Missourians are expected to vote on a new abortion amendment in 2026. This amendment will be created and summarized by the Republican-led Missouri legislature, which aims to roll back parts of Amendment 3 and further restrict abortion access. Instead of making the same mistakes that put women and babies at risk, Republicans should propose a reasonable abortion amendment.
In 2024, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom spent $30 million promoting a reproductive freedom amendment that narrowly passed. During the same election, Missouri Democrats focused heavily on pro-abortion messaging in statewide and legislative races but did not gain a single seat.
Republicans still control all statewide offices and hold a legislative supermajority. Despite enforcing strict anti-abortion laws that made reproductive healthcare harder to access in Missouri, they faced no political consequences. With former President Trump’s strong victory in the state, anti-abortion Republicans believe they can successfully push through a constitutional amendment banning abortion. The legislature has already started moving forward with this plan.
On Tuesday, the Missouri House reviewed state Rep. Melanie Stinnett’s proposed constitutional amendment, which bans abortion with rare exceptions. While it may seem different from the total ban Missourians rejected, its wording creates so many barriers that abortion, including life-saving procedures, would still be nearly impossible to access.
There are three major concerns with this amendment.
First, a woman seeking an abortion due to rape or incest would have to report the assault to law enforcement with jurisdiction over the crime. Many survivors do not report sexual assaults to the police, making this requirement both harsh and unnecessary.
Abortion providers like Planned Parenthood are already required under Missouri law to report cases involving pregnant minors. There is no need to include an additional reporting condition in the constitutional amendment. If lawmakers insist on such a requirement for adults, they should consider less punitive options that acknowledge the realities of sexual violence.
Second, some women choose to terminate a pregnancy because of fetal abnormalities—when the baby has no chance of survival outside the womb due to severe medical conditions. Stinnett’s bill includes an exception for these cases, but the language makes it almost impossible to qualify. The bill states that a woman must be carrying a baby with a fetal abnormality and that the condition must also pose a serious physical risk to the mother.
However, many women carrying doomed pregnancies can physically continue the pregnancy but may choose to terminate earlier as part of their grieving process or to protect their future fertility. The way the amendment is written makes it nearly impossible for these women to get an abortion.
Third, the medical emergency exception is so restrictive that it would be extremely difficult for doctors to provide necessary care. The bill only allows an abortion if it is needed to prevent death or if delaying care “will” cause both “substantial” and “irreversible” harm.
Since doctors cannot predict the future with absolute certainty, this vague wording forces them to wait until a woman’s condition becomes life-threatening before they can legally act. In fact, the way the amendment is structured, a woman could only prove she qualified for the medical emergency exception if she actually died. This makes no sense.
The medical emergency exception is especially concerning because its vague language has already caused Missouri women to be denied care. In 2023, a pregnant woman in Joplin was refused emergency treatment even though she arrived at the hospital with a premature rupture of membranes. Missouri families should be worried that reinstating this clause could further discourage doctors from providing necessary treatment.
The best way to avoid these problems while still protecting life in Missouri is to allow legal abortion up to a certain point in pregnancy—such as 12 weeks. After that, doctors should have the freedom to decide if an abortion is necessary based on individual medical circumstances. This would not prevent the legislature from passing reasonable regulations on abortion, which is inevitable with Missouri’s anti-abortion lawmakers.
Missourians for Constitutional Freedom previously introduced a broad, gender-neutral abortion amendment that failed to achieve a clear victory. Because of that, Missouri Republicans now control the situation. However, they must remember that voters already rejected a total abortion ban. They do not want another law that functions the same way under a different name.
Disclaimer: This article has been meticulously fact-checked by our team to ensure accuracy and uphold transparency. We strive to deliver trustworthy and dependable content to our readers.
Benjamin Ford is a dedicated local journalist passionate about reporting on community news, events, politics, crime, and finance. With a sharp eye for detail and a commitment to uncovering impactful stories, he provides in-depth analysis and timely updates on issues that matter to the local audience. Benjamin enjoys engaging with the community and staying informed on emerging trends when he’s not covering the latest developments.
