Why We Oppose Question 6 (2026)

Law Protects the Vulnerable

By Samuel Castor, Esq.

1. The Principle Behind Lex Tecnica

Lex Tecnica was founded on a simple truth:

All liability, misery, and sorrow in the world comes from one lie: when people are reduced to objects, products, money, or means to an end.

The opposite is also true: When we honor people as humans, we create light.

That is why we as a law firm:

• Fight for children with disabilities (IEPDefenders.org)

• Support adoption and child protection (EverHomeAdoptions.org)

• Hold governments and corporations accountable when their mission drifts from serving people to exploiting them (LexTecnica.com)

Question 6 violates this principle of honoring others as humans. The official language of Question 6 is this:

"Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to create an individual’s fundamental right to an abortion, without interference by state or local governments, whenever the abortion is performed by a qualified healthcare professional until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the health or life of the pregnant individual at any point during the pregnancy?"

At first read, this makes sense. We should protect women's rights. Fetal viability has been the standard for years, since Roe v. Wade. And abortion to protect the health or life of the pregnant individual makes sense, sounds reasonable, and thoughtful. (Although it's weird they don't say mother).

There there are some serious legal landmines in this language.

In other words - Question 6 tells the government: You may not protect women, girls, or babies.

Nevada’s Question 6 this November 2026, is being marketed as a constitutional amendment necessary to protect women’s rights. But beneath the slogans, lies a far more dangerous reality: Question 6 would make it legally impossible for Nevada to regulate abortion - at all. It would outlaw any type of regulation - period - from medical standards of care, to safety protocols, and accountability. And it will hurt women and children.

Nevada already has some of the strongest abortions laws in the United States that allow abortions up 24 weeks. Nevada is awesome at balancing freedom and safety. But Question 6 threatens to upend this carefully crafted law.

This is not a “pro-choice” or “pro-life" debate.

It is a debate about ensuring people do not become products.

This is about whether the government is allowed to protect women, children, and the vulnerable from exploitation, harm, and commodification.

And it's about money.

By preventing government's ability to protect, and empowering "qualified healthcare professional" abortions can be done by anyone with a healthcare license. And that is wild. Nevada law (NRS 629.031) is very broad. It defines health care providers as anything from a doctor to a counselor, social worker, music therapists, school nurses, even an athletic trainer!

This initiative empowers pretty much ANYONE to be abortion providers - at school, at the track meet, in the gym, etc.

This initiative isn't about protecting abortion rights. This initiative is simply PRO-ABORTION.

This is why our law firm is firmly AGAINST Question 6 because our work with IEPDefenders.com and EverHomeAdoptions.com is committed to protect children and the vulnerable. But Question 6 removes the State’s ability to set any meaningful standard of care, and history– recent and well-documented– shows us exactly what happens when medicine operates without enforceable standards.

2. Eliminating Regulation Means Eliminating Warnings and Standards of Care

Medicine without regulation is not healthcare - it is commerce. People are not products.

But that is how abortions clinics see babies. Things to sell, not souls to cherish. Across the United States, there is extensive evidence that abortion clinics operating with minimal oversight have exposed women to serious injury, infection, infertility, and death.

For example:

• Unsafe and unsanitary conditions documented at abortion facilities, including Planned Parenthood clinics, in multiple states: Click here for U.S. House Oversight Committee findings (2015–2016) condemning Planned Parenthood.

  
  

• Failure to meet basic medical standards, including lack of emergency equipment, expired medications, and untrained staff: Click here for Texas Health and Human Services inspection reports (2013–2015).

  
  

• Increased risk of complications, including hemorrhage, infection, and incomplete abortion requiring emergency care National Library of Medicine – abortion complication studies found that 73 million abortions occur annually and when there is no standard of care death of the mother is more likely.

  
  

• When a constitutional amendment forbids any form of protection, there is no standard of care—only whatever a provider decides is profitable or expedient.

That should alarm everyone who cares about women’s health. Without regulations and medical guidelines designed to protect women, women will be viewed as products, not patients.

Additionally, if Question 6 passes, warnings about the risks of abortion or abortive pills could not be regulated. Like how cigarettes have warnings that say "WARNING: THIS PRODUCT CAUSES CANCER" similarly dangerous products like the abortion pill, could not be required to have warning labels, or even proper use labels. The abortion pill, which allows women to abort babies by taking two pills, effectively causes pregnant mothers to deliver the aborted baby at home - in their own bathroom - where they themselves have to clean up the blood and body of their aborted child. And they alone (not a doctor, not a hospital, or even their parents or friends) monitor their own vitals and safety. They alone watch for post delivery complications of bleeding, infection, infertility, blindness, paralysis, or other common post delivery risks.

Question 6 leaves them entirely on their own. No warnings. No labels - because the government cannot require them because that would interfere with the constitutional right.

They might deliver the aborted baby, and keep bleeding, or get an infection - and die in their home. NO ONE should be exposed to that type of trauma, that type of risk.

3. My Personal Experience: What I Saw Inside Planned Parenthood Clinics

In 2002, I was 22 years old. I worked for an OB-GYN in Las Vegas that sold paternity testing services to doctors’ offices and medical clinics. That work took me into multiple Planned Parenthood facilities across Southern Nevada. What I learned there permanently changed how I viewed this issue.

In conversations with managers of the planned parenthood facilities, I was shocked to discover:

• Though Planned Parenthood claims to be non-profit, it acts as a profit-driven organization that makes more money the more abortions it performs. Click here for IRS reported Planned Parenthood profit margins.

• Clinic managers were expected to meet abortion quotas, like car salesman have sales goals. Click here for former Planned Parenthood clinic manager testimony.

• Abortions were financially preferred over providing resources, alternatives, or long-term support for expecting mothers. Click here for whistleblower affidavits and undercover investigations.

It was then I realized this fight is not about choice. It is about money.

There are groups that are explicitly pro-abortion, not pro-woman, and certainly not pro-child. And their motivation is making money - not protecting rights.

4. Government Policy and the Globalization of Abortion

Years later, while in law school, I worked in Washington, D.C., in the Office of Science and Technology Policy during the transition from President George W. Bush to President Barack Obama (2008–2009).

I was deeply troubled to learn that one of President Obama’s first executive orders reversed the Mexico City Policy, allowing U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund abortion services overseas. (Click here to see Pres. Obama overturned Mexico City Policy preventing U.S. tax payer funds to support international abortions)

This decision was not pro choice, it was pro abortion. This decision did not simply fund healthcare; it exported abortion as a tool of international population policy, often into nations with little oversight, weak protections for women, and widespread corruption.

5. Fetal Tissue, Stem Cells, and the Business of Human Parts

As someone who lives with chronic pain, and who—by the grace of God—was able to retire early before founding Lex Tecnica, I began studying regenerative medicine, stem cell therapies, and anti-aging research. What I learned was horrifying. Abortion risks harvesting children for stem cells.

Despite federal law prohibiting the sale of fetal tissue, congressional investigations have revealed widespread trafficking in fetal organs and tissue, often sourced from abortion procedures. This has been regularly evaluated and scrutinized on Capitol Hill.

Humans have realized that baby tissue and organs are extremely valuable. They are used in research, cosmetic development, and experimental therapies marketed to wealthy clients.

When human beings are reduced to raw material that can be bought and sold - erasing the identity and dignity of humans, profit follows—and abuse always follows profit when law is absent.

History tells us exactly what happens next.

6. A Family Story– and a Warning

My family comes from the wild West: Missouri, Idaho, Utah.

I recently learned that my great-grandmother was raised in a brothel in Idaho, run by her own mother. My great-grandfather, Samuel Gravitt, feared for her safety. They were both minors, and he rescued her, and they fled to Ogden, Utah, to elope.

When they stood before a judge who was to marry them, he looked at them and said:

“I know who you are.

I know who your mother is.

When do we start the wedding?”

That judge understood something essential: Law is meant to protect children from abuse - even if that abuse is inflicted by their parents - like my great grandmother's abusive practice of raising a child in a brothel. He used the law to protect my great grandmother from a life of prostitution and abuse. That same type of protection should be afforded children.

Conclusion: Vote No on Question 6

We respect women and their moral agency. And we respect the opinions of others. We understand this is a sensitive individual rights and privacy issue. We believe a woman should have the right to make choices about their health care, especially if they are pregnant from an incest, or rape, or their life is threatened by pregnancy.

And, we maintain it is our job to protect the defenseless. Why? Because society is judged by how it treats the defenseless.

If Question 6 passes, no law will protect them. It will hurt their ability to make those choices because Question 6 strips Nevada of its ability to protect:

• Women from unsafe medical practices

• Children from being turned into products

• Society from industries that profit on human destruction

And it would put these protections in the Nevada Constitution - impossible to remove without another vote.  

As warned in the Book of Revelation, the gravest sin is the buying and selling of souls. This amendment moves us closer to that darkness.

Vote NO on Question 6 this November.

Help us protect the future of Nevada- and our children.