A bridge over the Mississippi River near St. Louis. / Credit: Checubus/Shutterstock

St. Louis, Mo., Nov 18, 2024 / 07:00 am (CNA).

After a close but heartbreaking loss at the ballot box that saw Missouri voters choose to enshrine a right to “reproductive freedom” in the state constitution Nov. 5, the head of the Missouri Catholic Conference (MCC) said the closeness of the vote and the unity displayed by pro-life advocates in the state suggest a repeal of the amendment in the future remains a possibility.

“It truly was a strong, unified, grassroots effort that I wish we’d gotten over the finish line, but I’m still very proud,” Jamie Morris, executive director of the MCC in Jefferson City, told CNA this week.

Morris said looking ahead, the pro-life movement in Missouri is focused on maintaining its momentum and unity — and he suggested that losing the most recent abortion vote may unify and galvanize pro-lifers even further.

“We were very much outspent and still kept the vote very, very close. That tells me that there’s still a very strong sentiment in the state of Missouri to protect the preborn, to protect their mothers. Let’s not lose sight of that,” he said. 

Amendment 3 mandates that the government “shall not deny or infringe upon a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” including “prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.”

Although the amendment language mentions that laws could be passed to restrict abortion past the point of “fetal viability,” the amendment simultaneously prohibits any interference with an abortion that a doctor determines is necessary to “protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.”

The amendment’s appearance on the ballot was the subject of a protracted court battle earlier this year, with pro-lifers arguing that the final proposed language not only violated state law by failing to list which laws it would repeal but also misled voters about the scope and gravity of what they would be voting for. The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately voted 4-3 to allow the measure to appear before voters.

Missouri law currently extends protection to unborn babies throughout all of pregnancy with the only exception being cases of “medical emergency.” The new amendment tees up years of litigation as pro-abortion advocates will now sue to remove each of Missouri’s pro-life protections in light of the new constitutional provision.

Missouri, the first state to ban abortion after the overturn of Roe v. Wade, was one of 10 states to vote on abortion this year. While the outcome of the Missouri vote is not what pro-life advocates had hoped for, Morris said it has provided valuable insights and a renewed commitment to their cause. 

He pointed out that despite the amendment passing, Missouri’s pro-abortion amendment garnered less support than a similar amendment in Florida — 52% versus 57% — but Florida’s amendment needed 60% to pass and thus failed.

Since Election Day, some political observers have scratched their heads at the fact that despite voting to liberalize the state’s abortion laws, Missouri voters simultaneously voted nearly 60% to 40% for Donald Trump and elected a pro-life Catholic governor, Republican Mike Kehoe. They also chose a pro-life attorney general and other state officials. 

While unable to comment on specific plans, Morris expressed optimism that there will be opportunities to push back against the amendment’s implementation, given the milieu of pro-life government officials and representatives in the state. 

“My hope is, at least in this next legislative session, that we will see legislation proposed to chip away at or potentially repeal Amendment 3. I don’t have a good sense at this moment what type of legislation … but I do expect that there will be some [efforts] by the Legislature to try to protect against some of the harms that Amendment 3 poses.”

At the same time, he said, he hopes the Republican-led state Legislature will continue to try to pass pro-woman, pro-family, and pro-child policies that negate the need for abortion — in other words, “push for policies that address abortion from the ‘demand’ side.”

Outspent, but not out

Estimates vary on the exact disparity, but it was clear that pro-life groups in Missouri were vastly outspent during election season by out-of-state pro-abortion interests — 10 to 1, by one group’s reckoning.

And yet, Morris notes, the vote was close — just a handful of the state’s most populous counties in urban areas such as Kansas City, St. Louis, and Columbia carried the amendment to victory, by an overall statewide margin of less than 2%. Meanwhile, over 100 of Missouri’s counties voted no.

Each of the state’s four dioceses provided a few thousand dollars to the effort, Morris said, but the dollar figures were secondary to the grassroots efforts of the Church, which Morris said he felt presented a unified message.

“We didn’t spend any major sum of money, but I feel like we as a conference — along with each specific diocese in the state — I think we were able to still get our message out there. Whether it was all priests of a particular diocese preaching a homily on a particular Sunday or having our information sitting in church or inviting us to come speak to them,” he said. 

“It really was a truly coordinated effort that then was able to trickle down … I think the Church has a very special place and a very special voice, in not just what we say, but how we say it.”

Shocks ahead

In the wake of the vote, the pro-life community in Missouri is taking stock of the lessons learned from the campaign, Morris said, evaluating which strategies and messages resonated with the public and which did not. Despite the setback, he reiterated that he sees a renewed energy within the movement, bolstered by the close margin of the vote.

Morris said the MCC in its messaging sought to appeal to people’s values and concerns, rather than trying to be bombastic or shocking. He said its messaging about the potential impact of Amendment 3 on Missourians’ parental rights seemed to be particularly effective. 

He also said it focused on countering misinformation from the pro-abortion side, especially as it relates to ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage treatment, both of which are already provided for under Missouri law. 

Morris said he predicts that ongoing debates around the amendment will raise questions about the broader societal values concerning issues like race, sex, and Down syndrome diagnoses in the context of abortion. The amendment is likely to lead to the negation of Missouri’s specific ban on abortions done for these reasons — a stark reality that Morris predicts will shock many moderate voters. 

In addition, the amendment is expected to nullify several other protections currently in place, including laws against partial-birth abortion, parental notification, and the ability for women to sue abortion providers for malpractice.

“I think in some ways, the passage of Amendment 3 will maybe make those that are on the fence about abortion come [to terms] with some of the more stark realities of what is going on, in a way they haven’t had to before,” he opined. 

“As these types of stories come up, and as the pro-abortion side continues to push the bounds of what they think should be allowable under Amendment 3, I think we will have, from a pure strategy standpoint, an opportunity to come in and expose again how extreme Amendment 3 is.”