Kamala Harris and other far-left activists are calling the 2024 general election an “abortion election,” and pro-abortion forces lost when Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022. Trying to regain ground. The issue in Missouri is literally on the ballot, as voters in the Show-Me State consider the Third Amendment, which establishes the right to decide on what is euphemistically called “reproductive health care.” are.
In reality, it's all about decriminalizing abortion in the state. Missouri is one of the states that banned the cruel procedure in 2022 when the Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, effectively handing the legality of abortion back to the states. Abortion is currently illegal in Missouri except in certain extreme circumstances. If there is a “yes” vote, the procedure becomes legal. A “no” vote maintains the status quo.
Opponents of the Third Amendment
It's a bitter battle between pro-life and pro-abortion advocates, with each side claiming the other is misinforming voters. Gov. Michael Parson and his wife, Teresa, argued in an open letter to voters that much of the movement stems from state interests.
Pro-abortion groups spent nearly $20 million pushing this extreme pro-abortion amendment to change the Missouri Constitution. Almost 75% of the funding comes from out-of-state donors, including funds associated with George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and Planned Parenthood. The amendment's language, written by lawyers and pro-abortion activist groups, limits the ability of Missourians and their elected officials to deliberate on health and safety standards for women and children.
Parson said the amendment's ambiguous language could potentially be used to treat transgender people.
The state would also pave the way for children to undergo sex reassignment surgery without their parents' knowledge.
Will things other than abortion be legalized?
The governor and his wife strongly urge a “no” vote. Supporters of the amendment accuse Parson of using transgender fears as a smokescreen, since transgender procedures are far less acceptable to voters than abortions.
Anita Manion is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Lewis explained:
Although the Third Amendment says nothing about transgender care, other reproductive rights laws mean that this radical transgender agenda may exist. They claim it is. Part of that is that they think the issue has more support from Americans than abortion.
A billboard in Missouri urges a “no” vote. One reads, “Transgender surgery that taxes don't pay for,” and the other says, “Third Amendment could allow gender transition for children.”
Officially, the ballot paper reads:
Would you like to amend the Missouri Constitution to:
Establishes the right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraception, but government interference with that right is considered invalid. Repeal Missouri's abortion ban. Allows the regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain patient health. Require governments not to discriminate against persons providing or receiving reproductive health care in government programs, funding, and other activities. Allow abortion to be restricted or prohibited beyond fetal viability, except when protecting the woman's life or health?
The proposed amendment does not explicitly mention transgender procedures, but does state that the government “shall not discriminate against persons providing or receiving reproductive health care in government programs, funding, or other activities.” The requirements are onerous. A smart lawyer might argue that transgender surgery can be considered “reproductive health care” because it typically involves sterilizing the patient.
The right to have a baby should be reason enough to vote “no” on this vaguely worded pro-abortion amendment. But if people believe it opens the door to gender reassignment surgery for children (which it might), then the “no” side has a better chance of winning. Perhaps the “Jesus” side's own euphemisms may be their undoing.
