On Monday, Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom launched a $1 million digital ad campaign for Question 6. Its first ad doesn’t explain the amendment. It attacks Governor Joe Lombardo.
The ad says Lombardo celebrated the fall of Roe v. Wade, supported an abortion ban and vetoed a birth control bill. The message is simple: pass Question 6 so politicians like him can’t take away your access.
But Joe Lombardo isn’t what’s on the ballot in Question 6. Your constitution is.
No governor can take it away
The ad’s premise falls apart on one fact. Abortion in Nevada is already protected up to 24 weeks, and no governor can change that.
In 1990, Nevada voters approved that protection by referendum. Under our constitution, a law passed that way can’t be amended or repealed by the Legislature. It can only be changed by another vote of the people.
That means Joe Lombardo can’t ban abortion. Neither can any future governor or legislator. Even the news coverage of this ad concedes the point.
So the ad asks you to fear something Nevada law already prevents. That’s not a reason to vote yes. It’s a reason to ask what Question 6 actually does that the 1990 law doesn’t.
What Lombardo actually said
When reporters asked Lombardo about Question 6 this summer, his campaign didn’t give a yes or no. He said he’d personally prefer a 15-week limit. He also said abortion rights are already codified in state law and should be left to Nevada voters.
You can agree or disagree with his personal view. But “leave it to the voters” is the opposite of what the ad implies. The ad needs him to be a threat, because a threat is easier to sell than the amendment’s text.
Then there’s the birth control veto. Lombardo did veto a contraception bill in 2023. What the ad leaves out is what happened next. In 2025, the Legislature passed a nearly identical bill, AB176, the Right to Contraception Act, without a single no vote.
Lombardo signed it into law, and it is in effect today.
The ad attacks a governor for blocking birth control protections that he signed. And Question 6 says nothing about contraception anyway.
What the ad leaves out
A million dollars buys a lot of airtime. None of it is spent explaining what Question 6 would put in the constitution. Here is what the text says:
- “Qualified health care practitioner,” not physician. Current Nevada law requires a licensed physician. The amendment uses a broader term, not defined in the admendment itself.
- The practitioner decides viability. The amendment defines viability as the point when, in the treating practitioner’s professional judgment, the fetus is likely to survive. Today that line sits in statute at 24 weeks, except in cases of emergency.
- “Without interference from the state.” Any regulation must meet a compelling state interest, limited to the patient’s health, achieved by the least restrictive means. That is the strictest test in law.
- Existing safeguards go to court. After Michigan passed a similar amendment, a judge struck down its 24-hour waiting period, its informed consent rules and its ban on non-physicians performing abortions. In Ohio, courts blocked the waiting period and limits on prescribing abortion pills by telemedicine. Nevada’s safeguards would face the same challenges.
Those are the questions voters deserve answers to. The ad doesn’t touch them.
Read our prior coverage:
Vote on the text, not the target
Governor Lombardo is in a race for re-election against Attorney General Aaron Ford. Tying Question 6 to that race is a political distraction to a nonpartisan issue. While governors may come and go every four years, a constitutional amendment stays, and fixing it takes two more statewide votes.
Nevadans already settled this in 1990, and that law still stands.
Before you vote on November 3, read what Question 6 actually says.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. This article was written with the assistance of AI.
