JEFFERSON CITY — Abortion-rights advocates have sued Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft to strike down wording voters could see at polling places before they weigh in on Missouri’s abortion ban Nov. 5.
Courts last year struck down Ashcroft’s official ballot title for the proposed constitutional amendment, which is the summary voters see on the ballot before they vote.
But in addition to the ballot title, officials also write “fair ballot language†that is posted at polling places next to copies of sample ballots.
Dr. Anna Fitz-James, a retired physician and Missouri resident, said in a Friday lawsuit filed in Cole County that Ashcroft’s “fair ballot language†doesn’t fairly and accurately explain what “yes†and “no†votes would represent, and is intentionally argumentative, in violation of Missouri law.
People are also reading…
The fair ballot language produced by Ashcroft says:
- A “yes†vote will enshrine the right to abortion at any time of a pregnancy in the Missouri Constitution. Additionally, it will prohibit any regulation of abortion, including regulations designed to protect women undergoing abortions and prohibit any civil or criminal recourse against anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant women.
- A “no†vote will continue the statutory prohibition of abortion in Missouri.
- If passed, this measure may reduce local taxes while the impact to state taxes is unknown.
Fitz-James’ attorneys argue the language falsely claims there would be a right to an abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
Lawyers said the Court of Appeals already determined the Legislature could restrict or ban abortion after fetal viability, “with exceptions to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.â€
The lawsuit also says the language falsely claims abortion couldn’t be regulated under the measure and that the amendment would prohibit legal recourse against “anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant women.â€
The language also doesn’t mention other protections for reproductive health care, the lawsuit said, including birth control protections.
The Court of Appeals, which previously shot down Ashcroft’s ballot title, determined birth control was a central provision that must be included in the summary, the lawsuit said.
“I am appalled that factions want to use the courts to misrepresent the truth to push a political agenda,†Ashcroft said in a statement responding to the lawsuit. “I will always fight for the right of Missourians to have clear, understandable ballot language when they vote on such an important fundamental issue as life.â€
The case was assigned to Circuit Judge Cotton Walker and a hearing date had not been set as of Tuesday.
Ashcroft officially certified the abortion question for the Nov. 5 ballot last week, saying proponents had submitted enough voter signatures to place the question on the ballot.
Fitz-James was also the plaintiff in last year’s action targeting summaries Ashcroft had prepared for abortion amendments.
She is being represented by Tori Schafer, of the Missouri ACLU, and Christopher Grant, Loretta Haggard and Sally Barker of Schuchat, Cook & Werner.
Ashcroft’s original summary language asked if voters wanted to “allow for dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth, without requiring a medical license or potentially being subject to medical malpractice.â€
The ballot title finalized by the Appeals Court at Kansas City, which voters will read, instead asks:
Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:
- establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid;
- remove Missouri’s ban on abortion;
- allow regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain the health of the patient;
- require the government not to discriminate, in government programs, funding, and other activities, against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care; and
- allow abortion to be restricted or banned after Fetal Viability except to protect the life or health of the woman?
State governmental entities estimate no costs or savings, but unknown impact. Local governmental entities estimate costs of at least $51,000 annually in reduced tax revenues. Opponents estimate a potentially significant loss to state revenue.
Ashcroft received the endorsement of Missouri Right to Life in his losing bid for the Republican nomination for governor.
Jack Suntrup – 573-556-6186 jsuntrup@post-dispatch.com