ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom dedicated to investigating abuses of power, encourages readers to subscribe to its Dispatches newsletter, which highlights significant issues across the nation.
Billboards have been prominently placed along Interstates 55 and 170 near St. Louis, on I-70 between Columbia and St. Charles, and near a shopping center in Cape Girardeau along the Mississippi River in southeast Missouri. As the November 5 election approaches, these billboards have become visible throughout Missouri.
The billboards are part of an effort to oppose an abortion rights amendment on Missouri’s upcoming ballot, added through the state’s initiative petition process. Some billboards urge voters to “STOP Child Gender Surgery,” although the amendment does not address gender-affirming care. Other billboards falsely claim the amendment would permit abortions in the ninth month of pregnancy, though a state appeals court decision has ruled this claim incorrect regarding the amendment’s ballot summary.
Missouri implemented a law banning nearly all abortions except in medical emergencies, with no exceptions for rape or incest, in effect since June 2022 following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. Amendment 3 aims to enshrine reproductive rights in the Missouri constitution, negating laws restricting abortion prior to fetal viability, generally around the 24th week of pregnancy. It would also secure other reproductive rights, such as access to in vitro fertilization and birth control. Polls indicate probable passage, with a recent survey reflecting 52% support and 34% opposition.
Facing unfavorable poll numbers, opponents of the amendment are striving to reduce its support, leveraging a campaign with misinformation funded by approximately $1 million, covering radio advertisements and some of the billboards. Key contributors include John Sauer, a former Missouri solicitor general and attorney for former President Donald Trump, who has invested $100,000 through a political action committee opposing Amendment 3. Neither Sauer nor the PAC’s treasurer, Jim Cole, responded to requests for comment.
Opponents are attempting to exploit public opposition to gender-affirming medical care for minors, currently illegal for transgender children in Missouri, by conflating the issues to confuse voters and broaden opposition to the amendment. This anti-transgender messaging aligns with a nationwide Republican strategy focusing on cultural issues like transgender rights to mobilize conservative voters in the 2024 campaigns.
Opponents are preparing to continue their efforts through Missouri’s conservative legislature if the amendment passes, given its history of using ballot provisions to counteract voter-approved measures. Such tactics were seen in the repeal of the Clean Missouri initiative, a voter-approved measure aimed at legislative redistricting reforms, which Republican lawmakers undermined in 2020.
Missouri’s Amendment 7, proposed by the legislature for this year’s ballot, is purported to ensure only U.S. citizens can vote, a requirement already in place, but primarily seeks to ban ranked-choice voting, strongly supported by the General Assembly’s Republicans.
Benjamin Singer, formerly of the Clean Missouri campaign, characterized the legislative actions attempting to undercut voter decisions as audacious. He stressed the importance of voter awareness regarding legislators’ attempts to reverse popular measures.
Conservative lawmakers, such as Republican State Rep. Brian Seitz, argue that proponents of abortion rights are misrepresenting Amendment 3 to cover multiple issues, warranting examination of its individual subjects. Seitz questioned whether conservative leaders genuinely represent the electorate’s will due to their continued electoral success.
Missouri voters, despite electing conservative majorities, have supported progressive measures such as rejecting a right-to-work law, legalizing recreational marijuana, and expanding Medicaid — policies contrary to the legislature’s priorities.
Earlier this year, there was an effort to limit citizen-initiated constitutional amendments by including unrelated provisions on immigrants voting and foreign fundraising, which failed after a Democratic filibuster.
Beth Vonnahme, a political science associate dean at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, noted that Missouri voters generally oppose government interference but support conservative principles, resulting in mixed outcomes depending on the issue at hand.
Before reaching the ballot, the abortion rights amendment survived various legal challenges, with the Missouri Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling, refusing to disqualify it on grounds of undisclosed potentially affected laws. State Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican and key figure in the Missouri abortion ban, argued that amendment proponents are misleadingly minimizing its impacts.
Marcia McCormick, a law professor at Saint Louis University, described the billboard claims as misleading, emphasizing that Amendment 3 focuses on fertility and childbirth. Michael Wolff, a retired Missouri Supreme Court chief justice, expressed confidence that new counter-efforts are being devised, potentially utilizing similar strategies as with the Clean Missouri initiative.
