The Missouri Supreme Court rejected requests to “follow the rules” when it ruled on Tuesday that a proposed amendment intended to allow pregnancy throughout all nine months of pregnancy could still be cast on the November ballot despite concerns about its validity.
The great defense’s decision reverses Judge Christopher Limbaugh’s ruling from the Cole County Circuit Court last week, who determined that the petition’s disclaimer requirements for Missouri law did not apply to the petition.
” By a majority vote of this Court, the loop court’s wisdom is reversed. According to the court’s ruling, respondent John R. Ashcroft may certify to local election officials that Amendment 3 been placed on the general election ballot on November 5, 2024, and may take all necessary steps to confirm that it is on said vote.
The , proposed article seeks to completely allow abortion in the Show-Me State, which now bars abortions “except in cases of , health emergency”, by adding a “right to biological freedom” to the state constitution.
The vote measure’s consciously ambiguous language would prevent legislators from enacting or enforcing protections for women and newborn babies as well as promising that anyone will “make and carry out judgments about all things” regarding “reproductive healthcare.”
The abortion rights activists in red states like Missouri frequently engage in legal battles that leverage on the unknown language in these amendments to precisely challenge parental acceptance and abortion monitoring laws.
According to the pro-life politicians and Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, Limbaugh and Ashcroft both agreed that” Missourians have a legal right to know what regulations their vote would reject before deciding to sign action petitions.”
” The complete and accurate text failed to identify any’ areas of existing legislation or of the law which would be repealed by the determine,'” Limbaugh , wrote.
The state supreme court, nevertheless, demanded that Amendment 3 been printed on vote for the forthcoming election in response to concerns that it would be infringed on the state constitution and rules.
The Supreme Court’s Mary Catherine Martin, a senior attorney for the Thomas More Society, who represented the Amendment 3 opponents in court, argued that allowing the extreme abortion plan to win the election is” a failure to protect citizens, by upholding state laws that assure electors are fully informed going into the ballot box.”
She said in a statement,” It is incredibly unlucky that the court decided to ignore rules that protect citizens in order to satisfy pro-abortion activists who purposefully omitted crucial information from the program petition.” This ruling violates significant rights for all Missouri citizens in order to benefit a select few’s well-funded political objectives.
Much like the almost hundred different abortion ballot initiatives plaguing states this slide, Missouri’s Amendment 3, Martin warned,” may include far-reaching implications on the state’s abortion laws and well beyond” that” the initiative campaign intentionally hid from voters”.
Before going to the polls, she urged Missourians to conduct thorough research and analysis of Amendment 3’s text and effects.
The “progressive Democrat tricksters pushing this measure completely misled the public about the real truth of Amendment 3 and the staggering scope of laws it would invalid,” said Republican Rep. Mark Alford of Missouri’s fourth congressional district.
” We cannot allow organizations to mislead voters like this, and today’s decision allowing Amendment 3 to remain on the ballot is a profound disappointment”, he said in a statement. ” It’s a loss for our Constitution, a loss for the people of Missouri, and a loss for Life”.
The Federalist staff writer and host of The Federalist Radio Hour, Jordan Boyd. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordanian received her bachelor’s degree from Baylor University, where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.
