The conflict over restrictions on abortion and gender-affirming care for minors that embroiled the 2023 session of Legislature has, not surprisingly, moved to the courts. And for good reason.
The legal challenge, however, isn’t about the constitutionality of either of the restrictions. Rather it asserts that the bill, LB574, violates Article III, section 14 of the Nebraska State Constitution, which states: “No bill shall contain more than one subject, and the subject shall be clearly expressed in its title.”
In its lawsuit, the ACLU of Nebraska argues that in amending the abortion restrictions that were originally in another measure (LB626) into LB574, which prohibited transgender youths from seeking gender-affirming surgeries, the Legislature violated the single subject provision and, as amended, LB574’s title, “Let Them Grow Act,” does not express its subject.
People are also reading…
That constitutional challenge was made on the legislative floor. But those concerns were rejected by the conservative majority, who argued that both measures deal with health care and the title could apply to both.
The decision will be made by the courts. But it appears that LB574 violates the letter and intent of the constitutional provision, established in 1875, that is intended to promote transparency and accountability for senators.
By requiring that bills address a single subject, Nebraskans would know what their representatives were voting on and, at the same time, the representatives would be held accountable for their position on that specific issue rather than muddling the vote with multiple issues.
“The amendment logrolled two distinct and unrelated subjects into one combined bill, forcing lawmakers into an all-or-nothing bargain to either vote for or against both proposals simultaneously,” the lawsuit states.
And, in plain English, the “Let Them Grow Act” and the “Preborn Child Protection Act,” the abortion bill’s title, are not close to synonymous.
But, to push through abortion restrictions that had previously been rejected by a filibuster, senators chose to ignore the title issue, combine the two very different subjects and, thereby, trigger the lawsuit that will have the measure in court for months.
The Nebraska Supreme Court has often been reluctant to overturn legislative actions.
Allowing LB574 as amended to become law would set a perilous precedent that would open the door for even more egregious combinations of subjects into a single bill by a legislative majority putting its agenda over the intent of clarity and accountability. If legislation is good enough to stand, it should be good enough to stand alone.