Missouri’s Direct Democracy Under Attack. Lawmakers’ battle plans include deceptive ballot language.

Last year, I, along with several others, “stood guard” outside of a private signing event here in Jefferson City. Our purpose was to provide safe passage for those wishing to add their signatures to a petition to amend the Missouri state constitution to restore a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. (Those rights had been taken away by the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision and the enactment by the Missouri Legislature of one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country.) Because of the volatile nature of the abortion debate in this state, efforts to gather signatures on the petition were collected in private events to avoid confrontation with abortion opponents. The time and location of signing events were spread by word of mouth, personal email, and private social media pages.

However, it was apparent that word had gotten out to an anti-abortion group that had a table set up on the sidewalk in front of our event with their own materials and some type of “alternative petition” for people to sign. I recognized some key public figures in this group right away. There was state representative Sara Walsh, who represented a portion of both Cole and Boone Counties. And State Senator Denny Hoskins, who would go on to be elected Secretary of State in last November’s general election and will now have a pivotal role overseeing citizen-led ballot initiatives.

Both Walsh and Hoskins were instrumental in passing the state legislature’s infamous “trigger law” in 2019, one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. There were also a few local Republicans and conservative journalist Scott Faughn, who showed up to take pictures.

But what I remember the most from that afternoon, which left a lasting impression on me, was the determined look on the faces of all of those who came to put their signature on a petition to regain what should be a woman’s fundamental right to make decisions about their own body. Rights that had been taken away from women and their family members by the very people (i.e., Walsh and Hoskins) who stood a few feet away from them at the table outside on the sidewalk.

Inside were cordial greetings among friends and generally lighthearted talk, but the mood was serious. Each person knew exactly what they were doing; there were no questions or concerns about what they were signing, and the language on the petition was clear and straightforward. If placed on the ballot and approved by a majority of voters statewide, abortion healthcare would once again be legal in the state up to the point of viability, the standard in effect for years under Roe v. Wade.

Voters Made Their Voice Clear

Of course, the petition effort succeeded in placing the abortion issue on the ballot last November as Amendment 3 to the Missouri Constitution, and voters approved it by a margin of 52% to 48%. Although it failed among all Cole County voters, it did pass by the same 52%-48 % margin in Jefferson City’s House District 60, whose representative is Dave Griffith.

Once voters gave their approval to Amendment 3, the next step required the filing of a lawsuit against the state, asking a court to find that existing state statutes that restrict the provision of abortion healthcare services to women are unconstitutional under Amendment 3. Referred to generally as TRAP laws, Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers, these are laws enacted by an anti-abortion majority of legislators that imposed medically unnecessary regulations on abortion providers, aiming to make it more difficult, or even impossible, for them to operate and, consequently, for individuals to access abortion care.

Planned Parenthood filed suit shortly after the election and was granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from enforcing the TRAP laws pending the outcome of the litigation. This has allowed Planned Parenthood to begin providing abortion services to patients in Missouri.

Threats to Amendment 3 – “Here We Go Again”

Astonishingly, Republican legislators claim that most voters did not think they were voting to legalize abortion when they voted for Amendment 3, but instead thought they were voting just to permit exceptions to the abortion ban for rape or incest. And yet, the people voted to approve Amendment 3 based on this unambiguous language on the ballot in November:

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:

• establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion;

and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid;

• remove Missouri’s ban on abortion;

• allow regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain the health of the

patient;

• require the government not to discriminate in government programs, funding, and other;

activities, against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care; and

• allow abortion to be restricted or banned after Fetal Viability, except to protect the life of the mother.

Since the November 2024 election, Republicans have vowed to place the abortion issue back on the ballot, once again citing “citizens did not know what they were voting on.” The vehicle for that effort is House Joint Resolution 73 (HJR 73), which, despite the outcome of the November election, will put the abortion question back on the ballot for voters to decide a second time. It will repeal Amendment 3 and once again outlaw most abortions in Missouri. The only exceptions would be for medical emergencies, fatal fetal anomalies and victims of rape or incest in the first 12 weeks of gestation. https://missouriindependent.com/2025/04/10/missouri-abortion-ban-amendment-gop-rape-incest/

HJR 73, the bill to once again ban abortion in Missouri, was heard in a House committee where the Republican chair allowed only five persons each, in favor of the bill or opposed, to testify in person. However, many more wanted to speak, including many who had traveled from across the state but returned home without being heard. The Committee approved HJR 73, as did the full House, but only after hours of floor debate and strenuous objections from Democrats. Jefferson City’s Rep. Dave Griffith voted for the measure, despite a majority of voters in his district who approved Amendment 3. Rep. Rudy Veit voted for it as well. https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills251/rollcalls/056.006.pdf

Hundreds of citizens attended a Senate hearing on the bill this past week, all but a handful speaking in opposition. However, the Republican majority approved its passage and awaits a final vote before the full Senate.

Republican Legislators’ Rationale for Overturning Amendment 3

The sponsors of HJR 73, Representatives Ed Lewis and Brian Seitz and its supporters haven’t raised any new arguments that haven’t been heard before. They claim that voters were led to believe that Missouri’s abortion ban was preventing doctors from providing lifesaving care to women, even though the single exception to the ban was to save the life of the mother. But according to doctors who testified in the hearings, the ambiguity in the recently overturned abortion ban law had severely limited women’s choices. It led to women being denied emergency healthcare, as in the case of miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies, etc., that they otherwise could have obtained. In part because doctors and hospitals had been fearful of prosecution for taking actions that could be construed as violating the state’s abortion ban. Consequently, many women have had to leave the state to obtain the healthcare they needed elsewhere.

They assert that the language of Amendment 3 removes liability for doctors and healthcare personnel when providing abortion care, and that overturning the TRAP laws means abortion clinics are not required to comply with state standards for medical care. But that’s simply not true – doctors and clinics remain subject to the state’s basic medical standards that apply to all physicians and clinics.

Finally, advocates of the new proposed abortion ban claim that Amendment 3 allows abortions after 9 months, or birth, and permits transgender surgeries on minors. This is disinformation used by the anti-abortion groups to scare voters during last Fall’s campaign to adopt Amendment 3. If Republican legislators are successful and the provisions of HJR 73 ever do appear on a ballot, expect issues like these to be dangled out in front of uninformed voters to trick them into once again giving up their rights to make medical decisions for themselves.

Designed to Deceive

Ironically, at the same time Republicans are claiming that voters didn’t understand the plain language of Amendment 3, it’s the language of HJR 73 that is deliberately misleading and purposely designed to trick voters. Nowhere does the bill state that abortion is once again outlawed. The bill just says that certain statutes enacted under Amendment 3 are repealed, expressed in legal terminology that will not be easily comprehensible to the public. It does so using flourishing language about promoting a “culture of life” and protecting the health of women and children by making abortion healthcare permissible only for medical, fetal anomaly, rape and incest exceptions.

While the Missouri House and Senate are deliberating legislation to undo the will of the voters and outlaw most abortions in the state, Republican lawmakers have also been successful in passing changes to Missouri statutes that will have direct consequences on how the abortion question is once again presented to voters, if HJR 73 is successful. These changes were enacted under Senate Bill 22, which Gov. Kehoe signed on April 24, 2025.

Last year, former Secretary John Ashcroft attempted to distort the ballot summary language for Amendment 3, making it argumentative and prejudicial to his own personal views. Cole County Circuit Court Judge John Beetem had to step in and write the language himself to make the bill's provisions clear to the voters. As a result, Republican lawmakers have since worked to shift the balance of power away from the courts and give the Secretary of State more leeway in determining the final ballot language.

Ballot Language: If the legislature approves the HJR 73 abortion ban and the governor signs it, it will be up to the Secretary of State, Denny Hoskins (who was one of the officials mentioned earlier trying to persuade people not to sign the reproductive health petition) to write the law’s summary language that voters will see on their ballots. And the recently passed SB 22 also broadens the power of the Secretary of State to influence that language, giving him three opportunities to draft ballot language until a court becomes involved and can mandate it itself. The new law also doubles the length of the measure’s description that can be printed on the ballot, which presents additional opportunities to confuse and deceive the public.

TRAP Laws: With the passage of SB 22, the new law also amends state statutes to permit the state’s attorney general to appeal a preliminary injunction retroactively. This matters because Planned Parenthood is currently able to provide abortion healthcare services to patients under an injunction issued by a court in Kansas City that blocks the state from enforcing its onerous TRAP laws. Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a notice of appeal in Cole County Circuit Court just minutes after the bill was signed by the Governor, seeking to reverse the preliminary injunctions previously granted to Planned Parenthood and hoping to get a different result from a different judge.

Legal challenge to the new law created by Senate Bill 22: A court challenge seeking to overturn and prevent the enforcement of Senate Bill 22 was recently filed by local attorney Chuck Hatfield, on behalf of advocate Sean Nicholson. It argues, among other things, that the bill violates Missouri law that prohibits legislation from containing more than one unrelated subject, in this case, changes to statutes involving ballot summary statements and appeals of preliminary injunctions. It also asserts the legislation violates the Missouri Constitution, which prohibits retroactive laws by permitting the Attorney General to appeal a court order retroactively. The case was assigned to local judge Cotton Walker. It is unclear when the courts will act on the Attorney General’s appeal or the challenge to the law itself.

The Next Two Weeks Are Crucial

Just as people were committed and determined to take back fundamental rights denied to them when they placed their signatures on those petitions, so too were Missouri citizens who were fully aware of the votes they took on November 2 of last year. Fortunately, the description of Amendment 3 that voters saw on their ballots was clear and concise. But if Republican lawmakers have their way, many voters could be tricked into throwing away their rights, and the practice of using false or misleading ballot language to deceive voters could become the norm.

Call to Action

There are only two weeks left in this year’s state legislative session. Let your representatives and senators know where you stand.

Ask Representative Dave Griffith why he keeps voting for measures designed to overturn the Amendment 3 Ballot constitutional amendment in HD 60. The ballot measure passed 52%-48 %.

MO State Representative Dave Griffith 573-751-2412; Dave.Griffith@house.mo.gov

MO State Senator Mike Bernskoetter 573-751-2076; mike.bernskoetter@senate.mo.gov

For a copy of my AI policy, visit my About page: https://missourimonitor.substack.com/about