In fall 2024, Missouri voters made their stance on reproductive freedom unmistakably clear. With a majority vote, they passed Amendment 3 protecting and enshrining the right to access reproductive care, specifically abortions, in the state of Missouri.
However, this reproductive freedom did not last long. Despite Missouri voters’ democratic victory, state lawmakers shortly began methods to dismantle the wishes of Missouri voters. The most pressing: House Joint Resolution 73, or HJR 73.
Several Republican and conservative lawmakers are working to reverse this abortion right by passing this new bill. HJR 73 puts abortion restrictions back on the 2026 voting ballot, potentially overturning Amendment 3 and reimposing prior abortion bans.
The ongoing political divide between Missouri voters and lawmakers could prove disastrous, as many individuals seeking necessary health care may be caught in the crossfire.
While the future of reproductive health care for Missourians is uncertain, the lives, well-being, and dignity of these residents should be prioritized. Those facing health care inequities—such as those most impacted by impending Medicaid cuts—often have the least say and autonomy in these government proceedings.
The current state of the Missouri legislature reveals the systemic failures and obstacles birthing people must navigate to access reproductive health care.
Several Republican and conservative lawmakers are working to reverse this abortion right by passing this new bill. HJR 73 puts abortion restrictions back on the 2026 voting ballot, potentially overturning Amendment 3 and reimposing prior abortion bans. (Photo source: USA Today Network file photos)
Victorious Voters – and The Following Backlash
Amendment 3, also known as the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, was approved by Missouri voters on Nov. 5, 2024. This legislation enshrined the right for individuals to access abortions and make decisions about their reproductive health care. The Missouri Constitution specifies this umbrella term as “including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.”
There have been many fluctuations in reproductive rights for Missouri citizens occurring over the last three years. On June 24, 2022, Roe v. Wade (1973) was reversed following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022). This marked the constitutional right for abortion officially becoming a bygone era. Shortly after this pivotal ruling, Missouri lawmakers enforced a trigger ban on accessing abortion in nearly all cases except for life-threatening situations—excluding exceptions for rape or incest.
This near-total ban remained in effect for 2 ½ years until the introduction of Amendment 3 in 2024. While this was a short time frame, it contained sweeping consequences for those seeking reproductive care in Missouri.
For many, the amendment represented a restoration of bodily autonomy and a nonacceptance of government intervention in private medical decisions. However, the passing of Amendment 3 did not occur without legal strife from advocates on all sides of abortion.
The League of Women Voters of Missouri (LWVMO) expressed vocal support for Amendment 3 for reproductive autonomy. LWVMO President Marilyn McLeod said, “The current ban was too extreme, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the mother. We’re glad a majority of Missouri voters opposed that extreme ban and voted Yes on 3.”
From the opposing perspective are anti-abortion Republican lawmakers and other abortion opponents who created a $1 million last-minute misinformation campaign. By combining the political debates surrounding abortion with anti-transgender messages, the campaigners tried to rally confused voters against Amendment 3.
In 2024, the Missouri governor signed a bill ending Medicaid reimbursements to abortion-affiliated health centers. Additionally, with further proposed Medicaid cuts for Missouri, pregnant individuals who are unable to access abortions and forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term are often left with few financial options and little perinatal support. This is especially apparent for those who are uninsured and unhoused, whose pregnancies result from assault or lack of access to contraception. Abortions are costly, and nearly one-third of adults cannot afford the necessary emergency expenses.
These policies don’t simply restrict procedures; they reshape lives and can leave lasting consequences for the health and futures of countless Missourians.
House Joint Resolution 73 and An Abortion Ban
The voter-approved legislation was short-lived. After only six months of abortion access, the Missouri Supreme Court has reinstated an abortion ban.
The Missouri Independent refers to this order as a “de facto abortion ban,” allowing the former pre-Amendment 3 laws to go into effect. Planned Parenthood clinics and other health care providers are put into precarious positions, as they cannot risk being charged for certain services.
Planned Parenthood immediately filed a lawsuit after the approval of Amendment 3 to eliminate Missouri’s extreme abortion ban and other restrictions. These strict restrictions include:
- “A 72-hour waiting period before someone can have an abortion.
- Licensing requirements for abortion clinics.
- A ban on using telemedicine to provide abortion care.
- Requirements that physicians who offer abortions have a relationship with a nearby hospital.”
However, legal battles can be years long, and the current political conflicts surrounding abortion access could create complications.
Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey of Missouri opposed Amendment 3’s expansive quality, saying it “was a ‘legal monstrosity’ that could open the door to a ‘parade of horribles.’” Abortion opponents worry the new legislation would strike down current abortion restrictions, such as targeted restrictions on abortion providers (TRAP) laws. According to Brian Westbrook of Coalition Life, these TRAP laws are “safety standards” to protect reproductive health for individuals.
The recent abortion ruling goes against the wishes of the 1.5 million Missouri citizens who voted for reproductive freedom. With HJR 73 passed, voters will once again be asked to vote on an abortion-related amendment on the 2026 ballot—this one would “ban abortions except for cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest.”
Lawmakers are essentially asking voters to reverse the protections they legally secured.
In a statement, the ACLU of Missouri said, “Missourians proved by passing Amendment 3 at the ballot box [that] people want access to abortion care,” and legislatures are “literally rewriting the rules…in an attempt to reinstate Missouri’s total abortion ban.” Additionally, Ashley Aune, Missouri state representative from Platte County, said online, “Missouri, the fight to MAINTAIN our bodily autonomy is on.”
For many, the amendment represented a restoration of bodily autonomy and a nonacceptance of government intervention in private medical decisions. However, the passing of Amendment 3 did not occur without legal strife from advocates on all sides of abortion. (Photo source: Canva)
The Human Cost: Impacts of Abortion Bans & Restrictions
After Roe v. Wade was overturned, Missouri was one of the first states to ban abortions, thus creating far-reaching health care impacts. Even before the overturning, abortion access was more difficult in Missouri than in bordering states like Illinois or Kansas, where many women were going to receive care.
Long wait times, fewer providers offering abortions, and confusion surrounding state legislatures on abortions and contraceptives make it difficult and potentially risky to receive or perform abortions. Under previous abortion bans and restrictions in Missouri, health care providers could face serious felony charges for performing an abortion that is not permitted, if the pregnant person isn’t experiencing a medical emergency.
“Providers feel that they’re on very shaky ground, some even choosing to leave the state in order to fully practice without repercussions. And we’ve spent so much time combating that misinformation,” said Michelle Trupiano, executive director of Missouri Family Health Council, Inc.
More than 5,000 abortions occurred in Missouri a decade ago. However, in 2020, the number was 167, due to the increased regulations surrounding abortions.
Many of these regulations include “targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws.”A more specific description of TRAP laws include:
- “Unnecessary facility requirements
- Hospital admitting privileges requirements
- Biased and medically inaccurate counseling requirements
- Forced delay periods that require patients to make multiple trips to a clinic for care
- A ban on the delivery of medication abortion by telemedicine
- A physician-only law that prevents qualified medical professionals from providing abortion care
- Criminal penalties for abortion providers”
The restrictive nature of TRAP laws can hurt patients, as Planned Parenthood interim President and CEO Richard Muniz said, “Missouri’s TRAP laws are invasive and coercive, and meant to deter abortion seekers from the care they need and licensed, trained clinicians from providing that care.”
Not only are TRAP laws damaging, but abortion bans and restrictions in Missouri often disproportionately affect rural residents, people of color, low-income individuals, and LGBTQ+ communities.
According to the Community Health Commission of Missouri, deaths among Black women and birthing people would increase by 39% if abortion were banned in the U.S. This is a staggering statistic, as in Missouri, Black birthing people have a 2.5 times higher mortality rate than white birthing people.
Political Power Struggle
Missouri’s current reproductive rights landscape is defined by a power struggle between its citizens’ democratic rights and the true agenda of its lawmakers.
The Missouri government’s attempts to reverse Amendment 3 raise questions about democracy itself: Whose voice truly holds power in Missouri? Are constitutional rights secure if lawmakers can indisputably reverse them? Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Abortion Action Missouri, said the legislation was “antiabortion politicians…showing us they think Missourians are disposable.”
Additionally, the power imbalance between citizens and lawmakers in Missouri is exemplified by health policy professor Paula M. Lantz, who said, “If legislators are intent upon passing severely restrictive abortion laws, they can engage in ongoing constitutional amendment battles at the voting booth. It is much easier for legislators to get a ballot initiative in front of voters than citizens who must go through layered administrative processes and secure thousands of signatures.”
This raises a question: Is HJR 73 about policy or political party control? It directly overrides Amendment 3’s democratic support.
If lawmakers can get similar issues on ballots less than a year after they are passed, and only six months after they are enacted, what does this mean for other voter-supported rights in Missouri?
Looking Ahead: 2026
The fate of reproductive health care in Missouri now hinges on the 2026 ballot. If HJR 73 is approved by voters, access to abortion and other reproductive services may disappear again.
This next vote will have political strife from all sides of the issue, as Republican lawmakers fight for increased regulations, while activists and health care providers fight for autonomy and access.
The road ahead is uncertain, and the critical question remains: Does Missouri’s future rest on the will of its people or its politicians?
