ST. LOUIS, Mo. (BP) – A Missouri ballot initiative to enshrine abortion and contraceptive rights into the state constitution would repeal all laws regulating such reproductive technologies as human cloning and in vitro fertilization for stem cell research, the Thomas More Society said in a lawsuit challenging Amendment 3.
Missouri Attorney General John Ashcroft, a pro-life Republican, violated state and constitutional law by not listing with the ballot initiative the laws it would repeal, and by certifying a ballot initiative that covers more than one subject, Thomas More Society Senior Counsel Mary Catherine Martin told Baptist Press.
“This is not about abortion,” Martin said. “This is way light years beyond just abortion.”
The lawsuit seeks to remove Amendment 3 from the Nov. 5 ballot and asks that if the amendment is removed after the vote, that the results of the vote be voided.
As preborn life is increasingly challenged by state ballot initiatives, Martin said the national law firm is looking at ballot initiatives in other states to check their alignment with state laws. Currently, initiatives are on the ballots in nine other states.
“The Thomas More Society has a long history of taking every legal opportunity to challenge abuses, especially abuses of voters in trying to expand the nation’s abortion laws,” Martin said. “And following Dobbs (the case that led to the reversal of Roe v. Wade), while we’re very excited about the opportunity to take this fight to the states, this campaign of trying to constitutionalize in each state rights that go even beyond what was provided in Roe v. Wade is just another way of trying to tie voters’ hands.
“So the Thomas More Society is very interested in making sure that voters are aware and protected by their own laws,” she said, “but also made aware that being able to vote on these things – the right that we just got back after Dobbs – is precious. And that we should not be deceived by attempts to take it away again at the state level.”
Ashcroft said he had no choice but to certify the amendment for inclusion on the ballot, because the law doesn’t allow him to reject an initiative petition at the beginning of the process for constitutional concerns.
“Regarding the case against me, I followed the law and precedence regarding the initiative petition process,” Ashcroft said in a formal statement. “In the event the court determines the petition is valid, I would encourage all voters to carefully read the full text of the proposed constitutional language and not rely solely on the court written ballot language.”
The full text of Amendment 3, entitled the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative and included on Ashcroft’s official website, addresses subjects “including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care and respectful birthing conditions.” Protected pregnancy outcomes include but are not limited to stillbirth, miscarriage and abortion.
The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission released an explainer on the initiative guiding Missouri-based Christians in standing for life.
The lawsuit doesn’t challenge the signatures gathered nor the summary statement of Amendment 3 included on the Nov. 5 ballot. Rather, the lawsuit contends the amendment violates Missouri Revised Statute Section 116.050, because the signers were not informed of “all sections of existing law or of the constitution which would be repealed by the measure.”
“Amendment 3 is rife with hidden effects,” Martin said. “Its main provision creates a totally novel and limitless ‘super-right’ ranking higher than life, speech, religion, equal protection and due process. This would require the courts, when making decisions relating to reproduction, to place this ‘super-right’ above the interests of anyone else, and even of society as a whole.”
The amendment also violates the Missouri Constitution’s Single Subject Rule that requires each petition “shall not contain more than one amended and revised article of this constitution, or one new article which shall not contain more than one subject and matters properly connected therewith.”
Those who signed to have Amendment 3 added to the ballot were not informed that they were signing an amendment to repeal the partial birth abortion law; laws protecting children from abortion based on race, sex and Down syndrome, the state’s ban on cloning, laws regulating the use of IVF for stem cell research, laws regulating gender transition surgery and gender mutilation laws, Martin said. By Missouri law, each issue should be addressed individually, she said.
“It is a scorched earth campaign, razing our state lawbooks of critical protections for vulnerable women and children, the innocent unborn, parents and any taxpayer who does not want their money to pay for abortion and other extreme decisions that this Amendment defines as ‘care,’” she said. “To be clear: under our initiative petition process, Missourians are free to tie their hands in this way, but the Constitution and statutes require that they know that they are doing so.”
Thomas More filed the lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cole County on behalf of Missouri State Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman, State Representative Hannah Kelly, pro-life advocate Kathy Forck, and Our Lady’s Inn President and CEO Peggy Forrest.
Related posts:
‘Unapologetically pro-life’: Southern Baptists’ rocky road to Roe’s reversal 
The history of the March for Life 
Life after Roe: responding to a historic Supreme Court decision 
FIRST-PERSON Abortion: fueling shortages in
fields of medicine & education
EXPLAINER: How do Americans view the issue of abortion, really? 
Tennessee second state to criminalize ‘abortion trafficking’ of minors 
FIRST-PERSON: What the Dobbs case means for pro-life Christians 
FIRST-PERSON: On abortion, illegal is huge; unnecessary, unthinkable are bigger win
