(TC Public Relations) On September 20, 2024, the Missouri Supreme Court released opinions in Coleman, et al. v. Ashcroft—ten days following its decision—revealing that the state’s high court was split 4-3 in ruling to keep Amendment 3, Missouri’s “Reproductive Freedom” ballot initiative, on the November ballot. The Missouri Supreme Court’s September 10, 2024, decision reversed a lower court judgment against Amendment 3, which had found that the initiative petition for the proposed ballot initiative violated state law. Thomas More Society attorneys had challenged Missouri’s proposed Amendment 3 and argued against its inclusion on the November ballot before the Missouri Supreme Court.

The dissenting opinion, authored by Judge Kelly Broniec, argued that the majority opinion reached “an absurd result contrary to the plain language” of the state law requiring ballot initiative petitions to inform voters of what laws or constitutional provisions would be repealed through the proposed measure—which Amendment 3’s ballot initiative petition failed to do. Broniec’s dissenting opinion also highlighted the many state laws that would face repeal if Amendment 3 is passed by voters, including Missouri’s “Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act,” parental consent and notification laws, the state’s waiting period requirement for abortion, and many more.

Mary Catherine Martin, Thomas More Society Senior Counsel, reacted:

By contrast with the majority opinion, Judge Broniec, dissenting, needed few words to agree with the trial court that Amendment 3’s drafters straightforwardly violated Missouri’s election laws. It should not require courage to clearly apply the law, but it does when powerful political forces oppose a just outcome. We applaud the courage of these three dissenting judges, and we look forward to a day when they can hold in a majority that Missouri’s laws apply to everyone, even the ACLU.

In a pre-election review process that was constitutional, Missouri would have been spared this egregiously wrong decision, which leaves Missouri voters less protected than they were before. The majority fell victim to multiple falsehoods and mischaracterizations of the statutes and their own case law that were introduced by the drafters of Amendment 3 in their Supreme Court brief, less than 24 hours prior to oral argument. In doing so, the majority’s opinion validates our charge that the pre-election review window in Missouri is unconstitutionally short.

Read the Opinion, issued September 20, 2024 by the Missouri Supreme Court, in Coleman, et al. v. Ashcroft, here.

Read background on Coleman, et al. v. Ashcroft on the Thomas More Society case page, here.

View and download photos of Thomas More Society clients and attorneys from Missouri Supreme Court arguments in Coleman, et al. v. Ashcroft, here.

Editor’s Note: This press release was emailed from TC Public Relations.

Urge Walmart, Costco, Kroger, and other major chains to resist pressure to dispense the abortion pill

(TC Public Relations) On September 20, 2024, the Missouri Supreme Court released opinions in Coleman, et al. v. Ashcroft—ten days following its decision—revealing that the state’s high court was split 4-3 in ruling to keep Amendment 3, Missouri’s “Reproductive Freedom” ballot initiative, on the November ballot. The Missouri Supreme Court’s September 10, 2024, decision reversed a lower court judgment against Amendment 3, which had found that the initiative petition for the proposed ballot initiative violated state law. Thomas More Society attorneys had challenged Missouri’s proposed Amendment 3 and argued against its inclusion on the November ballot before the Missouri Supreme Court.

The dissenting opinion, authored by Judge Kelly Broniec, argued that the majority opinion reached “an absurd result contrary to the plain language” of the state law requiring ballot initiative petitions to inform voters of what laws or constitutional provisions would be repealed through the proposed measure—which Amendment 3’s ballot initiative petition failed to do. Broniec’s dissenting opinion also highlighted the many state laws that would face repeal if Amendment 3 is passed by voters, including Missouri’s “Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act,” parental consent and notification laws, the state’s waiting period requirement for abortion, and many more.

Mary Catherine Martin, Thomas More Society Senior Counsel, reacted:

By contrast with the majority opinion, Judge Broniec, dissenting, needed few words to agree with the trial court that Amendment 3’s drafters straightforwardly violated Missouri’s election laws. It should not require courage to clearly apply the law, but it does when powerful political forces oppose a just outcome. We applaud the courage of these three dissenting judges, and we look forward to a day when they can hold in a majority that Missouri’s laws apply to everyone, even the ACLU.

In a pre-election review process that was constitutional, Missouri would have been spared this egregiously wrong decision, which leaves Missouri voters less protected than they were before. The majority fell victim to multiple falsehoods and mischaracterizations of the statutes and their own case law that were introduced by the drafters of Amendment 3 in their Supreme Court brief, less than 24 hours prior to oral argument. In doing so, the majority’s opinion validates our charge that the pre-election review window in Missouri is unconstitutionally short.

Read the Opinion, issued September 20, 2024 by the Missouri Supreme Court, in Coleman, et al. v. Ashcroft, here.

Read background on Coleman, et al. v. Ashcroft on the Thomas More Society case page, here.

View and download photos of Thomas More Society clients and attorneys from Missouri Supreme Court arguments in Coleman, et al. v. Ashcroft, here.

Editor’s Note: This press release was emailed from TC Public Relations.

Urge Walmart, Costco, Kroger, and other major chains to resist pressure to dispense the abortion pill