The Missouri Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft regarding the language of the ballot summary of a possible abortion rights initiative petition for 2024.

A circuit judge ruled two weeks ago that the wording Ashcroft used in the ballot summary was partisan. Cole County Judge Jon Beteem then rewrote the ballot language, which summarizes the proposed constitutional amendment that aims to remove protections for preborn children following the implementation of a state law protecting virtually all preborn children from abortion last year. Ashcroft’s language aimed to make it clear how extreme the amendment is. His original summary read:

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution 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;

nullify longstanding Missouri law protecting the right to life, including but not limited to partial-birth abortion;

require the government not to discriminate against persons providing or obtaining an abortion, potentially including tax-payer funding; and

prohibit any municipality, city, town, village, district, authority, public subdivision, or public corporation having the power to tax or regulate or the state of Missouri from regulating abortion procedures?

A group called Missourians for Constitution Freedom sued to have the ballot language struck down. Beetem removed much of that language, calling it “problematic.” He said phrases like “unborn child,” “partial-birth abortion, “end the life,” and more must be removed. Ashcroft said he would continue fighting.

READ: Why there can be no ‘middle ground’ on intentionally killing innocent human beings

“We will not stand idly by while the courts hide the effects of this amendment and mislead the people as to what they may very well be voting on next year,” Ashcroft said. “While the court may pretend this does not allow ‘dangerous, unregulated, unrestricted’ abortions, it is clear that under this initiative petition, individuals like Kermit Gosnell, who was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for killing a mother and 3 children, would be free from prosecution. Additionally, this court’s language misleads the people into believing that initiative petitions 2024-085 and 087 would amend the constitution to ‘declare government funding of abortion is not required’ which is categorically false.”

A Western District Court of Appeals upheld the descriptions written by Beetem, with the summary much vaguer, using statements like, “establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference presumed invalid” and “remove Missouri’s ban on abortion.”

The appeals court said Ashcroft’s language was “replete with politically partisan language,” though the new language is so vague that voters will likely not understand how extreme the amendment is. And though Ashcroft again appealed, the Missouri Supreme Court would not hear his case.

Despite the loss, Ashcroft said he still stands by his ballot language, pointing out that it accurately describes what the constitutional amendment would do.

“We stand by our language — it fairly and accurately reflects the scope and magnitude of each petition,” he said in a statement. “My responsibility as secretary of state is to make sure the people of Missouri have ballot language that they can understand and trust,” Ashcroft said. “If these petitions make it to the ballot, the people will decide. I will continue to do everything in my power to make sure Missourians know the truth.”

The Missouri Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft regarding the language of the ballot summary of a possible abortion rights initiative petition for 2024.

A circuit judge ruled two weeks ago that the wording Ashcroft used in the ballot summary was partisan. Cole County Judge Jon Beteem then rewrote the ballot language, which summarizes the proposed constitutional amendment that aims to remove protections for preborn children following the implementation of a state law protecting virtually all preborn children from abortion last year. Ashcroft’s language aimed to make it clear how extreme the amendment is. His original summary read:

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution 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;

nullify longstanding Missouri law protecting the right to life, including but not limited to partial-birth abortion;

require the government not to discriminate against persons providing or obtaining an abortion, potentially including tax-payer funding; and

prohibit any municipality, city, town, village, district, authority, public subdivision, or public corporation having the power to tax or regulate or the state of Missouri from regulating abortion procedures?

A group called Missourians for Constitution Freedom sued to have the ballot language struck down. Beetem removed much of that language, calling it “problematic.” He said phrases like “unborn child,” “partial-birth abortion, “end the life,” and more must be removed. Ashcroft said he would continue fighting.

READ: Why there can be no ‘middle ground’ on intentionally killing innocent human beings

“We will not stand idly by while the courts hide the effects of this amendment and mislead the people as to what they may very well be voting on next year,” Ashcroft said. “While the court may pretend this does not allow ‘dangerous, unregulated, unrestricted’ abortions, it is clear that under this initiative petition, individuals like Kermit Gosnell, who was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for killing a mother and 3 children, would be free from prosecution. Additionally, this court’s language misleads the people into believing that initiative petitions 2024-085 and 087 would amend the constitution to ‘declare government funding of abortion is not required’ which is categorically false.”

A Western District Court of Appeals upheld the descriptions written by Beetem, with the summary much vaguer, using statements like, “establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference presumed invalid” and “remove Missouri’s ban on abortion.”

The appeals court said Ashcroft’s language was “replete with politically partisan language,” though the new language is so vague that voters will likely not understand how extreme the amendment is. And though Ashcroft again appealed, the Missouri Supreme Court would not hear his case.

Despite the loss, Ashcroft said he still stands by his ballot language, pointing out that it accurately describes what the constitutional amendment would do.

“We stand by our language — it fairly and accurately reflects the scope and magnitude of each petition,” he said in a statement. “My responsibility as secretary of state is to make sure the people of Missouri have ballot language that they can understand and trust,” Ashcroft said. “If these petitions make it to the ballot, the people will decide. I will continue to do everything in my power to make sure Missourians know the truth.”