This year, there are several constitutional changes on the Missouri General Election ballot. Most are completely inappropriate to be added to the Missouri Constitution. They are policy issues and policy issues belong in the Missouri Revised Statutes.
Special interest groups are using the initiative petition (IP) route to bypass the legislative process because there is not sufficient support to pass these issues through the Missouri Legislature. This is how items like bingo and medicinal marijuana were codified in our state Constitution. This is why the Missouri Constitution is more a collection of public policy than a statement of governing principles and limitations as a constitution is intended.
The IP process is an important tool in restraining the state government. Just as states have a voice in checking federal government power through Article V, the IP process provides Missouri residents with a mechanism to add provisions to the Missouri Constitution that the Legislature will not pass. The problem is, our State Constitution is full of items whose proper location is in state statute. In my opinion, most ballot initiatives should change state statute and not the state constitution.
Amendment 3 is one issue that does address a fundamental principle. Amendment 3 deals with life - and death. If passed, it will codify abortion up to the point of birth in our State Constitution. There has been much confusion about this, and dare I say “misinformation” surrounding this proposal. Vote your conscience on this issue. It is important to understand what changes this proposal will do and what it will not do if it passes. Helping you understand the ramifications of Amendment 3 is my goal in this blog.
Section 2 of Amendment 3 describes the scope of the proposal which extends to, “all matters relating to “reproductive healthcare,” including but not limited to….abortion.” This would codify a “right” to an abortion in our Missouri Constitution and place it alongside our Natural Rights like freedom of religion, speech and voting rights. This can be interpreted to apply to minors as well. The wording of this section would prohibit any law requiring parental consent to their minor child’s abortive procedure as that would be seen as an infringement.
Section 3 contradicts section 2 by saying the government can restrict “reproductive freedom” if it can demonstrate a “compelling governmental interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” The rest of the section states that this compelling interest must improve or maintain the health of the person seeking this “healthcare;” does not infringe on their decision-making and follows “clinical standards of practice.” (Does the phrase “trust the experts” ring a bell?) The latter part of this section virtually negates the former section.
Section 4 states the Legislature may enact laws that regulate abortion after “fetal viability” provided that it does not conflict with the medical provider protecting the “life or physical or mental health of the “pregnant person.” There is much to unpack in this section. “Fetal viability” is defined in the proposal as the point where a health care professional deems it likely the unborn human baby (my term and the correct term) is likely to survive outside the womb without “the application of extraordinary medical procedures.”
Please excuse me, but what is an “extraordinary medical procedure?" My niece is a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) nurse. It can be argued everything the nurses do in her unit is “extraordinary” medical care. Is extraordinary medical care providing an incubator? Is it a steroid injection to assist in the development of the lungs? Is it an in vitro surgical procedure needed to correct a heart defect? Is it additional care required for an unborn baby with indications of Down Syndrome or Autism? If you think the last question is extreme, I invite you to study how Iceland has virtually eradicated Down Syndrome in their country.
Section 4 also writes woke terminology into the Missouri Constitution by using the term “pregnant person” instead of the correct term “mother.” Rush Limbaugh used to say, “Words mean things.” They certainly do. The English Language has been remade by the redefinition of words that make horrible acts seem innocuous. This is another attempt at that. This section goes even further by naming mental health as a reason a person can seek an abortion. What does that mean? Every pregnant mother experiences stress at some point in her pregnancy. Is that a valid excuse to have an abortion under this proposal? How about depression? What about physical health? Is “physical health” mandatory bed rest needed for high blood pressure or a backache?
I have spoken to several people who are pro-abortion who bristle at Section 5 in this amendment. This section grants absolute immunity to prosecution or legal action for any abortion provider or persons assisting in the abortive procedure in the event the patient is harmed in the process. For all the supposed concern for the mother the preceding sections claim, this section throws it all out the window. If the mother is harmed? Tough luck. You have no recourse against the abortion provider.
Look at what is not said in Section 5. There is no requirement for the person performing the abortion procedure to be a medical professional who is trained to provide this or other medical care. Who can perform an abortive procedure under this language? A doctor? A nurse? A counselor? A psychiatrist? You? Me? It does not say.
Section 6 is an anti-discrimination clause that applys to a person seeking an abortion or a person providing one. Section 7 is a severability clause which means if sections of this proposed amendment are struck down by the Court the remainder of the amendment would stand.
In my view, and in the opinion of several litigators who have reviewed this proposal, it is in clear violation of the Missouri Constitutional requirement to state which sections of the Missouri Revised Statutes are being repealed. This proposal would repeal 47 sections of the revised statutes. In this respect the Missouri Supreme Court got it wrong. This proposal is horribly written. Almost everything is open to interpretation and would be a windfall for lawyers no matter their position on abortion. This also would allow abortions to be performed up to the point of birth and arguably even partial-birth abortive procedures. This would be the most radical pro-abortion measure of any state - even more radical than states like California and New York.
If there were not enough reasons for you to vote in this election, I hope Amendment 3 will be your tipping point. Both pro-abortion and pro-life individuals oppose this measure. It certainly violates the Natural Rights given to us by our Creator. Numerous advertisements supporting this issue have caused confusion and have been misleading. Under current Missouri Law the life of the mother already is protected. But. please read the actual text of the proposal yourself and draw your own conclusions. Then, vote your conscience and your values. The link to the text of the proposal is here.
In liberty,
Brett
Please bookmark the Missouri Information Page and share it with family and friends.
Past Blog Posts
Did you miss last week's blog post? No worries, we've got you covered!
Click here to access our archive and see the full history of the blog.
