{"id":2784,"date":"2024-11-02T12:22:46","date_gmt":"2024-11-02T16:22:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rhodeisland.concon.info\/?p=2784"},"modified":"2024-11-06T19:39:21","modified_gmt":"2024-11-07T00:39:21","slug":"the-disinformation-campaign-against-a-r-i-constitutional-convention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rhodeisland.concon.info\/?p=2784","title":{"rendered":"The disinformation campaign against a R.I. constitutional convention"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The coalition opposing a constitutional convention has promoted bogus arguments to the public, writes the editor of the Rhode Island State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cno\u201d coalition opposing a Rhode Island constitutional convention \u2014 Question 1 \u2014 has spent more than $182,000 on an ad campaign arguing that the costs and risks of a convention outweigh its potential benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rhode Island most recently held a constitutional convention in 1986, from which two amendments with reproductive rights language were proposed. One was overwhelmingly rejected<\/a> by voters. The other, an effort to clarify civil rights language, passed. Central to the \u201cno\u201d coalition\u2019s advocacy has been a disinformation<\/a> campaign about the amendment voters approved that year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cno\u201d campaign itself began with a broad investment in the claim that a constitutional convention could endanger women\u2019s reproductive rights. When the constitutional convention question was last on the ballot in 2014, as it is every 10 years, the \u201cno\u201d campaign sent a direct mailer<\/a> to registered Rhode Island voters making this argument just days before the election. Subsequently, the argument<\/a> was widely ridiculed<\/a> because Rhode Islanders support <\/a>women\u2019s reproductive rights, including abortion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what if voters could be hoodwinked into voting against their own core interests? That\u2019s essentially what the current \u201cno\u201d campaign argues<\/a> happened in 1986.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That year, the amendment approved by voters included the following clause, which, taken out of context, appears to restrict women\u2019s reproductive rights: \u201cNothing in this section shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What makes this argument so interesting is that the Rhode Island ACLU, a leader of both the 2014 and 2024 \u201cno\u201d coalitions, rebutted this claim in three legal briefs filed from 2019<\/a> to 2021<\/a> against Catholics for Life, an anti-abortion group that in 2019<\/a> brought a lawsuit making essentially the same argument the \u201cno\u201d coalition is now making. That lawsuit sought, unsuccessfully, to block the Reproductive Privacy Act<\/a>, which had been passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly, on the grounds that the 1986 amendment made the legislation unconstitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like the \u201cno\u201d coalition, Catholics for Life argued that this clause restricted women\u2019s reproductive rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The amendment included the following clause that explains its voter support: \u201cNo otherwise qualified person shall, solely by reason of race, gender or handicap be subject to discrimination by the state.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019t be construed that way. As the ACLU successfully argued in its briefs, the General Assembly was free to enhance women\u2019s reproductive rights, and the courts could protect those rights based on any constitutional provision except this new one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, the anti-abortion group interpreted the clause as preventing the General Assembly from proposing any legislation enhancing women\u2019s reproductive rights without first getting a constitutional amendment allowing it to do that. To support its argument, it observed<\/a> that the \u201cno\u201d coalition made such a claim during its campaign against calling a convention in 2014. In response<\/a>, the ACLU argued that the \u201cno\u201d coalition\u2019s 2014 claims to the contrary were in an advocacy context, and should have \u201cno independent weight\u201d with the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I agree with the ACLU\u2019s legal briefs filed in this case critiquing the anti-abortion group\u2019s argument that the clause prevents the General Assembly from protecting and enhancing women\u2019s reproductive rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I also agree with the briefs\u2019 argument that the drafting history of the amendment shows that the convention did not intend to surreptitiously restrict women\u2019s reproductive rights. Further, it wasn\u2019t misleading when the ballot measure did not describe this clause in its ballot summary. That is, unlike the \u201cno\u201d coalition\u2019s current implicit assumption in its advocacy claims, no conspiracy existed to hide the impact of this clause from the convention delegates and the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cno\u201d coalition will undoubtedly find reasons to dispute this analysis. I\u2019d suggest that one<\/a> of the ACLU\u2019s legal briefs includes the best brief rebuttal of such claims: \u201c[The choice clause in 1986] was neither understood nor intended to affirmatively restrict or interfere with the exercise of reproductive rights.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cno\u201d coalition has promoted such bogus arguments to the public because the true reason its supporters oppose an independently elected convention \u2014 to preserve their power over the legislature \u2014 cannot be said publicly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

#<\/p>\n\n\n\n

J.H. Snider is the editor of <\/em>The Rhode Island State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Source: <\/strong>Snider, J.H.,\u00a0The disinformation campaign against a R.I. constitutional convention<\/a>, Boston Globe, Nov. 2, 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proposed Sidebar With Illustrative Quotes<\/span><\/strong> (not included in the published version)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe last time one was held in 1986, the convention ended up proposing two anti-abortion Constitutional Amendments, one of which passed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

–Vimala Phongsavanh, Coalition Chair, RI Citizens for Responsible Government Press Conference<\/a>, July 24, 2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe second anti-abortion amendment \u2013 which ultimately got approved \u2013 was deliberately hidden from the voters.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

–Steve Brown, Executive Director, Rhode Island ACLU, Testimony submitted to the Rhode Island Constitutional Convention Preparatory Commission<\/a>, Aug. 20, 2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFolks voted in 1986 on language that restricted abortion access in this state without knowing it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

–Dawn Euer. Rhode Island Senator and Co-Chair, of the Rhode Island Constitutional Convention Preparatory Commission, NBC10 WJAR<\/a>, Oct. 28, 2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAt Rhode Island\u2019s last constitutional convention in 1986, the convention proposed, and the voters approved, an anti-abortion amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

–RI Citizens for Responsible Government, Home Page<\/a>, Accessed Oct. 29, 2024<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The coalition opposing a constitutional convention has promoted bogus arguments to the public, writes the editor of the Rhode Island State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse The \u201cno\u201d coalition opposing a Rhode Island constitutional convention \u2014 Question 1 \u2014 has spent more than $182,000 on an ad campaign arguing that the costs and risks of a convention […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"off","_et_pb_old_content":"\n

The coalition opposing a constitutional convention has promoted bogus arguments to the public, writes the editor of the Rhode Island State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cno\u201d coalition opposing a Rhode Island constitutional convention \u2014 Question 1 \u2014 has spent more than $182,000 on an ad campaign arguing that the costs and risks of a convention outweigh its potential benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rhode Island most recently held a constitutional convention in 1986, from which two amendments with reproductive rights language were proposed. One was overwhelmingly rejected<\/a> by voters. The other, an effort to clarify civil rights language, passed. Central to the \u201cno\u201d coalition\u2019s advocacy has been a disinformation<\/a> campaign about the amendment voters approved that year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cno\u201d campaign itself began with a broad investment in the claim that a constitutional convention could endanger women\u2019s reproductive rights. When the constitutional convention question was last on the ballot in 2014, as it is every 10 years, the \u201cno\u201d campaign sent a direct mailer<\/a> to registered Rhode Island voters making this argument just days before the election. Subsequently, the argument<\/a> was widely ridiculed<\/a> because Rhode Islanders support <\/a>women\u2019s reproductive rights, including abortion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what if voters could be hoodwinked into voting against their own core interests? That\u2019s essentially what the current \u201cno\u201d campaign argues<\/a> happened in 1986.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That year, the amendment approved by voters included the following clause, which, taken out of context, appears to restrict women\u2019s reproductive rights: \u201cNothing in this section shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What makes this argument so interesting is that the Rhode Island ACLU, a leader of both the 2014 and 2024 \u201cno\u201d coalitions, rebutted this claim in three legal briefs filed from 2019<\/a> to 2021<\/a> against Catholics for Life, an anti-abortion group that in 2019<\/a> brought a lawsuit making essentially the same argument the \u201cno\u201d coalition is now making. That lawsuit sought, unsuccessfully, to block the Reproductive Privacy Act<\/a>, which had been passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly, on the grounds that the 1986 amendment made the legislation unconstitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like the \u201cno\u201d coalition, Catholics for Life argued that this clause restricted women\u2019s reproductive rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The amendment included the following clause that explains its voter support: \u201cNo otherwise qualified person shall, solely by reason of race, gender or handicap be subject to discrimination by the state.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019t be construed that way. As the ACLU successfully argued in its briefs, the General Assembly was free to enhance women\u2019s reproductive rights, and the courts could protect those rights based on any constitutional provision except this new one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, the anti-abortion group interpreted the clause as preventing the General Assembly from proposing any legislation enhancing women\u2019s reproductive rights without first getting a constitutional amendment allowing it to do that. To support its argument, it observed<\/a> that the \u201cno\u201d coalition made such a claim during its campaign against calling a convention in 2014. In response<\/a>, the ACLU argued that the \u201cno\u201d coalition\u2019s 2014 claims to the contrary were in an advocacy context, and should have \u201cno independent weight\u201d with the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I agree with the ACLU\u2019s legal briefs filed in this case critiquing the anti-abortion group\u2019s argument that the clause prevents the General Assembly from protecting and enhancing women\u2019s reproductive rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I also agree with the briefs\u2019 argument that the drafting history of the amendment shows that the convention did not intend to surreptitiously restrict women\u2019s reproductive rights. Further, it wasn\u2019t misleading when the ballot measure did not describe this clause in its ballot summary. That is, unlike the \u201cno\u201d coalition\u2019s current implicit assumption in its advocacy claims, no conspiracy existed to hide the impact of this clause from the convention delegates and the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cno\u201d coalition will undoubtedly find reasons to dispute this analysis. I\u2019d suggest that one<\/a> of the ACLU\u2019s legal briefs includes the best brief rebuttal of such claims: \u201c[The choice clause in 1986] was neither understood nor intended to affirmatively restrict or interfere with the exercise of reproductive rights.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cno\u201d coalition has promoted such bogus arguments to the public because the true reason its supporters oppose an independently elected convention \u2014 to preserve their power over the legislature \u2014 cannot be said publicly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

#<\/p>\n\n\n\n

J.H. Snider is the editor of <\/em>The Rhode Island State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Source: <\/strong>Snider, J.H., The disinformation campaign against a R.I. constitutional convention<\/a>, Boston Globe, Nov. 2, 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Illustrative Quotes<\/u><\/strong> (not included in the published version because commentaries don't publish sidebars)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe last time one was held in 1986, the convention ended up proposing two anti-abortion Constitutional Amendments, one of which passed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

--Vimala Phongsavanh, Coalition Chair, RI Citizens for Responsible Government Press Conference<\/a>, July 24, 2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe second anti-abortion amendment \u2013 which ultimately got approved \u2013 was deliberately hidden from the voters.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

--Steve Brown, Executive Director, Rhode Island ACLU, Testimony submitted to the Rhode Island Constitutional Convention Preparatory Commission<\/a>, Aug. 20, 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFolks voted in 1986 on language that restricted abortion access in this state without knowing it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

--Dawn Euer. Rhode Island Senator and Co-Chair, of the Rhode Island Constitutional Convention Preparatory Commission, NBC10 WJAR<\/a>, Oct. 28, 2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAt Rhode Island\u2019s last constitutional convention in 1986, the convention proposed, and the voters approved, an anti-abortion amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

--RI Citizens for Responsible Government, Home Page<\/a>, Accessed Oct. 29, 2024.<\/p>\n","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rhodeisland.concon.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2784","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rhodeisland.concon.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rhodeisland.concon.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rhodeisland.concon.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rhodeisland.concon.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2784"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/rhodeisland.concon.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2784\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2859,"href":"https:\/\/rhodeisland.concon.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2784\/revisions\/2859"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rhodeisland.concon.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rhodeisland.concon.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rhodeisland.concon.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}