Protesters disrupt vote that leads Missouri closer to overturning abortion access

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The chants echoed through the Missouri House chamber.

“Stand up, fight back.”

“Who’s house is this? Our house.”

“Yes on 3.”

The Missouri House on Tuesday advanced a Republican-led plan to overturn a November vote that legalized abortion access during an explosive debate in which a crowd of abortion rights supporters briefly disrupted the vote.

The group of roughly 20 individuals, aligned with Abortion Action Missouri, an abortion rights advocacy group, unfurled three banners opposing the legislation and hurled chants through a bullhorn as lawmakers prepared to vote on the legislation.

Legislators suspended the vote until Capitol security removed the protesters and their banners from the chamber. When Republican leaders resumed action, the House quickly voted 94 to 50 to advance the legislation and adjourned for the day.

Several abortion rights supporters appeared at the Missouri Capitol in Jefferson City on Tuesday, April 15, to protest. Kacen Bayless

Tuesday’s vote marked the first major retaliatory response from Republican lawmakers after 51.6% of voters approved Amendment 3, a constitutional amendment that overturned the state’s near-total abortion ban in November. The legislation needs one more vote in the House before heading to the Senate.

If approved, the measure would force another statewide vote, likely in November 2026, to strike down Amendment 3. The Republican-led legislation would effectively ban nearly all abortions with limited exceptions for medical emergencies, fetal anomaly and rape or incest prior to 12-weeks gestation.

While the vote was along party lines, House Speaker Jonathan Patterson, a Lee’s Summit Republican and the most powerful lawmaker in the chamber, voted against the measure. Another Kansas City-area Republican, Rep. Bill Allen from Clay County, was the only other “no” vote from the Republican side. Fourteen other Republicans did not vote.

The fiery debate illustrated the intense pushback the Republican-led proposal will receive from abortion rights advocates. Gina Meyer and Claudia Horton from Lee’s Summit were among the individuals who traveled to the Capitol on Tuesday.

“As a citizen, how disappointing it is to hear one side say people didn’t understand what they were voting on,” Horton told The Star at the Capitol, referring to a Republican argument that voters approved Amendment 3 without understanding it.

Horton and Meyer, who both live in Patterson’s district, said they traveled to the Capitol to ask Patterson why he allowed the legislation to come to a vote after previously saying that lawmakers “should respect the will of the people.”

“He lied to our faces that day,” said Meyer, who was at the Lee’s Summit Chamber of Commerce candidate forum when Patterson made his comments ahead of the November election.

After the election, Patterson clarified his stance on Amendment 3, saying that he supported Republican efforts to make changes to the voter-approved amendment.

Patterson did not return a call for comment on Tuesday. His spokesperson said he would address reporters on Thursday.

Inside the vote

Before the protest, lawmakers debated the legislation for nearly four hours on Tuesday.

Republicans largely argued that voters did not entirely understand what was in Amendment 3 when it passed in November. Rep. Brian Seitz, a Branson Republican who is handling the measure, said that the new measure protects women.

“With Amendment 3, voters were presented with a false dichotomy. Advertising went along these lines, ‘pass Amendment 3 or women will die in our hospitals,’” Seitz said. “These commercialized statements were blatantly false.”

But most of Tuesday’s debate came from House Democrats, who excoriated the legislation as an attack on democracy and women in Missouri. Many pointed to the fact that it overrides a measure that voters approved and read aloud testimony from constituents who oppose the Republican-led legislation.

“The will of the voters should be more important to the people in this room than anything else,” House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, a Kansas City Democrat, told her Republican colleagues. “If you think they made a mistake supporting Amendment 3, how can you think they didn’t make a mistake when they voted for you?”

The proposal, if approved by both chambers, would ask Missourians to strike down and replace the language of Amendment 3.

The measure would allow abortions in medical emergencies and cases of fetal anomalies, such as birth defects. It would also allow the procedure in cases of rape or incest within 12 weeks of gestational age.

While the language of the amendment is silent on when exactly abortion would be banned, it completely removes the language of Amendment 3. Therefore, it’s unclear whether the amendment is intended to allow the state’s previous abortion ban to take effect or give lawmakers the ability to pass legislation to restrict access.

In addition to the abortion ban, the constitutional amendment would ban gender-affirming care for transgender residents under the age of 18. Those procedures, which include hormone therapy, are already banned under state law but became a rallying cry among abortion opponents who falsely claimed that Amendment 3 opened the door to legalizing them.

While the wording of the measure is subject to change, abortion supporters have sharply criticized the proposed ballot question that voters would see.

The question does not mention an abortion ban and instead says it would guarantee “access to care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages” among other lines. The language also purports to “ensure women’s safety during abortions.”

________