It's likely that a constitutional amendment concerning reproductive rights for the people of Nevada will be on the ballot in November. However, it is still uncertain whether the ballot question will cover a wide range of reproductive rights or only the right to access abortion.

A group is challenging a petition to establish protections for reproductive rights in the state constitution, arguing that it does not comply with state requirement to limit voter initiatives to a single subject.

The plaintiff in this case, Donna Washington, who represents the Coalition For Parents and Children, argues that the ballot petition violates Nevada's requirement that petitions address only one subject. They claim that the petition is too broad and essentially contains four petitions within one.

"We're dealing with a broad category that has several subjects: vasectomy, tubal ligation, abortion care, postpartum care, prenatal care, these are all different subjects, and they're all treated differently under 20 different chapters in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS)," said the Coalition for Parents and Children attorney Jason Guinasso. 

The defendant is Nevadans For Reproductive Freedom, who filed the amendment with the Nevada Secretary of State. The amendment aims to establish "a fundamental right to reproductive freedom." 

The first subsection of the Amendment would create a "fundamental right to reproductive freedom." - which includes "all matters relating to pregnancy"-shall not be denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling State interest. This section would expressly apply to "prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, abortion, abortion care, management of a miscarriage, and infertility care."

Carson City District Court Judge James Russell ruled against Nevadans for Reproductive Freedoms' attempt to include the question on the 2024 ballot deeming it too broad for a single ballot question, which violates Nevada law. Russel ruled in favor of the plaintiffs argument that the petition violates the single-subject rule.

"For instance, it is unclear how a vasectomy relates to infertility care or postpartum care. Likewise, it's unclear how postpartum care is related to abortions or birth control. Thus, it's improper to characterize these broad categories as a "single subject" because there is no explanation as to how these provisions are functionally related."

Although the Nevada Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday remained unresolved, Nevadans For Reproductive Rights expressed optimism in response to the Judge's statements.

"I think what we were looking for the court to affirm today, and I think what we'll see in the future is that all of these aspects: birth control, prenatal care, post-natal care, miscarriages, abortion care are all related, and are all under the umbrella of reproductive freedom," Harmon continued, "So, we still don't have a ruling from the court today, but I think what we saw was the broad understanding that this is initial version did in fact fall under one single subject."

In the meantime, Nevadans For Reproductive Freedom is circulating a more narrowed-down petition that relates solely to the protection of abortion rights. 

"The current petition that is circulating is the narrower right to abortion. We have to get these signatures collected by June. We were serious about putting this on the ballot because we recognize how incredibly important it is and how much voters want to take action on it," said Harmon. 

Nevadans For Reproductive Freedom's current narrowed-down petition has 27 thousand signatures, but it requires 103 thousand across Nevada's four congressional districts to make it onto November's ballot.Â