Follow us on social media:
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.
Naso’s in-laws, Dr. Siavash Ghoreishi and Dr. Jila Khorsand, took him to Family Court in July 2024, three months after their daughter, Shahrzad “Sherry” Naso, died from metastasized breast cancer.
Naso had refused to let them see Laila, their only grandchild of their only daughter, saying he wasn’t comfortable with their behavior and was alarmed by their medical care of Sherry and Laila.
The retired physicians used a little-known state law that allows grandparents whose children have died or divorced to petition the Family Court for the right to visit with their grandchildren.
It’s led to a bitter trial that began in October and has continued off and on over the last six months, with testimony about medical negligence, abuse, and control.
Naso, a Middletown narcotics detective, accuses his in-laws of prescribing dozens of medications and providing poor medical care, which he believes contributed to Sherry’s death and sickened Laila. Ghoreishi and Khorsand deny any wrongdoing.
“We love that child with every fabric of our beings and have never harmed her in any way or shape,” Khorsand testified in October. “I love that child to death and would never do anything to harm her. … Why would she be deprived of this love?”
Naso has argued that the expense of the trial and the state law allowing grandparents to sue parents for visitation violates his constitutional parental rights.
But Gill said on Monday that the state law was “narrowly tailored” to respect the constitutional rights of parents, and he denied Naso’s motions to dismiss or stay the ongoing trial.
Now that Michael Ahn, the lawyer for Ghoreishi and Khorsand, has rested his case, Naso’s lawyer will argue that the grandparents haven’t met their burden under the law and the case should be dismissed.
Veronica Assalone told the judge that she will argue for the dismissal on Thursday.
If her motion is denied, and the Supreme Court justices reject the emergency motion, the trial proceedings will resume, with at least a dozen witnesses expected to testify on Naso’s behalf.
On Wednesday, the court heard more testimony from Cheryl Allspach, the former longtime office manager for Ghoreishi’s pediatric practice and a close friend of the family. She had testified glowingly on Tuesday about Ghoreishi and Khorsand’s relationship with Laila.
She also testified about Ghoreishi’s recordkeeping at his practice and his medical treatment of Scott, Sherry, and Laila Naso, and explained the process for billing and filing for insurance claims.
Assalone questioned her about Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island’s payment policy, since 2009, regarding self-treatment and treatment of immediate family members. The insurer’s policy follows the American Medical Association code of ethics, which warns physicians not to treat or prescribe medications for themselves and close family members, and does not cover those services.
Allspach read the two-page policy aloud for the court. “Why did you bill?” the judge asked when she concluded.
“I just did it as part of normal billing, and truly I didn’t realize that,” Allspach said. “If I realized, I would have said to [Ghoreishi], ‘you cannot treat your family members.’”
The judge quickly stopped more detailed questions about billing practices, chart-keeping, and whether Allspach was aware that it was a felony for physicians to prescribe narcotics to relatives.
“It’s a grandparent visitation case, not a medical malpractice case,” Gill snapped at Assalone. He added that she should take her claims about illegal prescriptions to the state police, “not here.”
Julie Emmer, the owner of Strengthening Family Foundations, testified that Naso had alleged “serious things” about his in-law’s medical care when she was handling the supervised visits between Laila and Ghoreishi and Khorsand.
Emmer testified that Naso told her “there were prescriptions in different names for his late wife” and that his in-laws were being investigated by the US Drug Enforcement Administration and the state police.
“He thought they shouldn’t have visits,” Emmer said. “He thought they were responsible for what happened to his wife.”
Emmer began supervising visits in September 2024, after then-Family Court Judge Debra DiSegna temporarily ordered one-hour supervised visits every other week. The visits continued until late January 2025 and were suspended after Naso filed a complaint with the Department of Children, Youth, and Families. The investigation was closed, but Naso has refused to resume visits.
Emmer supervised nine visits, all at public places, and performed a home inspection at the grandparents’ condo in Jamestown at Ahn’s request in December 2023. They wanted to visit with Laila at their home, but Naso refused, Emmer said, and he is the custodial parent.
Emmer testified that the grandparents abided by the court order not to give Laila any gifts or medication.
Khorsand played with the little girl, while Ghoreishi stayed in the background, filming them or taking pictures, Emmer said. (Some of the photos and videos have been entered as evidence in the trial.)
Emmer said she noticed over time that Laila was anxious at the start of the visits and said she didn’t want to go. During one visit, she said, Laila whispered to her over and over “they are bad people.” At another visit, Laila was late because she vomited on the way over, she said.
She told the court that Laila would eventually warm up to her grandparents.
Emmer said she saw Naso crying and shaking, but that he was careful to compose himself so Laila didn’t see him becoming emotional. She testified that she didn’t hear him make any derogatory comments about his in-laws in Laila’s presence.
She said that Laila was reluctant to leave her father during the visits, but he encouraged her to go. “He often made comments, ‘Go have fun with Miss Julie. You’ll be safe,’” she said.
Amanda Milkovits can be reached at amanda.milkovits@globe.com. Follow her @AmandaMilkovits.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Rhode Island’s primary elections will now be held on Wednesday, Sept. 9, moving it back from the typical Tuesday election day because it fell too close to Labor Day.
Gov. Dan McKee, a Democrat, signed off on the change earlier this week. The primary election had been scheduled for Sept. 8, which is the day after the holiday weekend.
State and local officials had requested the change after raising concerns about having enough time to set up polls for voters. However, under the legislation enacted, the filing deadlines will remain the same.
“We have to set up over 400 polling places around the state on the day before the election,” Nick Lima, the registrar and director of elections for the city of Cranston, told lawmakers at a hearing in January. “That’s very difficult to do on a holiday because many of our polls are schools, social halls and churches.”
It’s not unusual for states to change their election day. Lawmakers in neighboring Massachusetts changed the state’s 2026 primary election day from Sept. 15 to Sept. 1, arguing that doing so will help improve voter turnout.
Only four states hold their primary elections in September: Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Delaware, which has the latest primary date in the U.S., taking place this year on Sept. 15.
Legislation seeking to move up Delaware’s primary election by several months has been introduced in the statehouse, but previous attempts to do so have stalled.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
CUMBERLAND, R.I. (WPRI) — Rhode Island State Police are investigating a crash that happened on I-295 North in Cumberland Tuesday night.
The crash happened in the right lane near Exit 22 just before 9 p.m.
It’s unclear exactly what caused the crash or if anyone was injured.
12 News has reached out to Rhode Island State Police for more information but has not heard back.
Download the WPRI 12 and Pinpoint Weather 12 apps to get breaking news and weather alerts.
Watch 12 News Now on WPRI.com or with the free WPRI 12+ TV app.
Follow us on social media:
Rockies’ Tomoyuki Sugano shuts down Padres in 8-3 Colorado win
CT Lottery Powerball, Cash 5 winning numbers for April 22, 2026
Body found near Bowers Beach – 47abc
Florida couple in alleged embryo mix-up have identified biological parents of ‘non-caucasian’ baby
Wildfires across Georgia and Florida destroy more than 50 homes and force evacuations
Gulick overpass raise expected soon as part of middle street expansion
Idaho Lottery results: See winning numbers for Powerball, Pick 3 on April 22, 2026
Bears release statement as Illinois legislators take major step toward stadium bill