The Church Told Idaho and Nevada Mormons to Oppose Two Abortion Ballot Measures. Here Is What the Prophets Have Said, and What the Data Shows.

What happened: two letters, two Sundays, 1,639 congregations

Mormons in Idaho heard it first. On Wednesday, September 16, the U.S. Central Area Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent a letter to stake presidencies and bishoprics across the state’s 1,300 congregations. It named the Idaho Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, Proposition 1 on the November 3 ballot, and said plainly: “The Church opposes this initiative.” It added that “Our long-held stance on abortion remains clear and unchanged.” The letter was signed by Elders José A. Teixeira, Ricardo P. Giménez, Karl Hirst, and James Fantone, and church spokesman Brett Crandall confirmed its authenticity to East Idaho News. Verified

A near-identical letter went to Nevada’s 339 congregations from the U.S. Southwest Area Presidency, signed by Elders Michael A. Dunn, Joaquin E. Costa, and Pedro X. Larreal, opposing Question 6, the Right to Abortion initiative. The Deseret News confirmed that letter’s authenticity. Both letters were to be read from the pulpit in sacrament meeting on the last two Sundays of September. Verified

The letters also restated the Church’s frame for entering a ballot fight at all: the Church is “neutral regarding political parties and candidates and addresses issues it believes have significant moral consequences.” That sentence is doing real work, and we come back to it below. Verified

The Church was not first. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Boise, the Most Reverend Peter F. Christensen, sent a letter in July calling Proposition 1 “radically pro-abortion,” and Idaho parishes have held Friday prayer and fasting for months. The Nevada Catholic Conference is campaigning against Question 6. In both states, the Latter-day Saint letters explicitly join “other like-minded individuals and organizations.” Verified

What the Church teaches, in its own words

The governing text is General Handbook section 38.6.1, revised most recently in December 2025. It reads, in the relevant part: Verified

The same section governs discipline. A membership council “may be necessary” for a member who submits to, performs, arranges for, pays for, consents to, or encourages an abortion. But it also says councils and restrictions “should not be considered” for members involved in an abortion for any of the three listed reasons, or before baptism. And it closes with a promise: a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion. Verified

One textual change is worth a flag. The 2020 through 2022 Handbook text listed the first exception as “forcible rape or incest.” The December 2025 text, as published by the Church and reported by the Deseret News, reads “rape or incest.” We have not yet confirmed whether the word was dropped in the December revision or earlier. Data Gap

The third exception is narrower than it is often read. It covers defects that “will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth,” which excludes the most common reason for anomaly-based abortion in the developed world. Roughly two-thirds of U.S. pregnancies with a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis end in abortion; in England and Wales, 3,075 abortions in 2023 were performed under the disability ground. The Church’s text permits none of those. It also sits on top of a diagnostic system that is less certain than its labels: a 2022 New York Times analysis found that positive results on noninvasive prenatal screens for five rare disorders were wrong about 85% of the time, and trisomy 18, routinely called “lethal,” has documented survival into the second decade with treatment. A “competent physician” finding that a child cannot survive is a high bar, and the Handbook sets it there deliberately. Verified

From “has not favored or opposed” to opposing two initiatives: the 2021 to 2026 shift

Here is the part of the story that critics will lead with, so we will lead with it too.

When Elder Andersen gave his April 2021 address, he footnoted the Church’s official Newsroom statement on abortion. That statement then ended with this sentence: “The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.” Verified

That sentence no longer appears. The current Newsroom statement ends instead: “The Church’s position on this matter remains unchanged. As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.” The change came in June 2022, the month the U.S. Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and returned abortion law to the states. Verified

The moral position was constant throughout; the willingness to enter legislative fights was not. Verified

In October 2024, with abortion measures on ballots in nine states, the Church reissued that language in a statement on political neutrality, but did not oppose any specific measure. In September 2026 it did, twice, by name, from the pulpit. Verified

What changed? The Church has not said, beyond the letters’ own rationale: it addresses “issues it believes have significant moral consequences.” Two mechanisms are visible in the record without attributing motive. First, before Dobbs, state ballot measures could not change abortion law much; after it, they decide it. A policy of not favoring legislative proposals cost nothing when the proposals were symbolic. Second, the Church has intervened on ballot measures before when it judged the moral stakes high, most visibly on California’s Proposition 8 in 2008. What is new in 2026 is the subject. Abortion, for decades, was the issue on which the Church stated a moral position and stayed out of the legislative fight. That has now ended in at least two states. Documented

Is that consistent with the Church’s political neutrality policy? By the policy’s own terms, yes. The policy has always covered parties and candidates, not moral issues, and the letters say so. Whether it is consistent with the spirit of the 2021 statement is a fair question that members are asking, and the Church has not answered it beyond “unchanged.” We asked Church Public Affairs; see the note at the end. Public Claim

What the data shows

When does life begin?

Medically, at fertilization. This is not a contested claim in embryology; it is the first page. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, the standard text in medical schools for four decades, opens: “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote,” and calls the zygote “the beginning of a new human being.” Sadler’s Langman’s Medical Embryology says the same. In April 1981 a U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee took testimony from geneticists and embryologists on the question, with more than twenty textbooks cited and no scientific witness dissenting. And a 2021 survey of 5,577 biologists from 1,058 institutions, most of whom identified as pro-choice, found 96% agreed that a human’s life begins at fertilization; that study’s roughly 10% response rate and its publication in a pro-life-affiliated journal are fair objections to its precision, not to the textbooks. Verified Documented

The honest counter is that biology answers when a human organism begins, not when a person with moral standing does, and no embryologist can settle the second question. That is correct, and the Church does not claim otherwise; its position rests on revelation about “spirit daughters and sons of God,” not on a textbook. What the biology does settle is the vocabulary. The thing the measures permit ending before viability is a living human organism, and the debate is about whether and when the law owes it protection. That is where viability, and the pain evidence below, come in. Verified

How many abortions happen late, and how late

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes the most detailed gestational-age data. For 2022, the latest year: 92.8% of abortions were at or before 13 weeks; 6.1% at 14 to 20 weeks; and 1.1% at 21 weeks or later. The share at 21 weeks or later has held between 0.9% and 1.5% for thirty years. Verified

Two caveats travel with that chart. The CDC counts are voluntary, and California, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New Jersey report nothing. And 1.1% of a large number is not a small number: applied to the roughly 1.1 million abortions counted nationally by the Guttmacher Institute in 2025, it implies on the order of 12,000 abortions a year at 21 weeks or later. That figure is modeled, not counted. The CDC does not separately report abortions at 28 weeks or later, so the third trimester is a statistical blank. Modeled Data Gap

Nor is the share a product of American law. It held between 0.9% and 1.5% for thirty years under Roe, when abortion to viability was legal everywhere and post-viability abortion for “health” was constitutionally protected; it was 0.9% in 2021, the last full year before Dobbs. Canada has had no abortion law of any kind since 1988, and by either of the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s two measures its later-abortion share is about one percent: the published hospital gestational-age series averaged about 600 abortions past 20 weeks a year from 2007 to 2020, and a 2023–24 hospital tabulation counts 1,315 terminations at 20 weeks or later (1,192 stillbirths and 123 live births, Quebec excluded) against a national total of 102,705, or roughly 1.3% with mismatched denominators. Clinic reporting there is voluntary, and clinics stop at 21 to 23 weeks. England and Wales, where abortion is free through the National Health Service and legal to 24 weeks on a health ground that covers 98% of cases, record 0.1% at 24 weeks or later. The later-abortion share, in other words, is set by when women discover a pregnancy and how long they take to decide and reach a provider, which is what the Turnaway Study found, not by statute. Law moves it at the margin: bans that force travel push some abortions later, the likeliest reason the U.S. figure rose from 0.9% to 1.1% after Dobbs, and the third trimester is supply-limited everywhere, with a handful of U.S. providers and five-figure costs. Neither ballot measure creates providers. Verified

Why later abortions happen

This is where the most common defense of the measures, that abortions after 20 weeks are almost all for catastrophic diagnoses, meets the record. The record is not on its side.

The largest U.S. study of women seeking abortion at 20 weeks or later is the Turnaway Study at the University of California, San Francisco, led by Diana Greene Foster. In a 2013 paper with Katrina Kimport, Foster wrote that the data suggest most women seeking later terminations are not doing so because of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The reasons the study identified were late discovery of pregnancy, conflict with the man involved, financial constraints, and delays in reaching a provider. Verified

In 2019, after pro-life advocates began citing the sentence, the authors issued a corrigendum narrowing it: the finding applies to abortions from 20 weeks through the end of the second trimester and, in their words, has no relevance to abortions in the third trimester. That is a legitimate limit, and we honor it. But note what it concedes: from 20 to 27 weeks, when nearly all of the 1.1% occur, the study’s own authors say most are not for medical reasons. Verified

Asked by the Congressional Research Service how often later abortions are for medical reasons, Foster answered that good data do not exist, and that in her judgment fetal anomaly cases make up a small minority of later abortions, with life endangerment harder still to count. Verified

Verdict.The claim that later abortions are almost all for fetal anomaly or maternal life is contradicted by the record for 20 to 27 weeks, and unmeasured for the third trimester. Anyone who says third-trimester abortions are “almost always” tragic medical cases is asserting something no dataset supports. So is anyone who says the opposite. Contradicted by Record Data Gap

Can the unborn feel pain, and when?

Here the honest stamp is “contested,” but the center of the debate has moved, and it has moved earlier.

The institutional position: ACOG holds that fetal pain is not structurally possible before 24 to 25 weeks and that a fetus cannot be conscious of pain until the third trimester at the earliest. RCOG’s December 2022 evidence review concludes that pain perception before 28 weeks is unlikely, and that a measurable difference between facial responses to painful and harmless stimulation first appears at about 33 weeks. Verified

The counter-evidence comes from an unlikely source. Stuart Derbyshire was a principal author of RCOG’s 2010 report, which held that pain was not structurally possible before 24 weeks. In 2020, writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics with a pro-life co-author, John Bockmann, Derbyshire reversed himself. Their conclusion: the neuroscience cannot definitively rule out fetal pain before 24 weeks, and a balanced reading points toward an immediate, unreflective pain experience from as early as 12 weeks, mediated by thalamic connections into the cortical subplate. They argued that women considering abortion after that point should be told so. Verified

The strongest practical argument against the 28-week line comes not from ethicists but from neonatal intensive care. The American Academy of Pediatrics uses validated pain-assessment scales, and treats pain, in extremely preterm infants born before 28 weeks and as early as 23. The same nervous system, one day earlier and inside the womb, is presumed by RCOG not to feel. A 2023 critique in the European Journal of Pain made exactly that point: if the 28-week threshold were right, no infant born before it would need analgesia, which contradicts current neonatal practice. Verified

Two more facts from the delivery room. First, viability is now a hospital policy as much as a biological line. A Vermont Oxford Network analysis of nearly 60,000 U.S. births at 22 to 25 weeks, about 86% of all such births, found that between 2014 and 2023 active treatment of 22-week infants rose from 28.8% to 78.6%, and survival rose with it, from 25.7% to 41.0%; at 23 weeks survival reached 57.9%. Both ballot measures draw their line at “viability” and leave the clinician to say where it is. Second, fetal surgeons anesthetize the fetus. Since the 1990s, research has documented a measurable stress-hormone response to needling in utero from about 18 to 20 weeks, and direct fetal opioid analgesia blunts it, which is why it is standard in fetal surgery. The same hospitals that say the unborn cannot feel pain before 24 weeks medicate them for it before an operation. Verified

Verdict.The professional-body consensus remains at 24 weeks or later. But the consensus’s own architect has moved to 12, the neonatal evidence is inconsistent with 28, and the trend of the research since 2010 runs in one direction. This is contested, and the direction of the contest matters. Contested

How rare is a life-saving abortion?

Most U.S. states do not ask why. Two jurisdictions that do give the clearest picture available, and they agree.

Florida requires a reason on every abortion report. In 2023, the last full year before its six-week law, the state recorded 84,052 abortions: 71% “elective,” 23% for social or economic reasons, 3% for the mother’s emotional or psychological health, 2% for her physical health, 0.3% (251 cases) for a risk to her life, 0.2% for a fatal fetal abnormality, and 0.1% (107 cases) for rape, with 11 for incest. England and Wales, which certify every abortion under a legal ground, recorded 277,970 in 2023; 98% were under Ground C, risk to physical or mental health, and the grounds for saving the woman’s life or preventing grave permanent injury together accounted for fewer than one in a thousand. Guttmacher’s own reasons study, from 2005, found the woman’s physical health was the most important reason for about 4% of abortions and fetal health for about 3%. Verified

The strictest natural experiment is Florida after May 2024. In the first eight months of 2025, under a six-week limit with exceptions for the mother’s life and for fatal anomalies, the state recorded 29,455 abortions, 196 of them in the second trimester and one in the third; 126 of the second-trimester cases were fatal fetal anomalies. Later abortion did not move to the exceptions. It nearly disappeared. Verified

Nor did the predicted wave of maternal deaths arrive. Nationally, the National Center for Health Statistics counted 817 maternal deaths in 2022, 669 in 2023, and 649 in 2024, a rate falling from 22.3 to 17.9 per 100,000 live births. The most rigorous state-level test to date, a synthetic-control cohort study of 12,993 pregnancy-associated deaths across the 14 ban states and 37 comparison states from 2018 through 2023, found that bans were not associated with any significant increase in pregnancy-associated, pregnancy-related, or maternal mortality, overall or in any single state. The study was funded by the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, and its authors expected the opposite. In the first post-ban year, the forecast increases in maternal deaths have not appeared. Verified

Two limits travel with that. The national decline is mostly the COVID-19 spike of 2021 receding, and ban states ran higher than other states before Dobbs and still do; the same cohort study reports that pregnancy-associated mortality fell 9.8% in non-ban states but only 2.4% in ban states other than Texas, with a non-significant rise among Black women in those states, and its authors caution that a short window and wide confidence intervals make the null result an early estimate, not proof of no effect. A ProPublica analysis of Texas hospital data found a 33% rise in maternal deaths from 2019 to 2023 while the nation fell 7.5%. So the record supports “bans did not increase deaths.” It does not support “bans reduced them,” and we do not say so. The leading causes of maternal death, cardiovascular disease, hemorrhage, infection, and mental-health conditions, are ones the CDC calls mostly preventable through prenatal and postpartum care; abortion is not the treatment for any of them. Contested on Texas and on state trends

Verdict.Where the reason is recorded, abortion to save the mother’s life is between one in three hundred and one in a thousand, and abortion for a fatal fetal anomaly rarer still. The exceptions are real, and they are a rounding error in the total. Verified

Is abortion ever necessary to save the mother’s life?

Yes. A pro-life argument that says otherwise loses, and it should. ACOG’s position is blunt: “Without question, abortion can be medically necessary.” Physicians point to severe preeclampsia developing in the third trimester with a nonviable fetus, previable rupture of membranes with infection, sepsis, twin-to-twin transfusion, and certain cancers. And the Church’s own Handbook names “serious jeopardy” to the mother’s life or health as an exception. No Latter-day Saint argument can be more restrictive than the prophets. Verified

What the pro-life medical community actually disputes is definitional, not clinical. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) accepts every intervention above but distinguishes between separating mother and child to save the mother, even when the child cannot survive, and an induced abortion whose object is that the child not survive. Its chief executive, Dr. Christina Francis, puts it this way: in early delivery for preeclampsia “the purpose is to save the mother’s life, not to end the baby’s.” RCOG’s spokesman answers that premature delivery “is not a safe alternative to an abortion” in every case. Both are describing real medicine. The disagreement is about what to call it and, after viability, whether the child gets a chance. Verified

Where the post-Dobbs record bites is not on whether life-saving care is permitted, since every ban permits it, but on whether physicians will act before a woman is sick enough to prove it. The Texas sepsis finding is the number to reckon with. Documented

Verdict. Abortion, or what AAPLOG calls separation, is sometimes necessary to save a mother. Every ban and every Latter-day Saint exception already says so. The live question is the breadth and administrability of the health standard, which is exactly what both ballot measures hand to the treating clinician. Verified

Where the data lands

Set the slogans aside and five findings remain standing.

On the moral question, the Church has answered. Its answer is not the absolutist one its critics describe, nor the permissive one that “health” can become. It is a narrow middle, written down, with exceptions the prophets themselves drew: rape, incest, serious jeopardy to the mother, a child who cannot live. It protects the unborn as a rule and the mother as an exception, and it asks members to take both seriously enough to pray. On the evidence above, that position is more consistent with what the data shows about who has later abortions, and why, and what those children may feel, than either alternative on the ballot.

Frequently asked questions