Advocates seek rewriting of Missouri abortion rights law

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri judge will rule Thursday on whether the official description of an abortion rights amendment introduced by the Republican secretary of state in November is misleading.

The dispute involves a proposed constitutional amendment to Missouri that would restore abortion rights in the state, which banned nearly all abortions after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade ruling in 2022.

At least nine other states will consider constitutional amendments guaranteeing abortion rights this fall — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada and South Dakota.

In Missouri, ballot text is posted at polling places to help voters understand the impact of a yes or no vote on sometimes complex ballot initiatives.

The ballot measure, written by Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s office, says a “yes” vote on the abortion rights bill would enshrine “the right to abortion at any point in pregnancy in the Missouri Constitution.”

“In addition, all regulations on abortion will be prohibited, including regulations intended to protect women who have abortions, as well as all legal and criminal remedies against those who perform abortions and harm or kill pregnant women,” Ashcroft explained.

The amendment itself states that the government will not infringe on an individual’s right to “reproductive freedom,” which is defined as “all matters related to reproductive health care, including, but not limited to, prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and dignified childbirth.”

Tori Schafer, an attorney for the woman who proposed the amendment, said Ashcroft’s official description of the measure is “controversial, misleading and inaccurate.” She asked County Judge Cole Cotton Walker to rewrite Ashcroft’s ballot language.

“Missouri residents are entitled to fair, accurate, and comprehensive language that will allow them to make an informed decision about whether to vote for or against the amendment without being misled by the Secretary of State,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote in the filing.

Deputy Attorney General Andrew Crane defended Ashcroft’s brief in court. He pointed to a clause in the amendment that protects “any person” from prosecution or penalties if he voluntarily assists a person in exercising his or her right to reproductive freedom. Crane said that if the provision were to pass, it would render all abortion laws toothless.

“The government will not be able to enforce any restrictions on abortion in practice,” Crane said.

Walker said he will make a decision on Thursday.

This is the second time Ashcroft and abortion rights supporters have clashed over the official description of the amendment.

The 2023 campaign also sued Ashcroft over how his office described the amendment in a ballot summary. Ballot summaries are general overviews of amendments, similar to ballot language. However, the summaries are included on the ballot.

Ashcroft’s voting summary said the bill would allow “unsafe and unregulated abortions up to the point of live birth.”

A three-judge panel of the Ashcroft Western District Court of Appeals found the summary to be biased and rewrote it.