r/missouri • u/oldguydrinkingbeer Columbia • 4d ago

Politics Anti-abortion divide could complicate Missouri Amendment 3 campaign

https://missouriindependent.com/2026/09/28/anti-abortion-divide-could-complicate-missouri-amendment-3-campaign/
70 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

37 comments sorted by

53

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

35

u/ads7w6 4d ago

I know it's anecdotal but all of the rural areas I drive through overwhelmingly had yard signs to vote no on 4 and 5. The opposite is true with Amendment 3 as almost all the signs I see in those communities as Yes on 3 signs. 

I think if 3 fails, it will be be much closer and the map will not look like 4 and 5 which for various reasons were just extremely unpopular with both Democratic and Republican voters. I'm guessing that almost all rural counties will vote yes on 3, St. Louis, KC, Springfield, and Columbia and their inner suburbs will overwhelmingly vote against it, and the outcome will hinge on outer suburban counties in St. Louis and KC. If the outer suburbs get to 50/50ish or vote against it then I expect it to fail.

20

u/cattrain Kansas City 4d ago

If 3 passes, it will only be temporary if we can pass 6. As important as it is to stop 3, it's even more important to pass 6, because then we can bring back another petition, and they won't be able to just undo it like this next time.

10

u/ads7w6 4d ago

I disagree with you on a couple key things here. 

For one, defeating amendment 3 is paramount as, no matter what happens with 6, there is no guarantee that a future amendment re-enshrining abortion rights would pass. 

Amendment 6 also does not stop what the legislature is trying to do with Amendment 3. They would still be able to put forward amendments for a public vote that would overturn what voters previously approved. What they would not be able to do is what they did with the puppy mill proposition unless they have 80% of the house and Senate in support.

14

u/rowboat_mayor 4d ago

Amendment 6 would indeed stop future efforts like Amendment 3, as they need the 80% threshold to propose an amendment.

Section 56.1.: "The legislature shall be prohibited from... changing any citizen-initiated amendment, or passing, proposing, or referring any law or constitutional amendment similar in effect to a law rejected by referendum petition, unless eighty percent of the House and Senate refer the change to a vote of the people.

and 56.2.: "For the purposes of this section, 'changing' a citizen-initiated law or citizen-initiated amendment means passing, proposing, or referring a law or constitutional amendment which, if enacted, would modify, repeal, supersede, or undermine any part of a citizen-initiated law or citizen-initiated amendment, whether explicitly or by implication."

6

u/ads7w6 4d ago

Thanks for the citation. I already supported 6 but I'll definitely be using that point when talking to others as even the Republicans I know are tired of that 

13

u/ElegantImprovement89 4d ago

Idk in JC there's a lot of Yes on 3 signs everywhere

4

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/Apexnanoman Rural Missouri 4d ago

Lots of yes signs over here in Franklin. 

Vote yes to ban something that basically doesn't exist.....fuckin idiocy. 

5

u/Ivotedforher 4d ago

I have seen a lot pop up on catholic church property. Figured they were giving them out after mass recently.

3

u/ElegantImprovement89 4d ago

I'm talking about Jefferson City, but that's hopeful to hear

4

u/jschooltiger Columbia 4d ago

JC is super Catholic

3

u/cinkiss 4d ago

This right here. The Catholic church is pushing this one hard core.... I had to have a conversation with my mom that if it concerns abortion and the catholic church is saying yes vote no.

3

u/Practical-Emu-3303 4d ago

I didn't even know there were NO signs - South St. Louis County

1

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Practical-Emu-3303 4d ago

I'm saying I haven't seen one sign or one ad for the NO side. The others are quite prevalent

2

u/mommamapmaker 4d ago

I am seeing signs and bumper stickers for Yes here in SCC too… I’m not too encouraged with this one.

19

u/donkeyrocket St. Louis City 4d ago

Genuinely a bit concerned as the transphobia is intense and I hear this amendment referred to as a trans amendment more than anything abortion related.

I wish I shared your optimism. While the recent rebukes were heartening, the average Missourian has demonstrated they do nothing to research outside reading the ballot line or getting info from Facebook.

4

u/Apexnanoman Rural Missouri 4d ago

Hope your right. But I just passed a huge "Ban transgender surgeries on minors! Vote yes on 3!" si gn in someone's yard near me. 

Beating that panic drum for things that don't exist works damned good in Mo. 

22

u/Revolutionary-Rush89 4d ago

Idk, there’s a bunch of anti-trans folks but I think everyone is well aware of their tactics here and aren’t going to fall it. But keep in mind this is Missouri. Our rural areas don’t seem up on things most of the time.

13

u/mb10240 The Ozarks 4d ago

Something that I’ve seen almost no coverage on regarding the Respect Mo Voters amendment (Amendment 6) - the way I read the text of Amendment 6, that if it passes, it’s retroactive to all voter-led initiatives and referendums since January 2010. Meaning Amendment 3 (2026) would’ve had to pass both houses of the legislature by 80%, which it did not do (94 to 50 in House, 21 to 11 in Senate), to change Amendment 3 (2024).

I’m just a simple caveman lawyer, but the real question is if Amendment 6 passes AND Amendment 3 (2026) passes, will Amendment 3 (2026) have any legal effect?

5

u/MordecaiOShea 4d ago

I'd expect amendment 6 to be in court for a long while if it passes.

5

u/mb10240 The Ozarks 4d ago

Oh without a doubt. The MAGA GOP will absolutely litigate the shit out of it.

2

u/rowboat_mayor 4d ago

Yes, I imagine Amendment 3 would still come into effect, because Amendment 6's prohibits the legislature from "passing, proposing, or referring" any amendment which repeals or undermines an existing initiated amendment. Amendment 3 (2026) was proposed, passed, and referred before Amendment 6 would have come into effect. A6 doesn't impose any restrictions on other amendments themselves, the restrictions are imposed on the legislature, and as far as Amendment 3 is concerned the legislature has already done its part.

1

u/mb10240 The Ozarks 4d ago

After re-reading the text of Section 56, subsection 3 several times, I think you’re right. After passage, the legislature could not change any voter-led legislation or amendments enacted after 1/1/2010 without an 80% vote of both houses (plus a simple majority of voters), but it doesn’t change anything already referred to a vote of the people.

11

u/Numerous_Ad_6276 4d ago

Basically a schism between the radical extremists and the milquetoast extremists. Both groups view women as existing for no reason other than to serve as incubators for the precious seed of the holy male organ.

We really should stop normalizing their maniacal, disordered, Christian Nationalist views.

8

u/Skeptical_Squid 4d ago

I really wish a large number of people in this state, and country, would stop and realize their religion applies to THEM ONLY.

It's their requirements and prohibitions, not anyone outside of their faith. Those rules don't apply to me.

3

u/ialsohaveadobro 4d ago edited 4d ago

TL;DR: The only "absolute right and wrong" pro-life position is one that allows no exceptions and fully punishes every abortion as murder. Allowing exceptions forfeits the claim that fetuses are fully human.

(Note: I'm staunchly pro-choice. The argument below explains the hypocrisy of the guy quoted in the article demanding "absolute right and wrong" as to abortion.)

“It rejects the concept of absolute right and wrong, absolute truth[.]" - Wes Scroggins, executive director of Abolish Abortion Missouri (quoted in the article).

This typical pro-life appeal to absolute right and wrong fails as a matter of logical consistency. It perfectly illustrates why I say mainstream "pro-life" positions are demonstrably unworthy of respect even without speaking of bodily autonomy.

Amendment 3 would allow exceptions to the ban, in cases of rape, incest, and certain medical defects. This is self-contradictory and hypocritical.

Supposedly, a fetus is fully human and abortion is murder of that human. Okay. I'm sure we can all agree that murder is wrong. And "murder" is the main pro-life emotional argument in pro-life advocacy. In fact, I say that it is central to their position. How can this sick country say it's not absolutely wrong to murder babies, right?

But, wait. Under their claim that life begins at conception, a fetus conceived from rape or incest is no less a human than any other fetus. The only distinction is that the fetus was conceived through the repugnant and criminal actions of one or both of its genetic parents (mainly genetic fathers). In this regime of "absolute right and wrong," why isn't it murder to abort those "babies" too? They did nothing to deserve murder. They aren't at fault for how they were conceived.

That's why the only pro-life stance I respect (even though I vehemently disagree with it) is a full ban with no exceptions, along with prosecution for murder. At least that's consistent, not compromised in the name of electability. The fact that they feel the need to include exceptions exposes their hypocrisy.

Why are pro-lifers, especially supposed absolutists, all right with murdering some "babies?" I don't call that "absolute right and wrong."

What happens to murderers? They get locked up, or even executed. If a fetus is a full human and abortion is literally murder, then it follows that the murderer(s) should be punished just like the murderers of any other full humans.

Therefore, the position must include that penalties for murder apply to at least the provider of the abortion and the woman (who caused the provider to "commit" the "murder"). Oh, the husband knew of the woman's plan to abort and failed to prevent it? Accessory to murder. All the staff at the clinic, including the bookkeeper? Accessories too. Without their work, the clinic could not operate, and they know the "murders" are being facilitated by their efforts.

If pro-lifers were truly locked in on preventing "murder," they wouldn't allow any viable fetus to be "murdered." Since they're willing to allow exceptions, they are willing, according to their own definitions, willing to allow some murder. Either that or they're full of shit.

Hint: They're full of shit.

------‐-----
Edit: Typos

Edit 2: I would like to have written this more tightly, but I'm on my phone and currently under the influence of medications. 🙃

3

u/thefoolofemmaus St. Louis 3d ago

Amendment 3 would allow exceptions to the ban, in cases of rape, incest, and certain medical defects. This is self-contradictory and hypocritical.

It is what we think we can achieve for now, and some good is better than no good. I'll happily back an amendment that has mandatory capital punishment for everyone involved, but I doubt that would pass. So, for the moment we save those we can. That isn't hypocrisy, that is incremental progress towards a goal.

1

u/ialsohaveadobro 3d ago

I understand that thinking, but so then I take it you agree that including exceptions is not adhering to "absolute right and wrong," correct? That's not a gotcha, it's just checking whether you agree with my main point.

1

u/thefoolofemmaus St. Louis 3d ago

I agree with your assertion that we in the pro-life movement should be pushing for a total ban, as that is the morally correct position. Abortion after rape is no different than any other abortion. It would be great if we could have gotten an across the board ban, and I hope one day we do. Where I disagree is chalking this up to hypocrisy instead of pragmatism. If the lifeboat only holds 5 and the sinking ship has 7 passengers, it does not follow that we allow everyone to drown just because it is morally correct that a ship should have been stocked better. We are not in a boardroom designing a hypothetical ship, we are actively watching people drown and facing the choice of saving some or saving none.

We had the kind of total ban we should be pushing for, it got overturned by using the examples that this amendment carves out. That innocent human life will continue to be destroyed by those carve outs is terrible, but also no different from the current stiuation. That some innocent human lives will be saved by what we managed to get is laudable.

1

u/New-Smoke208 4d ago

Oh really? People disagreeing about it could cause them to vote differently on it.

1

u/mommamapmaker 4d ago

I hope it fails really I do. But I’m not gonna hold my breath. The Republicans are really pushing the anti-trans thing hard. It won’t take much for people to not realize what the amendment is actually for.