Why the fight over abortion in Kansas and Missouri isn't going away anytime soon
Kansas and Missouri voters have spoken on abortion.
But nearly three years after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal right to the procedure, sending the issue back to the states, abortion continues to dominate politics on both sides of the state line.
And it's now clear that the situation will continue for at least two more years, if not longer.
Missouri voters in November by a slim margin approved Amendment 3, enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution. In 2022, Kansas voters soundly rejected an amendment that would have overturned a state Supreme Court decision that affirmed a right to end a pregnancy.
Yet developments in both states this spring, and even in the past few weeks, demonstrate that abortion remains far from a settled matter. Collectively, they show why access to the procedure is poised to remain central to politics in both states through at least 2026.
'For the next, at least, couple election cycles, we're going to figure this out, and we're going to do it at the ballot box,' Missouri House Speaker Jonathan Patterson, a Lee's Summit Republican, said.
The Missouri Supreme Court last month effectively reinstated a de facto ban on abortion when it overruled orders by a Jackson County judge that had allowed legal abortions to resume after the November vote. While the high court's decision was on procedural grounds, the practical consequences have been to pause access for potentially months despite the Missouri Constitution now containing a right to reproductive freedom.
Kansas lawmakers this spring advanced a constitutional amendment that would provide for the election of state Supreme Court justices. Currently, the governor appoints justices from finalists chosen by a commission. But Republicans have been angry with the court for years over decisions on abortion and other issues.
Voters will decide whether to approve the amendment next year, setting the stage for intense campaigning that's certain to center on the future of abortion rights in the state.
Before that pivotal vote, a Johnson County jury will be asked to weigh the legality of a slew of Kansas abortion restrictions that providers are challenging. That trial is set to run between September and October.
The Missouri General Assembly this spring approved a constitutional amendment that would overturn the amendment just approved by voters. The new amendment, set to be on the ballot in 2026, would allow abortions in medical emergencies and cases of fetal anomalies, such as birth defects. It would also allow the procedure in exceptionally rare cases of rape or incest within 12 weeks of gestational age.
In addition to the abortion ban, the constitutional amendment would ban gender-affirming care for transgender residents under the age of 18. Those procedures, which include hormone therapy, are already banned under state law but became a rallying cry among abortion opponents who falsely claimed that Amendment 3 opened the door to legalizing them.
'There's a common theme on both sides of the state, which is that the legislatures don't believe the people of Kansas or the people of Missouri understand how their state processes work or what their votes mean and so they second-guess, again and again, what the people have asked for. In this case, of course, it's abortion rights,' said Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains.
In Kansas, the proposal to allow for the election of state Supreme Court justices looms large and is seen by many observers as a proxy fight over abortion.
The current amendment would allow justices to make political contributions, take part in political campaigns and hold office in political parties. In theory, a justice could simultaneously lead the state Republican or Democratic party while sitting on the court.
For over half a century, the governor has chosen members of the court from a list of finalists curated by a nine-member nominating commission. The current system, instituted after a major political scandal in the 1950s, has over time shielded the court from partisan politics.
On the nominating commission, each of the state's four congressional districts is represented by one lawyer and one non-lawyer. The lawyers are elected by other lawyers within their district, while the governor appoints the non-lawyer members. A chairperson is elected by lawyers statewide.
The amendment would abolish the commission. The measure doesn't require partisan elections, but would allow the Legislature to set the rules of the elections. Even if lawmakers make the contests nominally nonpartisan, the wide leeway for political activity by justice candidates could effectively lead to Republican vs. Democratic races in all but name.
Some supporters of electing justices say abortion doesn't figure into their position. Instead, they cast the current selection process as controlled by a small, select group of legal insiders.
Kansas state Rep. Susan Humphries, a Wichita Republican who staunchly opposes abortion, said she wouldn't speak to whether she wants to see an elected court relitigate abortion rights.
'I mean, at the moment we have it, right? It is what it is,' Humphries said. 'They have said there's a right to an abortion in the Kansas Constitution, and so we work with that — even though I'm clearly pro-life.'
It's unclear whether the outcome of the judicial selection vote would affect the ongoing Johnson County lawsuit over abortion restrictions currently in Kansas law.
While a trial is set to start later this year, Johnson County District Court Judge K. Christopher Jayaram has already temporarily blocked many of the restrictions. Any final decision by Jayaram is almost certain to be appealed up to the Kansas Supreme Court.
By the time the lawsuit goes to trial this fall, it might have a different judge presiding over it. The nominating commission has selected Jayaram as one of three finalists to replace Justice Evelyn Wilson when she resigns her Kansas Supreme Court seat on July 4.
If Gov. Laura Kelly chooses Jayaram and voters approve next year's direct election ballot measure, he could be the last justice chosen under the system Kansas has used for more than 60 years.
Opponents of altering the selection system say it protects the court against partisan politics. They say electing the justices risks expensive, bitterly partisan contests similar to what happens in other states like Wisconsin. In a recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election, the billionaire Elon Musk spent millions, though his favored candidate lost.
'I'm glad that Kansas has listened to the people of Kansas so far — unlike Missouri, who you know, literally just voted and then they're putting it back on the ballot,' Kansas House Minority Leader Brandon Woodard, a Lenexa Democrat, said. 'And yet, I think that we all know that this move potentially to electing our Supreme Court justices is because of school funding and abortion.'
Some Missouri GOP lawmakers have also floated the idea of electing state Supreme Court judges, but the idea has yet to advance in Jefferson City.
Last year, Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O'Laughlin, a Shelbina Republican, said she wanted elected judges after the high court voted 4-3 to keep Amendment 3 on the November ballot.
Sam Lee, a longtime anti-abortion lobbyist in Missouri, said the relationship between legislatures and the courts has grown more strained in the past three years since the end of the federal right to abortion. At the same time, state courts are increasingly having to wade into thorny questions of abortion access.
'We don't even know what the Missouri Supreme Court ultimately will decide is constitutional and what is not constitutional under Amendment 3,' Lee said.
A Jackson County lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood immediately after the November vote sought to strike a range of abortion restrictions in Missouri law, citing the new constitutional protections for reproductive freedom. Circuit Court Judge Jerri Zhang issued two preliminary injunctions blocking many of the rules, and Planned Parenthood resumed providing abortions in February – the first time legal abortion had been available in the state since 2022.
But the Missouri Supreme Court in late May ordered Zhang to vacate those rulings and reevaluate her decision, effectively pausing abortion access. Zhang's rulings had temporarily blocked a series of TRAP laws, or Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers, that providers said prevented them from restoring access to abortion. Those laws included a 72-hour waiting period and licensing requirements.
Zhang could issue a new preliminary injunction allowing abortions to resume, but the underlying case will continue. A full trial over whether the restrictions should be permanently blocked was set for January.
Whatever Zhang decides after the trial is certain to be appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court – something that might not happen until well into 2026. By then, voters will be preparing to cast their ballots on the new abortion amendment. If they approve it, the case will be rendered moot.
'The pro-life community, obviously, is focused on saving the life of each and every mother who's been affected by abortion and their unborn child,' said Missouri state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, an Arnold Republican.
'Any single abortion that takes place is a travesty. So that's going to be really driving the fight to undo this abomination that is Amendment 3, which, by the way, isn't really just about abortion,' she said, adding that the amendment is 'sweepingly broad.'
Missouri House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, a Kansas City Democrat, said the confusion over the status of abortion rights will make medical providers less likely to practice in Missouri. She said that if 'we can turn the tide' in the General Assembly, that's 'where change really starts.'
Republicans hold a supermajority in the Missouri House and Senate. Aune said ending the supermajorities would allow lawmakers to focus on issues that matter to residents, such as child care and public education.
'This patchwork of laws,' Aune said, 'and these abortion bans and these court cases are causing some, you know, some of our most talented OBGYNs and medical providers to leave the state and practice somewhere where they are less likely to be convicted just for helping the patient and providing necessary medical care.'
'That's what people care about,' Aune said. 'People don't want their lawmakers screaming about abortion for the next eight years when there are actual problems to be solved.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Trump wants to cut federal housing funds in half, and even Republicans are questioning it
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner kept repeating the same phrases to Congress in defense of President Donald Trump's proposal to cut the agency's budget by 51%. "It's time for a paradigm shift." "We have to refocus." "We want to be efficient and effective, not bloated and bureaucratic." Democrats on House and Senate appropriations subcommittees were outraged — and even some Republicans were skeptical. Turner was tasked with explaining what Trump's proposed $45 billion cut to HUD's funding would look like in practice. The agency would be among the hardest hit parts of the federal government under Trump's plan to eliminate $163 billion in federal spending. But the secretary offered little detail on plans for how his agency would continue serving millions of older, disabled, and low-income Americans, people struggling to recover from disasters like hurricanes and wildfires, and those experiencing homelessness. "The goal here is not to serve less Americans. The goal here is to serve Americans better," Turner said during his testimony before the House subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development on June 10. While Democratic lawmakers were particularly critical of Turner's approach and Trump's massive budget cut request, some Republicans also probed Turner for more detailed explanations he didn't provide. The hearings highlighted how the nation's major housing affordability challenges have become a bipartisan concern. "The federal government doesn't have all the answers, and the budget empowers collaboration with states and localities," HUD spokesperson Kasey Lovett told Business Insider. Few details, lots of frustration During the House hearing, Republican Rep. David Joyce asked Turner how HUD plans to continue helping victims of disasters, like flooding and fires, if the agency slashes funding for the Community Development Block Grant — Disaster Recovery program, as the budget proposes. The agency has long helped FEMA rebuild homes destroyed in natural disasters that lack sufficient insurance, as well as repair roads and bridges. In response, Turner insisted that HUD "will not allow disaster recovery and those that need assistance in disaster recovery to be lost on us" and that HUD is simply pursuing a "different way of distributing these funds." Joyce, who represents Northeast Ohio, wasn't satisfied. "Thank you, sir, that was a great answer, but it didn't demonstrate a plan. Do you have a plan?" the congressman responded. Turner ultimately conceded that the plan for supporting disaster victims "is forthcoming." Joyce ended the exchange by warning that the agency has a role to play. "The one thing I know is, you're right. Disasters come. All over the country, disasters come. And you need to be ready for them." Rep. Rutherford, a Florida Republican, pressed Turner on how states will help support homeownership in low-income communities when the president's budget proposes eliminating HUD's Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), a competitive grant program that Rutherford said has been successful in his district. "Everywhere that homeownership went up, violent crime went down," said Rutherford, a former sheriff. "How are we going to address this issue if we're doing away with SHOP?" Turner replied by saying that states can support homeownership programs if they see fit going forward, but didn't clarify where that funding would come from. Spokespeople for Rutherford and Joyce didn't immediately return BI's requests for comment. 'People will die' Democratic lawmakers expressed more direct frustration about the program cuts and lack of detail the secretary presented. "People will die," Rep. Mike Quigley, an Illinois Democrat, told Turner of HUD's proposed cuts to homelessness services, including the elimination of the Housing for Persons with AIDS program. "If you just want to say we've got to cut these things because that's our plan, I'd respect you a lot more than telling us that you care about people as you put them on the street." Turner replied that the agency isn't just cutting funding but is "going to be more effective and more efficient." "How?" Quigley asked. "It's a new paradigm. It's a new way to do things," Turner replied. During Turner's testimony before the Senate on June 11, Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz, who's made housing a key priority, urged Turner to reinstate a bipartisan program Schatz championed that incentivizes states and localities to cut red tape that hampers housing construction. "It's the most significant pro-housing deregulatory mechanism that we've passed," Schatz said. Turner didn't answer Schatz's question on the eliminated program, and simply said he's encouraging local leaders to find ways to cut regulations. But the president's budget isn't law. Government funding is set to run out in September, and Congress has the final say on what the federal budget looks like. The House hearing concluded with the chairwoman, Republican Rep. Stephanie Bice, suggesting that Turner hasn't had enough time in the few months he's been in office to nail down more specifics about where HUD funding will go and how programs will be reformed. "Is it safe to say that you have a framework for a plan that you want to move forward, but maybe not all of the nuts and bolts that you need to be able to present those details?" Bice asked Turner. "Yes, ma'am," Turner replied.
an hour ago
Cities brace for large crowds at anti-Trump 'No Kings' demonstrations across the US
PHILADELPHIA -- Cities large and small were preparing for major demonstrations Saturday across the U.S. against President Donald Trump, as officials urge calm, National Guard troops mobilize and Trump attends a military parade in Washington to mark the Army's 250th anniversary. A flagship 'No Kings' march and rally are planned in Philadelphia, but no events are scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C., where the military parade will take place on Trump's birthday The demonstrations are gaining additional fuel from protests flaring up around the country over federal immigration enforcement raids and Trump ordering National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles where protesters blocked a freeway and set cars on fire. Police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades while officials enforced curfews in Los Angeles and Democratic governors called Trump's Guard deployment 'an alarming abuse of power' that "shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' Governors and city officials vowed to protect the right to protest and to show no tolerance for violence. Republican governors in Virginia, Texas, Nebraska and Missouri are mobilizing National Guard troops to help law enforcement manage demonstrations. There will be 'zero tolerance' for violence, destruction or disrupting traffic, and "if you violate the law, you're going to be arrested," Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin told reporters Friday. In Missouri, Gov. Mike Kehoe issued a similar message, vowing to take a proactive approach and not to 'wait for chaos to ensue." Nebraska's governor on Friday also signed an emergency proclamation for activating his state's National Guard, a step his office called 'a precautionary measure in reaction to recent instances of civil unrest across the country.' Organizers say that one march will go to the gates of Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis warned demonstrators that the 'line is very clear' and not to cross it. Governors also urged calm. On social media, Washington state Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, called for peaceful protests over the weekend, to ensure Trump doesn't send military to the state. 'Donald Trump wants to be able to say that we cannot handle our own public safety in Washington state,' Ferguson said. In a statement Friday, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, urged 'protestors to remain peaceful and calm as they exercise their First Amendment right to make their voices heard.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said his administration and state police are working with police in Philadelphia ahead of what organizers estimate could be a crowd approaching 100,000 people. Philadelphia's top prosecutor, District Attorney Larry Krasner, warned that anyone coming to Philadelphia to break the law or immigration agents exceeding their authority will face arrest. He invoked civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. as a guide for demonstrators. 'If you are doing what Martin Luther King would have done, you're going to be fine," Krasner told a news conference. Some law enforcement agencies announced they were ramping up efforts for the weekend. In California, state troopers will be on 'tactical alert," which means all days off are cancelled for all officers. The 'No Kings' theme was orchestrated by the 50501 Movement, to support democracy and against what they call the authoritarian actions of the Trump administration. The name 50501 stands for 50 states, 50 protests, one movement. Protests earlier this year have denounced Trump and billionaire adviser Elon Musk. Protesters have called for Trump to be 'dethroned' as they compare his actions to that of a king and not a democratically elected president. The No Kings Day of Defiance has been organized to reject authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics and the militarization of the country's democracy, according to a statement by organizers. Organizers intend for the protests to counter the Army's 250th anniversary celebration — which Trump has ratcheted up to include a military parade, which is estimated to cost $25 million to $45 million that the Army expects to attract as many as 200,000 people. The event will feature hundreds of military vehicles and aircraft and thousands of soldiers. It also happens to be Trump's 79th birthday and Flag Day. 'The flag doesn't belong to President Trump. It belongs to us,' the 'No Kings' website says. 'On June 14th, we're showing up everywhere he isn't — to say no thrones, no crowns, no kings.' Protests in nearly 2,000 locations are scheduled around the country, from city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, organizers said. Demonstrations are expected to include speeches and marches, organizers said in a call Wednesday. The group says a core principle behind all 'No Kings' events is a commitment to nonviolent action, and participants are expected to seek to de-escalate any confrontation. No weapons of any kind should be taken to 'No Kings' events, according to the website. The No Kings Day of Defiance is expected to be the largest single-day mobilization since Trump returned to office, organizers said. Organizers said they are preparing for millions of people to take to the streets across all 50 states and commonwealths.
an hour ago
Takeaways from AP's investigation of US death benefits program for public safety officers
A federal program that provides benefits to families of police officers and firefighters who die and become disabled on duty is rapidly growing while facing criticism for increasing delays in deciding claims. Congress created the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program in 1976 to guarantee that the spouses and children of officers who put their lives on the line would receive financial support. But repeated expansions in eligibility approved by Congress, including three passed in the last five years, have made the program more popular and complex to administer. Critics say the program fails some families by taking too long to grant or deny benefits and making inconsistent rulings. An Associated Press analysis found that hundreds of families are waiting years to learn whether they qualify for payments, and more are ultimately being denied. New Jersey widow Sharline Volcy learned this month that she'd been awarded the benefits, more than 3 1/2 years after her husband, Ronald Donat, died while training at the Gwinnett County Police Academy in Georgia. Volcy said she was grateful for the aid, which will provide some financial security and help pay for her two daughters to go to college. But she said the long wait was stressful, when she was told time and again the claim remained under review and ultimately saw her inquiries ignored. 'They told me they didn't know how long it would take because they don't have a deadline. That's the hardest thing to hear,' she said. 'I felt defeated.' She said lawyers didn't want to take the case, and a plea for help to her congressperson went nowhere. She said she'd given up hope and was lucky she had a job as an airport gate agent in the meantime. Volcy's experience isn't unique, and some cases take longer. As of late April, more than 120 claims by surviving relatives or disabled first responders have been awaiting initial determinations or rulings on their appeals for more than five years, according AP's findings. About a dozen have waited over a decade for an answer. The program has a goal of making determinations within one year but has not taken steps to track its progress, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report. But roughly three in 10 cases have not met that timeframe in recent years. As of late late April, 900 claims had been pending longer than one year. That includes claims from nearly every state. Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill to require the program to make determinations within 270 days. Over the last year, the denial rate has increased, with roughly one in three death and disability claims getting rejected. Applicants can appeal to a hearing officer and then the director if they choose, but that isn't common. Many say they can't afford attorneys or want to get on with their lives. Justice Department officials, who oversee the program, say they're making complicated decisions about whether cases meet legal criteria. 'Death and disability claims involving complex medical and causation issues, voluminous evidence and conflicting medical opinions, take longer to determine, as do claims in various stages of appeal,' they said in a statement. The program started as a simple $50,000 payout for the families of officers who were fatally shot on duty or died as a result of other violence or dangers. But Congress expanded the program in 1990 to cover some first responders who were disabled on duty, which made some determinations harder to reach. A 1998 law added educational benefits for the spouses and children of those deceased and disabled officers. Since 2020, Congress has passed three laws making many other types of deaths and disabilities eligible, including deaths related to COVID-19, deaths and injuries of those working rescue and cleanup operations after the September 2001 attacks, and responders who committed suicide under certain circumstances. Annual claims have more than doubled in the last five years, from 500 in 2019 to roughly 1,200 today. While many applicants have criticized the increasing delays, the leading group that represents the relatives of officers who die on duty has been silent. Critics say that's because the group, Concerns of Police Survivors, has a financial incentive not to criticize the program, which has awarded it tens of millions of dollars in grant funding in recent decades. The Missouri-based nonprofit recently received a new $6 million grant from the program to for its work with deceased officers' relatives, including counseling, hosting memorial events, educating agencies about the program and assisting with claims. The group's founder and retired executive director, Suzie Sawyer, said she was warned many years ago that fighting too hard for claimants could jeopardize its grant funding. But current spokesperson Sara Slone said advocacy isn't the group's mission and that it works 'hand in hand' with PSOB to assist applicants and provide education about benefits. Lisa Afolayan's husband died after a training exercise at the Border Patrol academy more than 16 years ago, but she's still fighting the program for benefits. An autopsy found that Nate Afolayan died from heat illness after completing a 1.5-mile test run in 88 degree heat, at a high altitude in the New Mexico desert. The program had awarded benefits to families after similar training deaths, dating back to an officer who died at an academy in 1988. But its independent investigation blamed Nate's death on sickle cell trait, a genetic condition that's usually benign but has been linked to rare exertion-related deaths in police, military and sports training. The program denied Lisa's claim and her subsequent appeals, arguing the death wasn't the result of heat along and didn't qualify. The program stood by its denial in 2024, even after a federal appeals court said it may have failed to adequately consider the weather's role and violated a law barring discrimination on the basis of genetic information.
