Las Vegas archbishop urges Catholics to reject abortion measure

From the pulpit on Sunday, the Archdiocese of Las Vegas encouraged Catholics across five counties to vote no on ballot Question 6, which would make abortion — already legal in Nevada — a constitutional right.

The question would expand existing abortion rights to facilitate late-term abortions, ratify removal of parental notification for minors, and remove the requirement that a licensed physician perform an abortion, Archbishop George Leo Thomas wrote in a pastoral letter read during Mass at churches across the archdiocese’s 34 parishes.

“This question is not whether abortion is legal in Nevada; it already is under a law approved by Nevada voters in 1990. The Legislature cannot amend or repeal that law; only a direct vote of the people can do so,” Thomas wrote in the letter, posted Sunday to the Facebook page of the archdiocese.

“This question is whether Nevada voters should expand the right to abortion in ways that can harm the health, safety, and welfare of women and minors. Moreover, this measure will have grave and lasting consequences for vulnerable unborn lives.”

Denise Lopez, president of political action committee Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, responded with a statement Monday in which she wrote, “Anti-abortion groups and politicians are hellbent on coming after Nevadans’ reproductive freedom. Our opponents are resorting to fear-mongering and lies because they know their agenda is deeply unpopular.”

The PAC, an advocacy coalition, is leading the effort to pass Question 6.

“It’s critical we pass Question 6 to enshrine protections for abortion in our state constitution and make sure that private medical decisions remain where they belong – between patients and their doctors, not the government,” Lopez wrote.

The Nevada Catholic Conference, which includes the Diocese of Reno, opposes the measure.

In the past, the archdiocese and Nevada Catholic Conference have issued a letter or statement when a proposed law intersects with a moral issue. In 2021, they opposed legislation that would have permitted physician-assisted suicide. That measure failed.

Nonprofits such as the archdiocese, exempt from federal income tax and eligible to receive tax-deductible donations, can legally lobby on political issues but not for specific political candidates.

Likewise, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has read from the pulpit a letter opposing Question 6, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. A church spokesman declined to comment on the letter, referring the Las Vegas Review-Journal to a church website stating its opposition to elective abortion, with some exceptions.

A no vote on Question 6 “would keep the Nevada Constitution in its current form and would not impact the availability of abortion as a statutory right under Nevada law,” states a new ballot question guide issued by Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, head of the state office that oversees elections.

Changing the existing state law would require one majority vote of the people, while changing the constitution would require two such votes.

Question 6, approved once by Nevada voters in 2024 by a wide margin, requires a second affirmative vote in November before it could be added as an amendment to the state’s constitution.

Almost two-thirds of voters – 64.4 percent – approved the ballot measure in 2024.

About 750,000 people are registered with parishes in the archdiocese, which includes the counties of Clark, Nye, Lincoln, White Pine and Esmeralda.

Twenty-one percent of adults in Nevada identify as Catholic, the largest religious affiliation in the state, according to 2023-2024 figures from the Pew Research Group.

Abortion time frame

Thomas wrote about the ballot question, “It dangerously expands abortion rights. Abortion, already legal in Nevada up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, would potentially be permitted to the ninth month of pregnancy.”

The official rebuttal to arguments against passage, found in the secretary of state’s guide, states, “Women and doctors do not decide on an abortion later in pregnancy unless there is a serious reason, like a risk to her life or pregnancy.”

The rebuttal was authored by the ballot question committee of Lopez, Lindsey Harmon and Bradley Schrager — all affiliated with Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom.

Existing Nevada law allows abortion without restriction up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. It also permits abortion after the six-month time frame “only if the physician has reasonable cause to believe that an abortion currently is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”

The language of the proposed constitutional amendment does not specify how many weeks into a pregnancy an abortion is permitted without restriction.

“Question 6 has no bright-line rule saying when abortion is legal,” states the official argument against passage. “Is it always legal at 4 months? 6 months? 9 months? Our current law is clear. Question 6 is not.”

The argument against passage was authored by the ballot question committee of attorneys Emily Mimnaugh and Jason Guinasso. Mimnaugh established the Nevada office of the Pacific Justice Institute, a nonprofit focused on defending religious freedom and parental rights.

The proposed amendment to the constitution states, “All individuals shall have a fundamental right to abortion performed or administered by a qualified health care practitioner until fetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient, without interference from the state or its political subdivisions.”

It continues, “’Fetal viability’ means the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the patient’s treating health care practitioner, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.”

Parental notification

The archbishop’s letter states that the constitutional amendment “ratifies removal of parental notification and family involvement from abortion decisions made by minor children.”

It continues, “Parental consent is required to give a student Tylenol; this initiative would allow a minor to obtain an abortion without a parent even knowing.”

Thomas said in an interview, “I think that right now, part of the strategy for those who are proffering this position is to keep the public in the dark. I think that the whole thing around parental involvement would be a very huge issue for a vast majority of families, and so there’s very little being said or written about it.”

The ballot committee’s rebuttal to arguments against passage states that the amendment “does nothing to change parental rights in Nevada, because we all want young people to get the support they need from those who love them when making decisions.”

It continues, “All this amendment does is ensure families – not politicians – are in charge of their own health care decisions and can make the right choice for their unique situations without government getting in the way.”

The issue of parental notification is playing out in court.

In May, the Nevada Supreme Court temporarily blocked a law requiring parents to be notified when minors seek an abortion, ruling that the measure is too vague to enforce.

Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, which operates in California and Nevada, and an unnamed Nevada physician are challenging the law in state court. The Supreme Court decision blocked enforcement of the law as the case moves forward.

The parental-notification law had gone unenforced for decades but took effect in July 2025. A federal judge ruled that after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, there was no longer a legal basis to keep the 1985 law from taking effect.

Replaces licensed physician requirement

Thomas’ letter states that Question 6 would “replace the ‘licensed physician’ requirement for abortion with ‘health care practitioner,’ a term that could include nurses, dentists, opticians and medical laboratory technicians … and severely threatens the State’s ability to regulate abortion clinics for basic health, safety, and sanitary conditions.”

The official rebuttal states, “When families are making difficult, personal medical decisions, one-size-fits all laws don’t work. As bans across the country are already putting lives at risk, this amendment adds a permanent layer of protection for abortion rights in Nevada so that no matter who holds office in our state, these extreme bans cannot become law here.”

Thomas states in his letter, “Unborn children have no voice and cannot defend themselves. As Catholics, our faith requires us to protect the inherent dignity of every human life and to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.”

The Nevada Independent reported in July that Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom had raised $815,000 in the first half of the year for its campaign in support of the measure, with six-figure checks from Planned Parenthood Advocates Mar Monte, a prominent Bay Area Democratic donor and a group founded by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

Opposition to the question had raised $11,700 from two PACs, $10,000 of which came from a couple in Carson City.

Thomas said, “It’s all uphill for us.”