Missouri Republicans push for another abortion ban election, despite voter opposition | Opinion

Shock of shocks: Missouri Republicans aren’t much interested in reversing the state’s abortion ban.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Show-Me State voters sent a pretty clear message to Jefferson City back in November — choosing, as expected, to undo the existing ban. But GOP officials aren’t just dragging their feet to avoid complying with the results of that vote: They are already pushing for another election, this time to re-ban abortion.

There would at least be exceptions for “medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape, or incest” this time around. Which is the good news here, I guess.

A question, though: Why go back to voters so soon?

Good question! It has a lousy answer. Missouri Republicans say the state’s voters really didn’t understand what they were doing when they passed Amendment 3.

Missourians “weren’t given the full picture” of what it means to restore abortion access, state Rep. Jamie Gragg said during a hearing on Monday.

And, well: How patronizing is that?

But not unexpected. It’s the exact same excuse that Kansas Republicans made — and keep making — after losing the anti-abortion rights Value Them Both amendment election in 2022. It’s how anti-abortion forces in both states can justify ignoring their constituents to continue the effort to ratchet up abortion restrictions.

Voters are confused and ill-informed, it seems, unless they completely agree with the thing you wanted to do in the first place, right?

If Missouri Republicans think voters are so easily discombobulated, then the new state constitutional amendment they’re proposing probably doesn’t solve the problem.

Why? Because it doesn’t just ban abortion. It also “prohibits the use of surgeries, hormones, or drugs to assist a child with a gender transition.”

Which, last we checked, has nothing at all to do with abortion.

Do Missourians actually favor anti-trans bills?

Now, there are a few reasons Missouri Republicans might decide to mix up anti-trangender regulations into what is ostensibly an anti-abortion bill. Two big possibilities come to mind. The first is that conservatives in Jefferson City think they can win all the big culture war issues in one fell swoop.

And maybe they can. Missouri is a fairly red state, after all.

Another other possible reason: Republicans might not have much confidence that an anti-abortion measure can stand and win on its own. They certainly haven’t proven popular with voters across the country since Roe v. Wade fell.

So — maybe — they’re sweetening the pot a bit with some so-called “ballot candy” designed to ensure right-wing voters get to the polls in greater numbers this time.

Would it work? Republicans around the country have eagerly embraced a crackdown on what they call “gender ideology” in recent years. Donald Trump has made it one of the hallmarks of the first weeks of his presidency. Missouri Republicans are just following a well-worn path.

There’s reason, though, to think an anti-trans ballot measure might fall flat with the broader Missouri electorate.

Back in the fall, polling by The Midwest Newsroom (a collaborative of NPR stations across the region) found that Missourians were mixed on transgender issues. Just 39.7% of respondents favored “laws that ban certain types of gender-affirming care for minors.”

A greater number — 45.6% of respondents — opposed such laws.

Which makes sense. Missourians aren’t necessarily progressive on gender issues, but there’s still a broad “don’t tread on me streak” across the state that is suspicious of government interference in a family’s private, deeply personal parenting decisions.

It’s a good instinct, by the way.

What seems obvious, though, is that mixing anti-trans legislation into an anti-abortion amendment measure muddles both matters. If Missouri Republicans really want voters to come to the abortion issue without confusion, the least they could do is make sure that they don’t confuse the issue.

Then again: That might leave them without a good excuse if they lose a second time.

This story was originally published February 7, 2025 at 5:06 AM.