The billboards have emerged alongside Interstates 55 and 170 in the St. Louis area. They are also visible on I-70 between Columbia and St. Charles in central Missouri, and one is positioned across from a shopping center in Cape Girardeau, near the Mississippi River in the southeastern part of the state.
As the November 5 election approaches, these billboards are appearing throughout Missouri. They are part of a campaign spreading claims to undermine support for an abortion rights amendment on the upcoming ballot, which was introduced through the state’s initiative petition process. Some of the billboards urge voters to “STOP Child Gender Surgery,” despite the fact that the amendment does not mention gender-affirming care. Other billboards allege that the amendment would allow abortions in the ninth month of pregnancy, a claim refuted by a state appeals court ruling that challenged the wording of the amendment’s ballot summary.
Missouri’s abortion law, implemented in June 2022 following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, prohibits nearly all abortions except in medical emergencies, without exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Amendment 3, if passed, would enshrine reproductive freedom in the state constitution, prohibiting any law that restricts abortion before fetal viability, typically around the 24th week of pregnancy. This amendment would also protect other reproductive rights such as in vitro fertilization and access to birth control. Surveys indicate the measure is likely to pass, with a recent poll showing 52% in favor and 34% opposed.
Abortion opponents, facing polling results indicating their stance is unpopular even among the state’s predominantly conservative electorate, are attempting to weaken support for the amendment. According to Matthew Harris, an associate professor of political science at Park University, abortion rights remain popular nationwide, even in conservative states, prompting opponents to focus on different issues.
Approximately $1 million has been invested by opponents in a last-minute misinformation campaign, funding radio ads and some of the billboards in an effort to either thwart the initiative or alter the public perception of supporting it. Key contributors include John Sauer, who served as the Missouri solicitor general from 2017 to 2023 and as legal counsel for former President Donald Trump. Sauer contributed $100,000 to the “Vote No on 3” political action committee, which finances many of the billboards. Neither Sauer nor Jim Cole, treasurer of the PAC and a long-standing official with Missouri Right to Life, provided comments.
Opponents are capitalizing on polls suggesting Missourians disapprove of gender-affirming medical care for minors, an already illegal practice for transgender youth in the state, and the participation of athletes outside their birth gender in sports. By conflating these issues, political analysts believe opponents aim to confuse voters and broaden their opposition base against the amendment. The anti-transgender messaging in Missouri reflects a national trend among Republicans leveraging cultural issues, such as transgender rights, to engage conservative voters in the 2024 campaigns.
In anticipation of a possible loss at the polls, opponents are preparing to shift their focus to the state legislature, which is predominantly conservative and has previously enacted measures against public opinion. Missouri’s General Assembly has a history of using “ballot candy,” where legislators append politically charged language they favor to amendments, thus nullifying voter-approved measures they oppose. Some lawmakers have pledged to continue their campaign against the abortion-rights amendment if it passes.
For instance, in 2018, voters approved the Clean Missouri initiative, targeting legislative redistricting abuses. Two years later, Republican legislators introduced new ballot language reframing the issue and reversing many reforms from the Clean Missouri initiative, which narrowly succeeded.
A similar strategy is evident in Missouri’s Amendment 7, introduced by the legislature on this year’s ballot. Although presented as a measure to ensure only U.S. citizens can vote, which is already mandated by law, its true purpose is to ban ranked-choice voting, a move strongly backed by Republicans in the General Assembly.
Benjamin Singer, the former communications director for the Clean Missouri campaign, criticized the legislature’s actions to overturn Clean Missouri as “brazen,” stating the efforts on Amendment 7 continue this pattern. Singer, now CEO of Show Me Integrity, an organization advocating for democratic reforms in Missouri, warned voters against underestimating legislators’ efforts to counteract popular measures.
State Rep. Brian Seitz, a Republican from Branson, accused abortion-rights advocates of employing deceptive tactics by attempting to protect transgender men in women’s sports and minors undergoing sex changes. Seitz argued that Amendment 3 should not be on the ballot due to its multisubject nature, indicating lawmakers might dissect its topics individually. He defended the representation of conservative lawmakers, stating their continuous election reflected the will of the people.
While Missouri voters often elect conservative legislators, voting patterns reveal different priorities. Voters have rejected a right-to-work law, legalized recreational marijuana, and expanded Medicaid, diverging from the priorities that conservative lawmakers have promoted. These legislators attempted to restrict citizens’ ability to propose constitutional amendments, but their efforts were thwarted by a Democratic filibuster after they included unrelated immigrant voting and foreign fundraising issues in the measure.
Beth Vonnahme, associate dean and professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, noted Missouri voters’ ambivalence towards government interference, aligning themselves with conservative principles while also supporting progressive amendments focusing on such interference.
The abortion amendment, having faced several legal hurdles, remained on the ballot following a Missouri Supreme Court ruling that rejected claims it failed to enumerate all potential legal impacts. However, state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican from Jefferson County and key architect of Missouri’s abortion ban, maintained that amendment proponents misrepresented its effects. Coleman argued that if Amendment 3 succeeded, the only option for lawmakers to reverse the outcome would be proposing a new amendment for voters to consider.
Marcia McCormick, a law professor at Saint Louis University specializing in sexuality and the law, criticized the billboard assertions as misleading “straw man” arguments. McCormick emphasized that while Amendment 3 ensures reproductive freedom, it is specifically focused on fertility and childbirth. Michael Wolff, a retired chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, expressed confidence that anti-abortion lobbyists are coordinating with legislators on a new amendment. Wolff, who advised Amendment 3 proponents on ballot language, believed the effort would likely commence with transgender medical care issues, as highlighted in the billboards. He anticipated lawmakers would initiate the new amendment similarly to Clean Missouri’s start, prioritizing universally appealing points to advance their agenda.
