Recognizes that nothing in the Missouri Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion
The passage of SJR19 could significantly alter the legal framework surrounding abortion in Missouri. By enshrining the prohibition of a constitutional right to abortion, the measure would likely empower state lawmakers to impose stricter regulations or bans on abortion independently of the federal legal guidelines. This move may lead to further restrictions on reproductive health services and impact access to abortion for women in Missouri, potentially placing the state in conflict with broader movements advocating for reproductive rights.
Senate Joint Resolution 19 (SJR19) proposes an amendment to the Missouri Constitution explicitly stating that nothing within it shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion. This resolution is intended to clarify the state's position on abortion rights in the wake of changing national legal landscapes and aims to address concerns regarding the potential for judicial interpretations that expand abortion rights under the state constitution. If passed, this amendment would be submitted to the voters in the 2024 general election or at a special election called by the governor.
The sentiment surrounding SJR19 appears to be polarized, with strong opinions on both sides of the debate. Supporters, primarily from conservative factions, argue that the resolution is necessary to protect the state's values and prevent judicial overreach regarding abortion rights. Conversely, opponents, including various advocacy groups and more progressive legislators, view this proposal as an attack on women's reproductive rights and an attempt to undermine access to essential healthcare services. The divide illustrates the broader national debate over reproductive rights and state versus federal authority on this issue.
Notable points of contention regarding SJR19 include the framework of state constitutional rights and the implications for women's autonomy over their reproductive health decisions. Critics fear that the amendment signifies a regressive push against reproductive rights, while proponents argue it is a necessary measure to affirm state-level decision-making. Additionally, the method of submitting such a significant question to voters raises concerns about whether the public is adequately informed about the potential consequences of such a constitutional change.