Missouri judge says GOP official’s summary of abortion rights law misleading

COLUMBIA, MO — A Missouri judge ruled Thursday that an anti-abortion Republican operative used misleading language to summarize a ballot question aimed at restoring abortion rights in the state.

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Cotton Walker rejected a description of the amendment written by the office of Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, an abortion opponent.

In his ruling, Walker said Ashcroft’s language was “unfair, insufficient, inaccurate and misleading.”

Walker wrote a new summary explaining to voters that the bill would repeal Missouri’s abortion ban and allow abortions to be restricted or banned after the fetus is viable outside the body, with some exceptions.

Missouri banned nearly all abortions after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Walker also noted that the amendment would create a “constitutional right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives.”

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 summary, written by Ashcroft, stated that a “yes” vote on the proposition 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.

Ashcroft’s spokesman, JoDonn Chaney, said the office was reviewing the judge’s decision.

“Secretary Ashcroft will always fight for life and for the people of Missouri to know the truth,” Chaney said.

The amendment itself states that “the government shall not deny or violate a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which includes the right to make and exercise decisions about 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.”

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 someone exercising their reproductive rights. Crane said the provision, if passed, would render all abortion laws toothless.

Supporters of the initiative celebrated Walker’s decision.

“This ruling confirms what we have known all along — our opponents are trying to block the November vote because they know that Missourians overwhelmingly support reproductive freedom and will vote ‘yes’ on Amendment 3,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement Thursday. “Missourians deserve the chance to vote on Amendment 3 based on the facts, and today’s decision brings us one step closer to making that a reality.”

Lawyers for the woman who proposed the amendment wrote in legal briefs that Ashcroft’s description was misleading and that lawmakers could regulate abortions after establishing the fetus’s ability to survive outside the womb.

“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’ brief stated.

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 Western District Court of Appeals ruled that Ashcroft’s summary was politically biased and rewrote it. Much of Walker’s voting language is based on the Court of Appeals summary.