Posted on 07/16/2025 7:16:50 AM PDT by Morgana
In the wake of a radical abortion amendment to the Missouri state constitution that passed with vague and emotional messaging, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins is advocating for a new amendment that would “correct course” and improve pro-life protections.
Many who voted “yes” on the pro-abortion Amendment 3 in 2024 “believed they were supporting limited access to abortion in rare or tragic cases,” Hoskins wrote in a July 10 op-ed for the Missouri Times. “Instead, they enacted one of the most extreme and ambiguous abortion policies in the nation, written directly into our state’s most foundational and sacrosanct legal document.”
Hoskins explained that advocates of the amendment presented it as “moderate,” even though it stripped away parental supervision requirements and paved the way for taxpayer-funded, late-term abortions with few restrictions.
The amendment’s passage underscores that “it is far too easy to amend Missouri’s Constitution,” which can be permanently altered based on a majority vote, Hoskins wrote. “That’s how Section 36 passed: millions of dollars from out-of-state groups, emotionally charged messaging, and vague legal language led to a radical policy being cemented into our Constitution.”
However, House Joint Resolution 73 (HJR 73), advanced by the Missouri House in April, could walk back Amendment 3’s radical provisions, according to Hoskins.
HJR 73 “gives voters the chance to restore a common-sense, pro-life framework — one that protects both women and unborn children, respects parental rights, and reaffirms Missouri’s long-held values,” Hoskins said. “If approved by voters in 2026, HJR 73 will appear on the ballot as a new Amendment 3. This proposal is not a ban — it is a safeguard. It restores medical standards and reasonable limits and allows exceptions in tragic cases, including rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother. It ensures Missouri’s laws reflect the will of a broad, responsible majority — not activist-driven campaigns designed to mislead and confuse.”
Hoskins vowed to guarantee that voters have “clear and accurate information about every measure on the ballot” through his role as secretary of state.
“Missouri’s Constitution should not be treated as a testing ground for extreme or temporary policy changes,” he concluded. “It should reflect our deepest and most lasting values — and protect those who cannot protect themselves.”
<>Many who voted “yes” on the pro-abortion Amendment 3 in 2024 “believed they were supporting limited access to abortion in rare or tragic cases<>
Isn’t direct democracy grand? The voice of the people donch’a know.
Is the argument here that the Missouri voters were just too stupid to know what they were voting for?
“<>Many who voted “yes” on the pro-abortion Amendment 3 in 2024 “believed they were supporting limited access to abortion in rare or tragic cases<>
Isn’t direct democracy grand? The voice of the people donch’a know.”
____________________________________________________________
I’ve never understood how state level initiatives and referendum are not a violation of the Constitutional guarantee of a “republican form of government” in every state of the USA. By definition, a republican form of government is a representative government, not direct action by voters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.