Ballotpedia has a generic online page related to 2022 election abortion ballot issues. (Including info re potential upcoming issues in other states.)
In the recent election anti-abortion proposals failed in Kentucky and Montana.
In Montana -
The measure failed by around 20,000 votes, with 52.6% voting against it and 47.4% in favor of its passage at the time The Associated Press called the race.
"A health care provider performing an abortion shall take all medically appropriate and reasonable steps to preserve the life and health of a born-alive infant who is viable. If an abortion performed in a hospital results in a live birth of a viable infant, the health care provider shall provide immediate medical care to the infant," the ballot measure stated.
In Kentucky -
Over half, or 51.90% of voters, said “No” to the legislation, which would have undermined abortion rights advocates’ fight against Kentucky’s six-week and near-total abortion bans in court.Now that it has failed, though, the League of Women Voters said the Kentucky Supreme Court can now choose to strike down the state’s current ban on abortion at conception.
[...] The ACLU of Kentucky filed a lawsuit challenging Kentucky’s abortion bans on behalf of EMW Women’s Surgical Center and Planned Parenthood, saying it caused individuals to “remain pregnant against their will.”
Kentucky wording -
The measure would have added section 26A to the state constitution's bill of rights. The following underlined text would be added: Section 26A. To protect human life, nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.
...................................................
Constitutional amendments enshrining abortion as a right passed in California, Vermont, and Michigan.
......................CALIFORNIA......................
After passage, a Section 1.1. was added to the California Constitution, which now reads -
Section 1
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Section 1.1
The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This section is intended to further the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by Section 1, and the constitutional right to not be denied equal protection guaranteed by Section 7. Nothing herein narrows or limits the right to privacy or equal protection.
Amendments Section 1.1 was added with the approval of Proposition 1 on November 8, 2022.
................................MICHIGAN...........................
Passage of the amendment ballot measure in November added Section 28 to Article I, Michigan Constitution of the Michigan Constitution via the following text being added:
Article 1, Section 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom
(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.
An individual's right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.
Notwithstanding the above, the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.
(2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.
(3) The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion. Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.
(4) For the purposes of this section:
A state interest is "compelling" only if it is for the limited purpose of protecting the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that individual's autonomous decision-making. "Fetal viability" means: the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.
(5) This section shall be self-executing. Any provision of this section held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.
.............................VERMONT............................
After passage in the November election, Vermont Proposal 5, Right to Personal Reproductive Autonomy Amendment (2022) amended the State's Constitution via text as follows -
The ballot measure added an Article 22 to Chapter I of the Vermont Constitution. The following text states the new provision:
Article 22. Personal reproductive liberty.
That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.
......................................................................
Michigan's provision is quite detailed for a Constitutional provision. Severability provided for in a Constitutional Section is a unique idea, but preemptive federal legislation might be later passed, with SCOTUS, the federal Supreme Court, having to rule on Michigan's provision and extent of preemption might be aided by the "severable" language. Neither of the three provisions gets into regulation of provision/providers, licensing, barring onerous red tape harassment of providers, or penalty for back-alley operations but without onerous impediment against legitimate professional providers.
Michigan's language expressly decriminalizes assisting exercise of the right:
Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.
____________UPDATE____________
With the DFL having legislative and executive control in Minnesota through 2024, the expectation would be that legislative options will be explored and passed. If a Constitutional Amendment is proposed and promulgated, expect it to be a timed to be part of the November 2024 election, and not via a special election. Special election turnout can be sparse and tricky, and expect the DFL if proposing an amendment at all to want it to have maximal GOTV dimensions for it and in other contests.
The DFL might collectively feel more confident in legislating only, leaving Constitutional amendment out of reforms, because legislation can be rewritten, making a stronger case for keeping the DFL trifecta intact into the future to quell rescinding of legislation; whereas Constututional revisionism requires a plebiscite as well as legislative majority. Keeping the issue front burner might be thought politically advantageous over nailing things down tighter via Constitutional proposals, which might always fail in popular voting.
We wait. We see.