FFRF Action Fund Regional Government Affairs Manager Mickey Dollens has caused a big stir in Missouri newspapers.
He has had an op-ed published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch warning against an undemocratic Missouri maneuver. Earlier, the same piece was featured in the Kansas City Star. And the Springfield paper expressed an interest in running the op-ed, too (until it learned that the piece had been published elsewhere).
“Democracy is being denied in Missouri. Last November, Missouri voters did exactly what politicians constantly preach: They voted,” Dollens begins his column. “They showed up in strong numbers on Election Day and passed Amendment 3, a citizen-led ballot measure to restore abortion rights after Missouri lawmakers made their state the first to ban abortion following the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. Amendment 3 passed by 51.6 percent, representing the will of more than 1.5 million Missourians who believe people should have the right to make their own health care decisions.”
Dollens details a disturbing legislative push that would render that decision meaningless:
Fast-forward six months: Republican lawmakers have passed House Joint Resolution 73, sending a new state question back to voters in 2026, but this time to re-ban abortion while sneaking in a completely unrelated provision banning gender-affirming care for minors. This violates the principle of the single-subject rule in the Missouri Constitution, which requires ballot measures to address only one topic to prevent voter confusion and manipulation.
Gender-affirming care for minors has nothing to do with abortion access except presenting an opportunity for politicians to manufacture outrage by exploiting anti-transgender sentiment to ban abortion care. It’s a cynical tactic that will force abortion rights advocates to defend both issues simultaneously, complicating their outreach, messaging and resources.
What kind of contempt for voters and democracy does it take to overturn a constitutional amendment just months after it passes? The kind fueled by religious extremism and politicians who can’t accept that their constituents disagree with them.
HJR 73 represents something more dangerous than bad policy — it’s an attack on the fundamental principle that voters can decide their own governance. When politicians can simply “send back” constitutional amendments whenever they disagree, direct democracy becomes meaningless.
The implications extend beyond reproductive rights. Today it’s abortion access. Tomorrow it could be minimum wage increases, election reform, campaign finance limits or ending gerrymandering — pretty much any issue where a simple majority of voters conflict with the ideology of those in power. If voters can’t trust that their successful ballot initiatives will stand, why should they bother participating in the process at all?
You can read the full op-ed here.
This column is part of FFRF’s initiative, this time through its legislative arm, to engage with pertinent national and state issues and spread the messages of freethought and nontheism to a broader audience. We’re glad that the Show Me State is so receptive to our secular message.
FFRF Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization that develops and advocates for legislation, regulations, and government programs to preserve the constitutional principle of separation between state and church. It also advocates for the rights and views of nonbelievers, endorses candidates for political office, and publicizes the views of elected officials concerning religious liberty issues. FFRF Action Fund serves as the advocacy arm of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which has more than 42,000 members and works to keep religion out of government and educate the public about nontheism.