51黑料

Sean Johnson woke up last Monday planning to vote for Donald Trump and to legalize abortion in Missouri in November.

But the 48-year-old Independence resident changed his tune about Amendment 3 鈥� which seeks to overturn Missouri鈥檚 abortion ban 鈥� after speaking to Eric Holder, a volunteer with the Knights of Columbus and member of St. Mary鈥檚 Parish in Independence.

Holder was canvassing the neighborhood hoping to drum up opposition to the proposal. He was a couple hours into his mission when he reached Johnson鈥檚 door, and by then had decided to hone his pitch to focus exclusively on a message that seemed to be resonating: that Amendment 3 would somehow also legalize sex change operations for minors.

鈥淎bortion I鈥檇 vote for. That鈥檚 a woman鈥檚 right. Let her do that,鈥� said Johnson, standing beneath a Confederate battle flag outside his suburban Kansas City home. 鈥淏ut all this other stuff, gender reassignment, I don鈥檛 believe in that.鈥�

Amendment 3, if passed by a simple majority of voters, would grant all Missourians 鈥渢he right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care and respectful birthing conditions.鈥�

The provision has become a target for anti-abortion activists seeking to undermine the amendment by saying it would legalize gender-affirming care for minors.

Gov. Mike Parson and U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, both Republicans, have argued Amendment 3 would allow minors to obtain gender transition surgeries without parental consent.

The claim also pops up on billboards, anti-Amendment 3 literature and in church bulletins at several Roman Catholic parishes around the state.

But legal and medical experts interviewed by The Independent say this claim is a stretch at best 鈥� and at worst, an outright lie. Gender-affirming care, they say, would not be affected by Amendment 3.

鈥淭o have honesty in public discourse is vital for the survival of the Republic,鈥� said Chris Kelly, a former judge and Democratic state lawmaker from Columbia. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a perfectly legitimate, honorable thing to fight this on the abortion issue. But to build wildly inaccurate straw men is deceptive and destructive to society.鈥�

Kelly Gillespie, director of 51黑料 University鈥檚 Center for Health Law Studies, said because the examples of reproductive health care listed in the amendment only apply to a person who is trying to prevent pregnancy, anticipating pregnancy, who is pregnant or who was recently pregnant, it would not apply to gender-affirming surgeries.

鈥淓ven if you accept that it could have this wild, expansive meaning, there still are ways within the text of the amendment that allow the government to pass laws around this topic,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t just says they have to be done in a way that鈥檚 the least restrictive means, and there has to be an important, compelling government interest.鈥�

Gillespie said for the amendment to include gender-affirming health care, it would need to say so directly.

鈥淚t鈥檚 really reductionistic,鈥� Gillespie said. 鈥淭o talk about gender-affirming care like the only thing that is involved is what is in between somebody鈥檚 legs.鈥�

Kelly Storck, a licensed clinical social worker and gender care therapist in 51黑料, said this particular way of campaigning against Amendment 3 harms members of the transgender community.

鈥淭hey will continue to use trans people and discriminatory, hateful, dangerous rhetoric around trans people to get people to vote in the ways that they desire,鈥� Storck said. 鈥淭hey will continue to use trans people for their own gain. We鈥檝e seen it again and again and again, and I think it鈥檚 abhorrent and really sick.鈥�

Legal disagreements continue

Since her September appearance before the Missouri Supreme Court unsuccessfully arguing to knock Amendment 3 off the November ballot, Mary Catherine Martin hasn鈥檛 had a moment to catch her breath.

鈥淲e are in full ground war with no money,鈥� Martin said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a communications challenge.鈥�

The coalition behind Amendment 3 has raised more than $25 million. The two largest political action committees fighting it have cumulatively raised just shy of $1 million.

Recent polling showed the abortion amendment was favored by 52% of those surveyed.

鈥淲e are losing this by talking about abortion all the time,鈥� said Martin, an attorney with the Thomas More Society, a Catholic legal organization.

This means, aside from an occasional billboard or radio ad, the 鈥渧ote no鈥� effort has been relying on word of mouth to spread its message. That includes local churches and activists circulating fliers like one created by Martin, who recently created a 鈥渄ecoding鈥� Amendment 3 guide.

Among her arguments against Amendment 3 is Martin鈥檚 assertion that the amendment is 鈥渁n ACLU Christmas list鈥� that includes legalizing gender-affirming health care.

The ACLU is currently representing transgender children and their parents in a lawsuit challenging the state鈥檚 2023 law restricting minors from accessing cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers and gender-affirming surgeries.

鈥淚 would love to hear a credible argument that replacing one鈥檚 reproductive organs is not a matter relating to reproductive health care,鈥� Martin said. 鈥淏ecause that鈥檚 the only way it鈥檚 not covered by this.鈥�

Martin said the writers of the amendment did not clearly define what the amendment encompasses, pointing to the language that states it has to do with 鈥渁ll matters relating to reproductive health care.鈥�

鈥淲e鈥檙e just supposed to be guessing what they intend and what they don鈥檛, and that is a game that no one should be playing,鈥� Martin said.

Tori Schafer, an attorney with the ACLU of Missouri, called the attempts to connect Amendment 3 with gender-affirming health care a 鈥渟care tactic,鈥� adding that the definition is written into the amendment. The ACLU of Missouri, along with Planned Parenthood and Abortion Action Missouri, are part of the coalition behind the amendment.

鈥淭hat鈥檚 why their accusations and the false statements they keep making about this boundless, unlimited right are just wholly false,鈥� she said.

Schafer said that if Amendment 3 wins, the opposition鈥檚 narrative will shift to making the amendment as bounded and restrictive as possible.

If Amendment 3 passes, it will be challenged in court from various angles, from attempts to dismantle the state鈥檚 current laws regulating abortion providers to a determination of what defines fetal viability. Asked if someone were to test the application of gender-affirming surgeries under the amendment in court, Schafer said the decision would be up to a judge to decide.

Judges, lawyers and medical professionals weigh in

Heather Walter-McCabe, an associate professor at the 51黑料 University School of Law with expertise on LGBTQ health care access, said gender-affirming care treats gender dysphoria. She said while similar legal arguments are made in favor of both gender-affirming and reproductive health care, there鈥檚 no case she鈥檚 aware of where the former was considered reproductive health care.

鈥淛ust because they use the same legal arguments, because they鈥檙e both about bodily autonomy, does not mean that gender-affirming care is reproductive health care,鈥� said Walter-McCabe, who is both a lawyer and a social worker.

She said gender-affirming care has already been defined with its own standards of care separate from reproductive health care by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

Michael Wolff, a former chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court and dean emeritus at the 51黑料 University School of Law, said he doesn鈥檛 see how any rational judge could define gender-affirming surgery as reproductive health care.

鈥淧olling tells you what you should misrepresent in order to damage the chances that this would pass,鈥� Wolff said.

In the legal world, he said, every word in a law is known by the company it keeps, which is how Amendment 3 goes about defining reproductive health care.

Martin disagrees, saying every word has individual meaning.

鈥淟ook, a judge interpreting this is going to be looking for guardrails,鈥� Martin said. 鈥淣o judge is going to want to interpret it as broadly as it鈥檚 written, but like, there鈥檚 nothing in there to help them.鈥�

Jamille Fields Allsbrook, an assistant professor of law at 51黑料 University with expertise in reproductive health, rights and justice and health equity, said she understands how there could be some confusion over the colloquial language versus the legal interpretation.

But she doesn鈥檛 believe a judge would have any trouble limiting the scope of the amendment to exclude gender-affirming health care.

鈥淭he tricky part is that it鈥檚 not like I could point you to 鈥榯he U.S. Code has a universal definition of reproductive health care鈥�; it just doesn鈥檛,鈥� she said. 鈥淎nd I think that is why folks are grasping onto that language.鈥�

Marcia McCormick, a professor of law and women and gender studies at 51黑料 University, said the constitutional provisions list out examples of what would apply under an amendment and judges are still bound to interpreting the amendment within the context of those examples.

鈥淭he language is pretty narrow, so I think it would be a stretch for a judge to look at this amendment and say, 鈥榳ell, it鈥檚 really about bodily autonomy broadly,鈥欌�� McCormick said, adding that medically, gender-affirming health care is anything that helps a person conform to the physiological social expectations of someone of their gender, and does not always directly overlap with reproductive health care.

Storck, the social worker, said she would 鈥渉ave no qualms if there was a loophole to protect trans people鈥檚 health care.鈥�

But she doesn鈥檛 have the legal expertise to say how Amendment 3 will affect the lives of transgender Missourians. So instead, her goal is to speak up for the transgender youth she works with to make sure their voices aren鈥檛 drowned out as they are being demonized.

鈥淧eople are really scared. People have lost access to care. People are not as safe,鈥� Storck said. 鈥淭he idea that they continue to be framed as dangerous, pathological, disturbed, weird continues this belief system that rejecting or dehumanizing these people is in some way going in the right direction, unilaterally.鈥�