In the wake of last year's crucial presidential election, voters in nearly a dozen states faced an even more critical decision: whether to incorporate abortion rights into their state constitutions.
This move was backed by numerous affluent progressives who sought to introduce abortion ballot measures in 2024, effectively offering voters the opportunity to establish a supposed right to terminate pregnancies.
While Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota rejected these measures, Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and New York approved them.
According to the Western Journal, one of the most tightly contested races was in Missouri, a staunchly conservative state where the Republican party has dominated the state legislature for over two decades.
Despite this, voters narrowly approved Amendment 3, which introduced a "fundamental right" to abortion into the Missouri state constitution. This measure was supported by 51.6 percent of voters, while 48.4 percent opposed it.
However, Missouri now seems to be the first state to attempt to repeal an abortion ballot measure. The state's Republican-controlled legislature has approved House Joint Resolution 73, which seeks to remove Amendment 3 from the state constitution. While this may appear to be a positive development, the text of House Joint Resolution 73 does more than just eliminate Amendment 3.
The new ballot measure, which could be presented to voters in 2026, also introduces protections for abortions in cases of "fetal anomaly, rape, or incest." This implies that abortion would still be enshrined in the state constitution, albeit to a lesser extent.
The Foundation to Abolish Abortion warned in an analysis, "Rather than simply removing the abominable Amendment 3 from the Missouri state constitution, House Joint Resolution 73 actively codifies abortion in some cases. No children should be legally executed for the sins of their fathers, and sickness or disability are not reasons for execution either."
House Joint Resolution 73 would permit abortions through most of the first trimester in instances of rape and incest. The text also attempts to differentiate between a "disability" in a preborn baby and a "fetal anomaly," allowing the termination of the child in the latter case but not in the former.
Major pro-life organizations in Missouri have praised this move. Missouri Right to Life, the state affiliate of National Right to Life, hailed the ballot measure while it was still advancing in the state legislature, even publicly labeling the effort as "life-saving and life-affirming." Other national pro-life groups echoed similar celebratory sentiments.
However, the decision to include pro-abortion components in House Joint Resolution 73 has sparked a moral crisis among many anti-abortion voters in Missouri. Some citizens who might have otherwise campaigned, donated, or advocated for the repeal of Amendment 3 may reluctantly vote for House Joint Resolution 73, but their enthusiasm for enacting the ballot measure may be significantly dampened.
Others may refuse to vote for House Joint Resolution 73 altogether, out of a refusal to support the termination of pregnancies in any form.
The Foundation to Abolish Abortion further criticized the move, stating, "While many of these Republican lawmakers and pro-life lobbyists may think they are employing prudential strategy in crafting a ballot measure they believe will pass, in the hope of mitigating the evil of Amendment 3, they are violating commands from God to exercise judgment without partiality.
They are practicing another kind of child sacrifice by withholding legal protection from some children in the hopes of saving others."
The defeat of pro-abortion forces will not be achieved through timid and compromised leadership. It must come through a bold and biblical refusal to tolerate child sacrifice.
Only such a stance can rally Christians to the cause of preborn babies legally terminated under the cover of law, and now with the protection of state constitutions. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the owners of this website.
Login