Missouri lawmakers move to repeal abortion protections enacted by voters
Missouri lawmakers passed a voter referendum Wednesday that, if approved, would repeal protections for abortion rights and restore a ban on nearly all abortion care in the state.
The move comes just six months after Missouri voters approved an amendment enshrining the right to reproductive freedom, including abortion care, in the state constitution, effectively overturning a near-total abortion ban that was in effect. A circuit court affirmed the right to reproductive freedom in December.
The bill now heads to the governor's desk, but does not need his signature to appear on a ballot.
MORE: Fighting for their lives: Women and the impact of abortion restrictions in post-Roe America
The initiative will appear on the November 2026 ballot unless Gov. Mike Kehoe calls a special election sooner than that.
If it passes, HJR 73 would prohibit abortions, except in cases of medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape or incest. If the abortion is due to rape or incest, it must occur no later than 12 weeks' gestation, according to the bill.
"Senate Republicans are overturning the will of the voters and pushing to bring an Abortion Ban back to Missouri," Missouri Senate Democrats wrote in a post on X Wednesday evening. "This new ballot item will ban abortion and take away a right that voters secured just six months ago."
If approved, the amendment would also permit state lawmakers to enact legislation to regulate abortions and access to care.
"These laws shall include, but not be limited to, laws requiring physicians providing abortion care to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital; laws requiring facilities where abortions are performed or induced to be licensed and inspected for clean and safe conditions and adequate instruments to treat any emergencies arising from an abortion procedure; laws requiring physicians to perform a sufficient examination of the woman to determine the unborn child's gestational age and any preexisting medical conditions that may influence the procedure; and laws requiring ultrasounds to be performed only by physicians or licensed medical technicians," the bill states.
MORE: A state-by-state breakdown of where abortion stands after ballot initiatives pass
State Sen. Adam Schnelting, who sponsored the bill, did not immediately return ABC News' request for comment.
Anti-abortion right groups praised the bill, claiming it will "save lives."
"We applaud the Missouri legislature for passing this pro-life amendment to save lives, protect parents' rights, and safeguard women and girls," Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion rights group Susan B. Anthony (SBA) Pro-Life America, said in a statement. "We call on Missouri GOP leaders in Washington and across the state to offer their strong, vocal support of this measure."
Since Roe v. Wade was overruled by the Supreme Court in June 2022, 12 states have ceased nearly all abortion services while four states have a six-week ban on books, according to an ABC News tally.
Following the Supreme Court decision, Missouri enacted a trigger law banning most abortions in the state.
However, Amendment 3, which enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution, passed in November 2024 with 52% of voters in favor of the amendment.
Anti-abortion advocates, such as SBA, have argued that Amendment 3 is extreme and goes beyond what Missourians have supported.
Abortion Action Missouri, the group that supported Amendment 3, released a statement on Wednesday criticizing lawmakers for attempting to reinstate an abortion ban.
"Missourians support access to abortion. This past November more than 1.5 million Missourians made their voices heard at the ballot box -- voting to enshrine abortion rights into the Missouri constitution," Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Abortion Action Missouri, said. "And right now, thanks to Missourians, abortion is legal and available for the first time in years. Despite this, today anti-abortion politicians passed HJR 73, showing us they think Missourians are disposable. We know the truth -- Missourians are used to fighting back and are prepared to keep showing up. In the past 4 months, thousands of Missourians have shown up over and over again to defend the will of the people. Do not underestimate their determination."
Missouri lawmakers move to repeal abortion protections enacted by voters originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia won't let Ukrainian forces rest until Putin's demands are met – Russian deputy foreign minister
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has stated that Moscow will not allow the Armed Forces of Ukraine to "use any pause to rest and regroup" without "eliminating the root causes of the conflict". Source: Ryabkov in an interview with Kremlin-aligned Russian news agency TASS Details: Ryabkov emphasised that US President Donald Trump's return to the White House has become a "reason for cautious optimism" in Russia regarding the normalisation of relations with the United States. He said that Russian leader Vladimir Putin during phone conversations with Trump "confirmed the basic directive on the necessity to eliminate the root causes of the conflict within the framework of political and diplomatic efforts". Ryabkov noted that if the Kremlin's conditions are not met, Russia will act to prevent the Armed Forces of Ukraine from taking advantage of "any pause to rest and regroup". According to him, the Kremlin's position is well known to Washington and threats of sanctions will not change it. "It is strange that hotheads in the US Senate, who have lost their last remnants of common sense, are ignoring this reality. We will continue efforts to achieve the objectives of the special military operation [Russian propaganda term for the war in Ukraine – ed.]. Thus, the decision and the choice are up to Washington, up to Trump," Ryabkov concluded. Background: On 3 June, Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council and former president of the Russian Federation, declared that the true purpose of the so-called peace talks with Ukraine in Istanbul is to ensure Russia's swift and complete victory. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
West Wing Civil War Erupts Over Who Caused Trump-Musk Explosion
A top White House aide nursing a grudge against Elon Musk is being partly blamed for igniting President Donald Trump's war with the Tesla CEO. Sergio Gor, the White House director of presidential personnel, urged Trump to rescind his nomination for Musk's personal friend Jared Isaacman to lead NASA, sparking a rift between the president and the world's richest man that erupted in public Thursday, the New York Post reported. 'The NASA guy was the straw that broke the camel's back,' a White House source told the Post, suggesting that Gor wanted 'to bury the knife in [Musk's] back.' Four sources inside or close to the White House told the outlet that Gor, 38, has been holding a grudge against Musk, 53, ever since the billionaire 'humiliated' him in front of the Trump Cabinet for not moving fast enough on staffing the administration. 'Sergio was upset about Elon dressing him down at the meeting and said he was going to 'get him,'' another source said. '[Pulling Isaacman's nomination] was the modern-day equivalent of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Sure, Sergio got a scalp, but what did POTUS get?' Gor reportedly developed a deep personal dislike of Musk while the tech mogul was still on friendly terms with Trump, and gleefully celebrated dips in Musk's wealth when Tesla stock plunged, according to three of the sources. 'He'd go around showing Tesla stock prices going down and laugh about it,' one White House source told the Post. The outlet said Gor denied taking pleasure in Tesla's falling stock or ever seeking revenge against Musk. Former Trump strategist Steve Bannon backed up Gor, saying the Trump-Musk feud had been simmering for months over issues like Musk's opposition to Trump's tariff strategy. 'Did Elon have a problem with Sergio?' Bannon, a longtime Musk antagonist told the Post. 'Yes, the fact that we are not hiring enough—guess what—liberal f---ing progressive Democrats.' He argued Trump engaged in the bitter spat because he's 'upset' over Musk's failure to deliver significant savings at DOGE and his reported drug use. Yet, Trump and Musk heaped praise on each other at a congenial send-off last Friday, following the conclusion of Musk's term as a special advisor. It wasn't until Trump withdrew Isaacman's nomination shortly after Musk—his biggest financial backer in 2024—left the White House, that the billionaire launched a sharp attack on the president's cherished 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination' in an X post on Tuesday. The Trump administration has cited Isaacman's past donations to Democrats as the reason for Trump rescinding his nomination just days before his Senate confirmation. But Isaacman, another billionaire in Trumpworld, questioned that explanation, noting his donations have long been public knowledge. 'I don't blame an influential adviser coming in and saying, 'Look, here's the facts, and I think we should kill this guy,'' Isaacman said on the All-In podcast Wednesday. 'And the president's got to make a call and move on.' For now, it seems the administration is sticking with Gor. The Post said that White House Communications Director Steven Cheung called Gor 'a vital member of the team and he has helped President Trump put together an administration that is second to none.' One source close to the White House speculated, however, that Gor could become the fall guy and help mend the Trump-Musk relationship—if Musk can be convinced that the president was merely being 'played' by Gor.
an hour ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'
