuttal of such claims: “[The choice clause in 1986] was neither understood nor intended to affirmatively restrict or interfere with the exercise of reproductive rights.”

The “no” coalition has promoted such bogus arguments to the public because the true 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 of The Rhode Island State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse.

“I am not a criminal. I have never been arrested,” she wrote in a text message.

According to Police Chief Stephen Lynch, officers received calls on Monday night reporting an erratic driver.

Police found the Lexus SUV after 9 p.m. stopped on Hill Road, and as officers approached the car, allegedly driven by Nuñez, the vehicle took off, according to a police report.

Nuñez allegedly drove 51 miles per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour zone, failed to stop for a stop sign, swerved into the opposite lane, and nearly drove off the road at different times during the pursuit, authorities said.

Eventually, Nuñez came to a stop on Wallum Lake Road, and officers approached the car with their guns drawn, the report states.

Body camera video footage shows Nuñez mumbling, “What’s wrong,” as officers approach her. Officers wrote they “detected the overwhelming odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from her breath.”According to the police report and footage from police body-worn cameras released Thursday, she repeatedly told the officers that she owns The Conjuring House, and argued with them about why she did not pull over immediately.

Officers attempted to perform field sobriety tests, but the video shows Nuñez not following directions and laughing at officers. At one point she told police, “You’re boring me,” and accused them of trying to “save face” by administering the tests, the report states.

Police said she later refused a Breathalyzer test, but told officers she drank three cocktails that night. She was later shackled to a bed at the police station after she refused to stop “aggressively banging on the cell door and yelling,” police wrote.

In a series of text messages sent to the Globe, Nuñez claimed she passed a sobriety test and that police did not ask her to take a Breathalyzer.

She claimed police and others are “trying to drive me out of business.”

“I am terrified of this PD. I did drive past a stop sign and then pulled over on the shoulder when they approached,” she wrote. “I remember being panicked and terrified and sped up and then pulled over. I knew I was going to be harassed and possibly taken somewhere to be killed.”

Lynch said Burrillville officers are sometimes called to The Conjuring House, where Nuñez also lives, over traffic caused by curious onlookers. On Saturday night, Lynch said, Nuñez called police to report seeing former employees near the woods. Police responded but did not find anyone there, Lynch said.

During the summer, officers also went to The Conjuring House twice with a health care provider to check on Nuñez, who was brought to a hospital on one of those occasions, he said.

Last month, Nuñez told The Providence Journal the hospital stay was orchestrated by former employees in an attempt to take control of the house.

In a series of texts with the Globe, Nuñez referred to several medical facilities but declined to provide details. “Being thrown into facilities because I am complaining about crimes against me and my legitimate business does not mean that I have psychiatric issues,” Nuñez wrote.

The DUI charges follow other Conjuring House-related controversies in recent months. The 18th-century farmhouse was the inspiration for the 2013 movie “The Conjuring,” about hauntings that plagued the Perron family there in the 1970s. Visitors come from around the world to tour the property, and some even spend the night.

Former employees have said Nuñez owes them money, including one who said he was fired after Nuńez accused him of stealing money from the business – an accusation she said was based on a tip by the ghost of a former owner.

Guests have also complained about being asked to leave based on information she seemed to indicate was from spirits. Scott Kitlarz told the Globe he and his wife paid $1,089 to stay overnight at the house on Oct. 21. The Iowa couple left within a few hours after Nuñez asked if they were content creators and accused them of not having “good intentions,” adding, “I can feel your energy,” according to an audio recording Kitlarz provided to the Globe. He told the Globe she seemed to indicate that spirits had informed her about the Kitlarzs.

He said they brought cameras and microphones to try to capture anything otherworldly, but they are not content creators. The Conjuring House’s website states that guests may bring “ghost hunting equipment” but content creators must inform staff before they arrive. Kitlarz asked for a refund, which Nunez agreed to, but he said that as of Wednesday he had not received any part of the $1,089 he and his wife had paid.

When asked about Kitlarz’s experience, Nuñez texted that she “was alerted quickly to their intentions so I acted quickly.”

“No one with intent to hurt me or my business will get a refund,” she said.“I will not reveal my sources that look to protect me and TCH.”

Jason Hawes, the Rhode Island-based star of SyFy’s “Ghost Hunters” television show, has also accused Nuñez of harassing him and has said he is concerned about the safety of guests who stay there.

Amidst the controversies, “The Conjuring House” has remained open to visitors, though last week, Lynch opted not to immediately approve the entertainment license for the property, citing “inappropriate” attachments with its application. Nuñez can still resubmit her application though, before her current license expires in November, Lynch said.

When asked about the license, Nuñez said she will “pursue every option to run my legitimate business.”

“Burrillville will need a compelling reason to decline it,” she said in a text message.

Christopher Gavin can be reached at christopher.gavin@globe.com.