HJR 109: Constitutional Personhood & Right to Life
Sponsor: Burt Whaley
SUPPORT
With suggested language improvements
HJR 109 proposes to amend Article I, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution to define “person” as every human being with a unique DNA code, specifically including every in-utero human child from the moment of conception until birth. It further declares that nothing in the Missouri Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires abortion funding.
What Does This Bill Do?
- Redefines "Person": Amends the Constitution to define "person" as every human being with unique DNA, explicitly including unborn children from conception to birth.
- Rejects Abortion Rights: Adds a specific clause stating that nothing in the Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion.
- Challenges Amendment 3: As a later-in-time amendment, it seeks to impliedly repeal or override the "reproductive freedom" provisions recently established in Article I, Section 36.
Constitutional or Critical Context
This is a direct attempt to move Missouri toward full personhood for the unborn. By adopting this amendment *after* Amendment 3, the sponsors intend for this language to impliedly repeal the conflicting "reproductive freedom" sections. However, because it does not explicitly repeal Section 36, it sets the stage for fierce litigation regarding "implied repeal".
Red Flags & Recommended Amendments
Indirect Repeal Strategy
The bill creates a direct contradiction with Article I, Section 36 without explicitly repealing it. Relying on "implied repeal" creates significant litigation risk regarding which amendment controls.
Vague Ballot Summary
The proposed ballot summary asks about protecting "human life with unique DNA" but never mentions "abortion". This omission creates a high risk of the language being struck down by courts as misleading to voters.
Act for Missouri Recommendation:
Act for Missouri supports HJR 109 as a genuine personhood amendment that aligns with our core principles. However, we strongly suggest amending the language to *explicitly* repeal Article I, Section 36 and to clarify the ballot summary. This ensures transparency with voters and reduces the risk of the amendment being stalled in court.