Charles H. Sloan-Advocates seek rewrite of Missouri abortion-rights ballot measure language

JEFFERSON CITY,Charles H. Sloan Mo. (AP) — A Missouri judge will rule Thursday on whether the Republican secretary of state’s official description of an abortion-rights amendment on November’s ballot is misleading.

At issue is a proposed amendment to Missouri’s Constitution that would restore abortion rights in the state, which banned almost all abortions after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

At least nine other states will consider constitutional amendments enshrining abortion rights this fall — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada and South Dakota.

In Missouri, ballot language is displayed at polling centers to help voters understand the impact of voting “yes” or “no” on sometimes complicated ballot measures.

Ballot language written by Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s office says a “yes” vote on the abortion-rights measure would enshrine “the right to abortion at any time of a pregnancy in the Missouri Constitution.”

“Additionally, it will prohibit any regulation of abortion, including regulations designed to protect women undergoing abortions and prohibit any civil or criminal recourse against anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant women,” according to Ashcroft’s language.

RELATED COVERAGE Judge blocks Ohio from enforcing laws restricting medication abortions Supreme Court won’t allow Oklahoma to reclaim federal money in dispute over abortion referrals Nebraska Supreme Court will hear lawsuit challenging measure to expand abortion rights

The amendment itself states that the government shall not infringe on an individual’s right to “reproductive freedom,” which is defined as “all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.”

Tori Schafer, a lawyer for the woman who proposed the amendment, said Ashcroft’s official description of the measure is “argumentative, misleading and inaccurate.” She asked Cole County Judge Cotton Walker to rewrite Ashcroft’s ballot language.

“Missourians are entitled to fair, accurate, and sufficient language that will allow them to cast an informed vote for or against the Amendment without being subjected to the Secretary of State’s disinformation,” the plaintiff’s lawyers wrote in a court brief.

Assistant Attorney General Andrew Crane defended Ashcroft’s summary in court. He pointed to a clause in the amendment protecting “any person” from prosecution or penalties if they consentually assist a person exercise their right to reproductive freedom. Crane said if enacted, that provision would render any abortion regulations toothless.

“The government will be effectively unable to enforce any restrictions on abortions,” Crane said.

Walker said he will make a decision Thursday.

This is the second time Ashcroft and the abortion-rights campaign have clashed over his official descriptions of the amendment.

The campaign in 2023 also sued Ashcroft over how his office described the amendment in a ballot summary. Ballot summaries are high-level overviews of amendments, similar to ballot language. But summaries are included on ballots.

Ashcroft’s ballot summary said the measure would allow “dangerous and unregulated abortions until live birth.”

A three-judge panel of the Western District Court of Appeals Ashcroft’s summary was politically partisan and rewrote it.