Proposed resolution could bring issue for a vote in 2026
Three months after voters decided to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, lawmakers are considering a new proposal to ban most abortions through another constitutional amendment.
The House Children and Families Committee heard several hours of testimony Feb. 5 on House Joint Resolution 54, which if passed by voters, would ban most abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest, medical emergencies and fetal anomalies.
Sponsored by Rep. Melanie Stinnett, R-Springfield, it also would prohibit public funds from being used to pay for abortions. In cases of rape or incest, victims would be required to file a police report at least 48 hours before the abortion, which would be allowed within 12 weeks gestation. It also would prohibit gender-affirming surgeries, cross-sex hormones and puberty blocking drugs for the purpose of gender transition for children under 18.
If passed, the ballot measure would be voted on in the 2026 general election. The governor also could call for a special election.
“I know that some will try and say that presenting House Joint Resolution 54 will undo the will of the people, but it is important to understand the full process of a house joint resolution,” Stinnett said at the hearing. “If passed through our legislative process, the language of this HJR will be presented for the vote of the people in Missouri by being placed on the ballot.”
Stinnett said she heard concerns from constituents about the language of Amendment 3, which passed with 51.6% of the vote, and allows for abortions until fetal viability but with a broad exception for the “life and physical or mental health” of the pregnant person.
Stinnett suggested that some may have voted for Amendment 3 because they were opposed to the state’s previous near-total ban on abortion but ultimately would prefer to see some restrictions.
“It would seem to me that if there are concerns they’re worth discussing and addressing in a timely manner, since this is a very serious topic,” she said at the hearing. By offering another proposed amendment, voters “will have an opportunity to modify and clarify the abortion laws of Missouri.”
Deacon Sam Lee, a lobbyist with Campaign Life Missouri who testified in favor of the measure, said that within hours of Amendment 3’s passage, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit challenging various abortion-related provisions, including one that banned abortions for reason of race, sex or diagnosis of Down syndrome. A judge temporarily blocked several abortion-related regulations while upholding others in a December ruling. (Abortions have not yet resumed in Missouri because the licensing requirement for abortion facilities was upheld.)
Amendment 3 created a “right to impose the death penalty on an unborn child because that child has an extra chromosome, that is, that child has Down syndrome,” Deacon Lee said in his testimony. “The fact that a judge would do that, at least at the preliminary injunction stage, is appalling.”
There are many things wrong with Amendment 3, Deacon Lee said, but “I do not recall a single ad on TV or in media, or a single person saying, yep, if you vote for Amendment 3, you can abort a baby based on his or her race or sex or because that baby has Down syndrome. And that is why (HJR 54) should be passed into law.”
Missouri Catholic Conference executive director Jamie Morris said at the most basic level, the conference is in favor of any measure that offers the most protection for unborn babies and their mothers. “We are in favor of the legislature getting together and thinking through the best path forward to limit or repeal Amendment 3,” he said. “We hope this is the start of further conversation on what is the best path forward to limit Amendment 3. I think it’s fair to say we found out after November that the majority of Missourians weren’t for a full ban, but the majority aren’t for 100% legality (of abortion).”
Morris said that he, too, has spoken with people who have shared their confusion about what Amendment 3 would do. With the voting outcome so close, he said the legislature is taking another look at “crafting policy that is reflective and more protective of the unborn and their mothers.”
The committee hasn’t taken action on the proposed resolution, but if approved, it would move to the House floor.
