Defines person in relation to the equal protection of laws
The proposed amendment has profound implications for existing state laws regarding reproductive rights. Most notably, SJR8 explicitly states that nothing in the constitution would secure or protect a right to abortion, nor would it require the state to fund abortions. This suggests a significant shift in how Missouri might approach legislation concerning reproductive health and rights, potentially limiting access to abortion services and redefining the legal framework around them. Additionally, the resolution presents a challenge to previous decisions that delineated the rights of unborn children versus the rights of women, placing Missouri alongside other states that have pursued similar constitutional changes.
SJR8, introduced by Senator Moon, is a Senate Joint Resolution that presents an amendment for voters in Missouri to consider at the next general election in November 2026. The resolution aims to amend the Missouri Constitution by repealing section 2 of article I and replacing it with new provisions that significantly alter the legal definition of 'person' in relation to the protections provided under the law. According to the amendment, a 'person' would be defined as every human being with a unique DNA code, which includes all in utero children from conception until birth. This change emphasizes the government's role in promoting the welfare of all individuals while ensuring equal rights and opportunities under law for every person, regardless of age or stage of life.
Key points of contention surrounding SJR8 include the definitions and implications of personhood, which opponents argue could not only restrict abortion rights but may also affect a wide array of issues, including access to contraception and reproductive healthcare services. Supporters of the resolution believe it is a necessary measure to protect the rights of the unborn, aligning with the pro-life movement’s objectives. Critics, including reproductive rights advocates, fear that the passage of this amendment would undermine women's rights and personal autonomy, raising ethical concerns about the role of government in such deeply personal decisions.