Both sides of abortion debate in Missouri and Amendment 3 discussed in Hannibal

PUBLISHER’S NOTE: What are your thoughts on the topic of abortion? Please click the link to take part in MRN’s survey on the issue. Voting closes Friday, Oct. 18 at 5 p.m.

HANNIBAL, Mo. — Women on both sides of the abortion debate found common ground on one thing Tuesday night.

Facts are important.

Trish Santos, a Quincy resident and pro-choice advocate, stood on the corner of Maple and Lyons in front of the Holy Family Parish Center, where a guest speaker from the Missouri Catholic Conference was talking about the organization’s position on Amendment 3, which would guarantee Missouri residents the “fundamental right” to an abortion. She held a sign reading, in bold black and red letters, “WOMEN ARE DYING. VOTE YES TO 3.”

“(Your sign) says women are dying. What women are dying?” asked Christie Mahsman, a Missouri resident and pro-life advocate. 

Santos told the story of a pregnant woman who flew to Illinois from Texas to receive medical care for her blood clotting disorder after being denied care in her home state due to potential risks to the baby. The situation was dire, Santos said, but she was uncertain of the outcome.

“I would like to know one woman who died … If (women are) not dying in Missouri, then what’s the point of protesting in Missouri?” Mahsman pressed. “Are you aware that in Missouri, you’re able to have an abortion if it’s for the health or life of the mother?”

The law Mahsman was referring to was House Bill 126, also known as the “Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act.” It was passed by the Missouri House of Representatives in 2019, and a revised version of it went into effect on June 24, 2022. The law was one of several trigger laws that went into effect across the country in the days following the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that granted U.S. citizens the right to an abortion. 

Mahsman was correct that Revised Statutes of Missouri Section 188.017, also known as the “Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act,” “prohibits abortion except in cases of medical emergency.”

However, since the criteria of what counts as a “medical emergency” is not clearly defined — in the Missouri bill and in similar bills across the country — a chilling effect has set in among healthcare practitioners. If a doctor performs an abortion in an instance that the state would not consider to be of medical necessity, the doctor “shall be guilty of a class B felony, as well as subject to suspension or revocation of his or her professional license.” 

Unless the language of the bill is amended, the only way a doctor can guarantee their license won’t be revoked due to performing an abortion in the state of Missouri is to wait until it’s a matter of life and death for the mother.

After one Missouri woman discovered the child she’d been carrying for 17 weeks and had already named was no longer viable and was threatening her life, she was repeatedly denied care throughout the state. Facilities cited concerns for violating state law as the reason behind their decision. An investigation was opened into the facilities that denied her care — but by the federal government, not the state of Missouri.

The woman’s pain rapidly intensified as she made her way to a clinic in Illinois where she finally received abortion care. While this woman’s situation escalated to be life-threatening, it should be noted no deaths have been directly attributed to the lack of abortion access in the state of Missouri since 2022.

Among several responses to HB 126 is the proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution that would be known as Article 1, Section 36: “The Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative,” more commonly known at this time as Amendment 3. 

Highlights of voting “yes” on the amendment include:

• overturning the state’s abortion ban;
• making access to reproductive healthcare  a “fundamental right” in the state of Missouri, including access to abortion, birth control, prenatal and postpartum care, among others;
• and protecting women undergoing abortions, their doctors and any friends, family or others who assist in their attainment of the consenting woman’s procedure from criminal prosecution.

The amendment allows for restrictions to be made on the procedure past the point of fetal viability, considered to be the point in pregnancy in which a fetus could survive outside the uterus “without the application of extraordinary medical measures.”

The proposed amendment to the state’s constitution brought Santos and Mahsman together Tuesday night, but for different reasons.

Mahsman was there to attend the talk given by James Morris, executive director and general counsel of the Missouri Catholic Conference, in opposition to the amendment. Santos was there to protest the talk in support of the amendment with fellow members of the pro-choice group Voices for Choice, which consists of members from northeast Missouri and west-central Illinois.

The motivations behind why each woman was there — as well as the vastly different lenses through which each side of the abortion debate views the issue — were summed up in a single set of sentences exchanged between Santos and Mahsman.

“I care about women all over the country.” 

“And I care about babies all around the country.”

Perhaps the only point of agreement between the two sides isn’t that facts are important. It’s that the end of this debate is nowhere in sight.