Lawsuit filed against Missouri's Reproductive Freedom ballot initiative for violating state law

(TC Public Relations) In a lawsuit filed on August 22, 2024, on behalf of state lawmakers and affected individuals, attorneys for the Thomas More Society are challenging the inclusion of proposed Amendment 3 on the November ballot. The lawsuit alleges that the ballot initiative was mistakenly approved by Missouri Secretary of State John Ashcroft because it violates the Missouri Constitution and state laws.

Amendment 3, also known as the “Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative,” would add an unlimited new “superright” to the state constitution, the “fundamental right to reproductive freedom.” The proposed amendment leaves this term largely undefined, but applies to “all matters related to reproductive health care.”

Because the popular initiative that resulted in proposed Amendment 3 does not specify the laws and constitutional provisions it would directly or indirectly repeal, it violates both the Constitution and state laws. Missouri Revised Statutes Section 116.050 requires that signatories of a popular initiative must be informed of the following:[t]The full and correct text of the initiative must[i]include any section of existing law or the Constitution that would be repealed by the measure.”

This information was not provided to Missourians who signed the petition to put Amendment 3 on the ballot, despite the clear legal requirement to include this information. This would make both the signatures and the petition illegal.

“The petition proposing Amendment 3 violated both state law and the Missouri Constitution, so it was wrong for the Secretary of State to approve it. Missouri law requires drafters to disclose the impact of ballot initiatives on other laws and to limit the impact of a proposed amendment to one issue in order to protect Missouri voters from being cheated by cleverly tricking them into approving something that has hidden effects. Amendment 3 is full of hidden effects,” said Mary Catherine Martin, senior legal counsel for the Thomas More Society. “Its most important provision creates an entirely novel and limitless 'superright' that ranks higher than life, free speech, religion, equal treatment and due process. This would require courts, when making decisions related to reproduction, to place this 'superright' above the interests of others and even society as a whole.”

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Missouri State Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman, pro-life activist Kathy Forck, State Representative Hannah Kelly, and President and CEO of Our Lady's Inn Peggy Forrest, argues that Amendment 3's new “super right” to “reproductive freedom,” as proposed, would essentially repeal all laws and constitutional provisions of the State of Missouri Regulation of reproductive care and technologies, including all existing regulations on abortion, cloning, IVF for stem cell research, sex reassignment surgery and genital mutilation. This repeal These include the state constitutional amendment banning human cloning and artificial insemination for stem cell research, the Unborn Child Right to Life Act, and the Infant Protection Act, the state's partial abortion law. In addition, proposed Amendment 3 would repeal state laws that protect viable unborn children from abortion based on discrimination (such as race, sex, and Down syndrome), as well as Missouri's ban on abortion of late-term, viable unborn children. [emphases added]

READ: Senator calls for prosecution of Planned Parenthood in Missouri due to shocking videos

“We are asking the court to reverse the affirmation of Amendment 3 because Missourians have a legal right to a choice process that complies with the law, and the process that forced Amendment 3 on Missouri has failed to do so,” Martin added. “It is a scorched earth campaign that is destroying our state statute books with important protections for vulnerable women and children, innocent unborn children, parents, and any taxpayer who does not want their money spent on abortion and other extreme choices that this amendment defines as 'care.' To be clear: Under our petition process, Missourians are free to tie their hands in this way, but the Constitution and the laws require them to know they are doing so.”

Other provisions of the Act that would be repealed by proposed Amendment 3 include: Individuals who were injured or died while “exercising their right to reproductive freedom,” as well as their family members, would no longer have access to the courts to remedy such violations, such as in cases of medical malpractice and wrongful death.The proposed Amendment 3 In addition, parental consent and notification laws and the legal requirement that only physicians may perform or arrange for an abortion would be directly or implicitly repealed. [emphases added]

The lawsuit also claims that proposed Amendment 3, as certified, violates the Missouri Constitution's Single Subject Rule, which requires that any ballot initiative “shall contain no more than one amended and revised article of this Constitution or a new article containing no more than one subject and matters related thereto.” Proposed Amendment 3 establishes several new legal standards that apply to all of the above subjects and more, and sets a nondiscrimination standard that appears to require transgender people as people “receiving reproductive care” to have access to restrooms, locker rooms, and athletic competitions. The same provision will likely mandate state funding for “reproductive care” such as abortion, contraception, and even sex reassignment surgery.

There is no “central” purpose of the change as required by the single-subject rule, the petition states.

Because the ballot initiative did not meet state election laws designed to protect Missouri voters, the petition seeks to repeal the proposed Amendment 3 and remove it from the November ballot.

Read the Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunction filed on August 22, 2024 by attorneys for the Thomas More Society on behalf of Missouri State Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Kathy Forck, State Representative Hannah Kelly, and Peggy Forrest, in Coleman et al. v Ashcroftin the Circuit Court of Cole County – State of Missouri, here.

Editor's Note: This press release was emailed by TCPR.

Call on Walmart, Costco, Kroger and other major chains to resist pressure to dispense the abortion pill