Reproductive Rights: Reloaded

Last November, the people of Missouri made their voices clear: they passed Amendment 3, restoring women's reproductive freedom in the state after it had been stripped away following the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade. But some Missouri lawmakers weren’t ready to accept the outcome. Enter HJR-73—a proposed constitutional amendment from Republican legislators that would place a new version of the issue back on the ballot, this time with revised (and arguably misleading) wording.

In defending their support for this do-over, Republicans in the legislature have gone on the defensive, sometimes with astonishing argumentative liberties. In a recent committee hearing on HJR-73, what began as a discussion on voter trust and religious freedom quickly spiraled into a cascade of crazy slippery-slope arguments. Senator Jill Carter (R), chair of the Families, Seniors, and Health Committee, invoked fringe academic articles about “after-birth abortion,” while Senator Brad Hudson (R) went so far as to make openly racist remarks about Muslims and “honor killings” to justify his position.

The witness—a clergywoman testifying in opposition to HJR-73—stood her ground, challenging both the logic and morality of their claims. What follows is a lightly cleaned-up transcript of their five-minute exchange. It’s a revealing glimpse into just how extreme and desperate the arguments have become.

Read the transcript for yourself, and decide how far down the rabbit hole this debate has gone.

Senator Carter: I have a couple questions. You were talking about the trust in the will of the voters. So, are you not trusting the will of the voters if this [amendment] goes back on the ballot?

Witness: I trust that the voters will express their will no matter what unfolds. And I think that it is an expression of disrespect to the voters that the legislature is trying to send this back, but I think that they will express themselves yet again if you are successful.

Senator Carter: I think it's interesting because the people that I talk to are excited about the opportunity to weigh in once again to add clarifying language, potentially, if they … so if it goes to the vote of the people, they have an opportunity to again weigh in. This is an issue that obviously is very controversial. It's very emotional. And so to be able to say, okay, is this what you meant, or is this what you meant, right? That dialogue did not happen on the Senate floor, right? Where we can hear from our constituents and be able to hash out some of the definitions of what this looks like. So to be able to take it to the vote of the people, I'm grateful that your confidence and trust is in the will of the people and hopefully that will continue as this moves forward, and it goes again to those people that you trust and have confidence in.

Senator Carter (continues): Secondly, um, in regards to religious decisions, I, I'm curious. What issue we're talking about life at conception, which is in our constitution. Again, I stated this, you know, in 1980, a Democrat led majority in this building said life begins at conception. That's in statute. And so I, I wonder how many more conversations we're going to have in this committee in regards to when is infants … is murdering a two-year-old … is that a religious belief? If that becomes a religious belief, is that something that we're going to be hashing out whether what that definition looks like? I mean, when does it, when does it end?

Witness: No major religion believes in the murder of a living human person who is out in the world after they have been born. Major religious disagreements about when life begins within the womb.

Senator Carter: Well, we're talking about religious disagreements. We're also talking about medical disagreements, right?

Witness: I can't speak to those.

Senator Carter: Well, we've referred to those in committee. Other people, you've heard other testimony of doctors who are debating this issue. I just want to bring up an article in 2012 that is from the Journal of Medicine and Medical Ethics. There were two ethicists who controversially argued that after birth abortion could be justified.

Witness: After birth abortion is not a thing. I don't even understand what that is.

Senator Carter: It is! I mean, in the Journal of Medicine, that was being debated. So I'm happy to provide … What my question is, you're saying that it's a religious … it's a woman's religious ... They can believe that that journey is theirs to determine on their own, but [the] government decides and dictates all the time the value of life. So if we're debating this life at conception or, after … when do we stop? Because we …

Witness: No religious tradition believes that a child who has been born can be killed.

Senator Carter: In your religious perspective, you're saying it's a woman's journey and determination.

Witness: That's my religious belief. That's not everyone’s.

Senator Carter: Right. And so you are saying that you 100% have confidence that somebody else could not come in here and say, no, it is my belief that as this Journal of Medicine is stating that there are people who do believe that it is okay to take the life of a child. There are some …

Witness: I would not consider that a moral or ethical expression of faith.

Senator Carter: Okay. Thank you for that clarifying comment. And then any other questions?

Senator Hudson: I just like to make a statement. I'm not sure if you've ever heard of honor killings that the Muslims have under Sharia law. You can do a research on that. You'll find all kinds of articles on that, that they do kill their daughters for honor killing. So I just wanted to make that …

Witness: That is extremely racist. And the use of religion to justify fundamentalist extremism happens in every faith tradition and is also morally unacceptable.

Senator Carter: Well, not to interrupt, but you just got done saying that there is no major religion that believes in killing after the child is born.

Witness: There is no major religion that cannot be twisted to the will of men.

Senator Carter: And that's, I think that's our point, right? Even with this idea of birth, life, and its value at conception. I mean that is the overarching conversation that we're trying to have here, and to take it back to the will of the people to be able to weigh in. So thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it.