Roughly three months after Missourians voted to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, a House committee heard a proposal that would again ban most abortions through another amendment.
Members of the House Children and Families committee heard over four hours of testimony on Tuesday on the legislation.
The resolution, if passed by voters, would remove the provisions that were in Amendment 3 and instead only allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, medical emergencies or fetal anomalies.
For someone to receive an abortion following rape or incest, they would have to produce documentation that the crime has been reported to a law enforcement agency before the procedure can occur.
In those cases, abortion would only be allowed up to 12 weeks.
It also would allow for damages, including the suspension or revocation of medical licenses on those who “intentionally or negligently causes damage to another person relating to the provision of reproductive health care or the performance or inducement of an abortion.”
In addition to the abortion-related measures, the resolution also bars transgender youth from accessing gender-affirming healthcare like hormone treatments.
Rep. Melanie Stinnett, R-Springfield, is the sponsor of the resolution. While presenting her bill, Stinnett said she heard concerns from constituents about the language of Amendment 3. She also said she knew this issue is hard to discuss for many.
“It is through this process that Missourians will have an opportunity to modify and clarify the abortion laws of Missouri,” Stinnett said.
Stinnett also disputed the argument that bringing a new resolution the first session after Amendment 3 passed was ignoring the will of Missouri voters because voters would also have to approve her proposed amendment.
Rep. Jamie Gragg, R-Ozark, said he appreciated Stinnett’s proposal.
“I think we need to give [voters] a truthful way to make sure that what they voted on in November is what they're going to get by the end product,” Gragg said.
However, Democrats including Rep. Marlene Terry, D-St. Louis County, pushed back on the resolution.
“Do you think that we should overturn all the ballot initiatives that we don't like the outcome of?” Terry asked.
Rep. Raychel Proudie, D-Ferguson, said because this resolution allows for abortions in limited cases, she wondered how people who were anti-abortion would vote.
“I'm interested to see how pro-life people would vote on such a measure that allows for abortion with circumstances pending. But again, that's not a moral conundrum that I have, because I am, of course, pro-choice,” Proudie said.
After Stinnett’s presentation of the resolution, members of the committee heard hours of testimony from the public.
Samuel Lee with Campaign Life Missouri, answered Proudie’s question.
“If this gets on the ballot, I'd be happy to vote for it as a pro-lifer, and I would be encouraging everyone I talked to, to vote for it,” Lee said.
Similarly, Susan Klein with Missouri Right to Life said the group had a lot of discussion about the resolution’s allowance of limited abortions.
“But what do we have right now? What we have right now is unlimited abortion in our constitution,” Klein said.
Five people spoke in favor of the proposed amendment and more than 45 against it.
Vivian Kane was one of those who spoke against the resolution. She is currently going through IVF treatments to get pregnant and said she is at risk for pregnancy complications.
“I am terrified at the idea of having to continue that process in a state with such harsh, dangerous restrictions on a process that should be between myself and my team of caring, capable medical professionals,” Kane said.
Kennedy Moore with Abortion Action Missouri, said 1.5 million Missourians cast their votes in favor of Amendment 3 in November.
“These voters knew what they were voting for. And Missourians, not the legislators, Missourians brought it to the ballot box,” Moore said.
Raymond James, who collected signatures for Amendment 3, told the committee he was offended by the notion from some members that Missourians were confused over Amendment 3.
“I was making people read that, because if they hadn't read it, I wouldn't let them sign it,” James said.
On the section barring transgender minors from accessing gender-affirming care, Rep. Ken Jamison, D-Gladstone, asked Stinnett why it was in the amendment.
“How is that related to reproductive care or freedom?” Jamison said.
Stinnett replied she believed both the abortion language and ban on gender-affirming care concerned reproduction.
Voters passed Amendment 3 in the November general election with 51.6% of the vote.
The amendment overturned Missouri’s near-total abortion ban, which went into effect after a Supreme Court decision in June 2022. That decision overturned Roe v. Wade, kicking back abortion rights to the states.
Missouri was the first state to enact its near-total ban after that decision. Missouri’s law had no exceptions for abortion in cases of rape or incest.
A judge ruled in December that many of Missouri’s anti-abortion laws were now unconstitutional due to Amendment 3.
However, Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Jerri Zhang also left some requirements for clinics that perform abortions in place. Those requirements, according to Planned Parenthood, mean abortions still can’t take place legally in Missouri.
Last week, attorneys for Planned Parenthood asked Zhang to reconsider her ruling.
Because the constitution supersedes state law, there is little lawmakers can do statutorily to address the passage of Amendment 3. In order to change it, it would also have to be through a ballot initiative approved by voters.
The new amendment only needs to be passed by lawmakers to make it onto the ballot. It does not need petition signatures or the governor’s approval.
The next statewide general election is in 2026, but Gov. Mike Kehoe could call for a special election to vote on the proposed amendment earlier.
