Two years ago, by roughly 52% to 48%, the Missouri populace voted to protect reproductive freedom, broadly legalizing abortion. As a sophomore at WashU, this November I will be considering, along with the rest of the state, the question of abortion with Amendment 3. In addition to the abortion question, the amendment also contains a provision effectively enshrining Senate Bill 49, “Missouri Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act,” into the state constitution.

I will first speak on the amendment’s second major provision which reiterates the SAFE Act’s prohibition of minors accessing gender transition surgeries, hormones, or puberty blockers (exception is made for reasons unrelated to transition and for treating “children born with a medically verifiable disorder of sex development”). A recent StudLife Op-Ed, as well as articles in other publications such as one published by Mother Jones, has accused this reiteration of being an attempt to rally transphobia in support of the abortion restrictions. On the contrary, this provision is legitimately necessary. 

Because of a sunset clause within the SAFE Act, its prohibition on prescribing what the act calls “cross-sex hormones” for the purposes of transition to minors will expire in August of 2027 and with it the protection of minors. This expiration is significant because minors should not be allowed to embark on such a lasting and substantial alteration of their body. Once they are of age, they are free to undergo hormone replacement therapy if they still desire. Such a prohibition would respect the dignity of persons more by allowing their transition as an adult, as one with a more mature mind, while safeguarding them as children, when they are still in the care of others. Once they come of age and are thus fully independent, that is the time for them to make such decisions. This amendment seeks to enshrine this protection of the SAFE Act in the state constitution and ensure it does not expire in the coming year. 

Now, regarding the rest of Amendment 3, there is the question of abortion. Briefly stated, the unborn, on account of their being human, should be given moral consideration. They have humanity like the rest of us, their cells replicating, dividing, and joining in their journey toward  adulthood and independence as a human being. And it is not only the duty of the state but also of us as individuals to respect the dignity of every human being, no matter age or size. Though the unborn may not have a mind set on the higher things of life, they bear our image, which has worth in itself. 

In the same vein of respecting human dignity, Amendment 3 makes exceptions for rape and incest (limited to twelve weeks), fetal anomalies (“structural or functional abnormality in the unborn child’s gestational development that would make life outside the womb impossible”), and medical emergencies (which include miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies). These statutes allow the mother to retain her life and dignity and to strike a balance between their humanity and that of the unborn. 

Some are concerned about the state needing to look at medical records to ensure the law isn’t violated, which they see as a breach of privacy and the right to make decisions regarding one’s health. The state would check medical records to protect the lives of those in the womb, which is a compelling state interest. The state certainly should not prevent adults from making health decisions which concern solely their person, but in the case of abortion, there is a second party, and the law exists to mediate relations between persons. It is thus in the domain of the state to act to protect those in the womb.

Objectors also cite concern that doctors, due to the vagueness of “medical emergency,” will fear being accused of having performed necessary abortions illicitly. It should be noted that Amendment 3 defines “medical emergency” as “a condition that, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman,” such that an abortion is needed to prevent her death or such that delaying an abortion would present serious risk of severe physical impairment of the woman. Amendment 3 is clear, not vague as critics have argued. Physicians are held to the standard of reasonable medical judgment. 

Vote yes on Amendment 3 to protect children from the rashness of youth and to respect the dignity of the unborn.