CHICAGO: Stung by a series of defeats, anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies in state governments are using a variety of strategies to combat proposed anti-abortion legislation. Ballot initiatives Intent to protect Reproductive rights Or voters could be prevented from having their say in upcoming elections.

These strategies include efforts to remove signatures from initiative petitions, legislative pressure, etc. Competing ballot measures That could confuse voters and cause months of delays because of lawsuits over ballot language. Abortion rights Advocates say many of the strategies are based on those tested last year in Ohio, where voters ultimately passed a proposition. constitutional amendment Affirming reproductive rights.

These strategies are being used in one form or another in at least seven states where initiatives aimed at codifying abortion and reproductive rights have been proposed for the November ballot. Fights over planned statewide ballot initiatives are the latest sign of the deep divisions created by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision two years ago to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion.

Last week, the court issued a decision in another major abortion case, unanimously upholding access to the drug used in most abortions in the U.S., though battles over mifepristone still rage in several states.

The stakes are high for both sides of the proposed ballot initiative.

Where Republicans control the legislature and impose tight restrictions on abortion, statewide citizen initiatives are often the only way to protect access to abortion and other reproductive rights. Voters have either ensured abortion rights or defeated efforts to restrict it in all seven states where the question is on the ballot in 2022.

In South Dakota, lawmakers passed a bill allowing residents to withdraw their signatures on citizen-led petitions. This launched a massive effort by anti-abortion groups to invalidate a proposed ballot measure for abortion rights by encouraging supporters to withdraw signatures.

In May, South Dakota’s secretary of state described as a “scam” hundreds of phone calls from an anti-abortion group that the office accused of “impersonating” government officials.

“These calls appear to be an attempt to pressure voters to remove their names from abortion rights petitions,” the office said in a statement.

Adam Weiland, co-founder of Dakotans for Health, the organization behind the proposed measure, said it’s part of “a well-planned, organized effort across the states.”

“People want to vote on this issue, and they don’t want that to happen,” he said of anti-abortion groups. “They’re doing everything they can to prevent a vote on this issue.”

The “refuse to sign” campaign in Arkansas gained momentum this month when a conservative advocacy group published the names of paid campaigners for an abortion rights ballot measure effort. The group behind the ballot measure effort, Arkansas for Limited Government, condemned the move as an intimidation tactic.

In Missouri, Republicans and anti-abortion groups have opposed efforts to restore abortion rights through a constitutional amendment at every step.

Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey spent months last year stymied the abortion-rights campaign. Then Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a Republican, tried to describe the proposal to voters as allowing “dangerous and unregulated abortions until live birth.” A state appeals court ruled last year that Ashcroft’s wording was politically partisan and struck it down.

But Ashcroft’s actions and the legal battle that followed cost the abortion rights campaign several months of money, preventing its supporters from raising thousands of dollars. Voter signature It was necessary to place the amendment on the ballot.

Once the legal battle was settled, abortion opponents launched a “refuse to sign” campaign aimed at thwarting the abortion-rights campaign’s signature-collection efforts. At one point, messages were sent to voters falsely alleging that the petitioners were trying to steal people’s personal data.

Republican lawmakers sought to advance another ballot measure to raise the threshold for amending the Missouri Constitution, partly in the hope that it would make it harder to enact an abortion-rights proposal.

Both anti-abortion efforts failed, and an abortion-rights campaign in May turned in more than double the number of voter signatures needed. It’s now up to Ashcroft’s office to verify the signatures and qualify it for the ballot.

Meanwhile, opposition groups in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Nebraska have tried to create their own ballot amendments to codify existing abortion restrictions, though these efforts failed to gather enough signatures in Florida and Colorado.

Jesse Hill, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland who served as an adviser on the Issue 1 campaign that codified abortion rights in Ohio, said he warned about the potential for competing ballot measures to confuse voters.

Though the efforts to keep abortion off the ballot are similar to a plan seen in Ohio last year, Hill said she is closely watching new efforts taking place across the country.

“The anti-abortion side is still trying to figure out what the formula is to defeat these ballot measures,” Hill said.

A strategy document leaked last month shows that Arizona Republicans are considering several competing measures to incorporate abortion restrictions into the state constitution. Possible petition names include the “Protecting Pregnant Women and Safe Abortion Act,” the “Arizona Abortion and Reproductive Care Act,” or the “Arizona Abortion Protection Act.”

The document lays out how alternative measures could undermine the reproductive rights groups’ proposal, which aims to codify abortion rights between 23 and 24 weeks of pregnancy.

“This leaked document reveals a plan to confuse voters through one or multiple competing ballot measures with similar titles,” said Cheryl Bruce, campaign manager for Arizona for Abortion Access.

In Nebraska, anti-abortion groups are protesting a planned ballot initiative to protect reproductive rights with two of their own groups.

Ellie Berry, campaign manager for the Nebraska Protect Our Rights campaign to protect reproductive rights, said the competing measures are designed to deceive and confuse voters. She said the campaign is working to educate voters about the differences between each initiative.

“If you’re going to have to resort to deception and confusion, that shows they know the majority of Nebraskans want to protect abortion rights,” he said.

An initiative launched by anti-abortion activists in May aims to ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy. The petition, called “Choose Life Now,” would grant “personhood” to fetuses.

Another bill introduced in March wouldn’t go that far, but instead would seek to enshrine the state’s existing 12-week abortion ban into the state constitution, and give lawmakers the ability to pass even greater restrictions in the future.

The petition, titled ‘Protect Women and Children,’ is backed by national anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and others in the state.

Sandy Danek, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, called the petition “a reasonable alternative measure.” She said the organization will aim to further restrict abortion “as time goes on and we continue to educate.”

“I see this as a gradual process that we’ve been working on for 50 years,” she said.

Associated Press writer Summer Ballantyne in Jefferson City, Missouri, contributed to this report.

The Associated Press receives support from a number of private entities to improve its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. Find out more about AP’s Democracy Initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.