top of page
Search

Why We Oppose Question 6 (2026)

  • Writer: Sam Castor
    Sam Castor
  • 2 days ago
  • 5 min read

Law Protects the Vulnerable


By Samuel Castor, Esq.



Nevada’s Question 6, proposed as a constitutional amendment, is being marketed as a protection of women’s rights. But beneath the slogans lies a far more dangerous reality: Question 6 would make it virtually impossible for Nevada to regulate abortion at all- not just access to abortion, but medical standards of care, safety protocols, and accountability.

 

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

It is about whether the government is allowed to protect women, children, and the vulnerable from exploitation, harm, and commodification. This initiative is PRO-ABORTION.

Our law firm is AGAINST Question 6 because we protect children and the vulnerable and Question 6 it 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.


1. Eliminating Regulation Means Eliminating 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:


 

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 anyone who cares about women’s health.


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

 

In 2002, when I was 22 years old, I worked for an OB-GYN and sold paternity testing services to doctors’ offices and medical clinics. That work took me into multiple Planned Parenthood facilities across Nevada.

 

What I learned there permanently changed how I viewed this issue.



I was shocked to discover:

 

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.


3. 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. (See: Executive Order 13467 and policy reversal)


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.


4. 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:

 

 

 

 

To the shame of America, 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.


5. 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 people are treated as people, it creates light.

 

That is why we as a law firm:

 

Question 6 tells the government: You may not protect women, babies, or children.

 

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. 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:

In other words, without law, children are consumed.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Vote NO on Question 6 this November.

And help us protect the future of Nevada- and our children.



 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page