SJR 8 vs. the New Amendment 3: Clearing Up the Confusion for Missouri Pro-Lifers

Some are claiming that SJR 8 is a “fake” abolition amendment—that it doesn’t really repeal the 2024 abortion amendment, that it leaves IVF children unprotected, and that it “changes nothing” about enforcement. Then they hold up the new Amendment 3 (built on HJR 73) as the “real solution.”

At Act for Missouri, we actually sat down with the texts of both SJR 8 and HJR 73. When you compare the words on the page, a very different picture emerges. This isn’t about personalities or organizations. It’s about truth, equal protection, and whether Christians in Missouri are being asked to approve abortion in our Constitution.

1. Does SJR 8 repeal the 2024 abortion amendment?

Here’s what SJR 8 actually does.

SJR 8 repeals the current natural-rights section (Article I, §2) and replaces it with a new paragraph that:

• Affirms the usual language about inalienable rights, and then
• Defines “person” for the entire Constitution as:
  “every human being with a unique DNA code, regardless of age, including every in utero human child at every stage of biological development from the moment of conception until birth.”

It then adds this crucial sentence:

“Nothing in this constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion.”

That is not a vague personhood slogan tucked in a corner. It is a direct, explicit declaration that nowhere in the Missouri Constitution is there a right to abortion.

By contrast, the 2024 Amendment 3 created a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” including a right to abortion up to viability and a broad “health” exception that can be stretched to cover abortion all nine months of pregnancy.

Those two ideas—“fundamental right to abortion” vs. “nothing in this constitution secures a right to abortion”—simply cannot be harmonized. When constitutional provisions conflict, courts have to decide which one governs, usually giving effect to the later and more specific language. No one can promise how judges will rule in every case, but it is not honest to say that SJR 8 “adds language that cannot override” the 2024 abortion amendment. It is aimed squarely at it.

It’s technically true that SJR 8 does not cross out the 2024 language by section number, the way HJR 73 does. But in practice, SJR 8:

• Redefines “person” across the entire Constitution to include every unborn child from conception to birth, and
• Declares that there is no right to abortion anywhere in the Constitution.

Now compare that to what the new Amendment 3 does.

HJR 73 does repeal the 2024 section and replace it with a new Section 36(a). But what it puts in its place is critical:

• It says abortion “may be performed or induced” in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest, and in rape/incest cases up to 12 weeks.
• It defines “medical emergency” broadly—beyond risk of death, to include any condition where, in “reasonable medical judgment,” delaying abortion would create a “serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”
• It defines “fetal anomaly” as a condition that would “make life outside the womb impossible,” yet requires no second opinions, reporting, or external checks of any kind.

So yes, the new Amendment 3 repeals the 2024 language. But it then re-creates a new constitutional abortion code with built-in exceptions, vague medical standards, and plenty of room for litigation and loopholes.

And because it is a full repeal-and-replace, Christians are now being asked to vote “yes” to put abortion into the Missouri Constitution (for certain categories of children) in their own handwriting.

If we truly believe abortion is the unjust killing of an innocent person, can we in good conscience vote to approve it “in some cases” in our state’s highest law?

2. Does SJR 8 leave IVF children unprotected?

Another claim is that SJR 8 would ignore children created through IVF because it mentions “in utero” children.

Here is the full definition again:

“The term ‘person’ under this constitution includes every human being with a unique DNA code, regardless of age, including every in utero human child at every stage of biological development from the moment of conception until birth.”

The controlling phrase is “every human being with a unique DNA code, regardless of age.” The phrase “including every in utero human child…” is an example, not a limitation.

Embryos created in an IVF lab do have a unique human DNA code and are at an early stage of biological development. There is a strong textual basis for a court to conclude that both embryos in the womb and embryos in a freezer are “persons” under this definition.

Now compare that to the new Amendment 3:

• It never defines “person.”
• It never says “life begins at conception.”
• It only regulates when abortion “may be performed or induced,” and when it may not.

The claim that the new Amendment 3 “protects human life at conception without the ‘in utero’ loophole” is not based on its actual text. It is silent on IVF embryos and silent on any conception-to-natural-death definition of personhood.

If anything, SJR 8 comes far closer to a true personhood standard by tying “person” to every human being with a unique DNA code, regardless of age.

3. “SJR 8 changes nothing about enforcement”

Another talking point says: “SJR 8 doesn’t create criminal statutes, so nothing changes.”

There’s a half-truth here. It’s correct that SJR 8 doesn’t list specific crimes or penalties. But constitutions almost never do. They set definitions, rights, and boundaries; legislatures write criminal codes.

The exact same thing is true of the new Amendment 3. HJR 73 doesn’t spell out who is prosecuted and how. It simply says when abortions may be performed, what exceptions apply, and how informed/parental consent works.

If “no attached criminal code” makes SJR 8 worthless, it also makes the new Amendment 3 worthless. But that’s not how law actually works.

What SJR 8 does is change the constitutional meaning of “person” and declare that no right to abortion exists in Missouri’s Constitution.

That matters because Missouri’s criminal laws already use terms like “person” and “human being.” Once the Constitution says that “person” includes every human being with unique DNA from conception to birth, those statutes must be interpreted in light of that truth.

In other words, SJR 8 doesn’t write the criminal code—it forces our existing laws to recognize unborn children as persons in the same way born children are.

By contrast, the new Amendment 3 is being publicly marketed with promises that women will not be punished and that it “targets the abortion industry, not women.” If the concern is that a proposal will be interpreted to forbid prosecution of mothers in any circumstance, that concern applies far more clearly to the new Amendment 3’s political coalition than to the bare text of SJR 8.

4. Do the “real protection, real clarity, real results” claims hold up?

Supporters of the new Amendment 3 make a list of bold promises. Here’s how they stack up when you look at the wording.

• “Fully repeals the 2024 abortion amendment.”
  ✔ True. It does repeal and replace that section.
• “Protects unborn children beginning at conception.”
  ✖ Not true in any consistent sense. The amendment explicitly allows the killing of certain unborn children—those conceived in rape or incest (up to 12 weeks), those diagnosed with certain anomalies, and any child whose mother is said to face a broad “medical emergency.”
• “Safeguards IVF conceived children.”
  ✖ The text never mentions IVF or embryos outside the womb.
• “Provides clear pro-life standards.”
  ✖ It relies on open-ended phrases that have been litigated and stretched for decades: “medical emergency,” “reasonable medical judgment,” “serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment,” “fetal anomaly”—with no requirement for police reports, second opinions, or review boards.
• “Restores a culture of life in Missouri.”
  This is a slogan, not a legal standard. Writing into the Constitution that some unborn children may be killed and others may not is not equal protection or a true “culture of life.” It is partiality in justice.

5. Equal protection and Christian conscience

At the heart of this debate is a simple question:

Do we really believe every unborn child is a person made in God’s image from conception, or not?

If we do, then our laws—and especially our Constitution—should reflect equal protection, not exceptions based on how a child was conceived or what diagnosis they receive.

God’s Word warns us against partiality in justice:

• “For God shows no partiality.” (Romans 2:11)
• “You shall not pervert justice… Justice, and only justice, shall you follow.” (Deuteronomy 16:19–20)
• “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.” (Proverbs 24:11)

A scheme that says, “These unborn children must be protected, but those ones—conceived in rape, incest, or with certain anomalies—may be killed,” is the very definition of unequal weights and measures. God calls that an abomination.

SJR 8 moves us toward recognizing every child with a unique human DNA code as a constitutional person. The new Amendment 3 moves us toward permanently writing exceptions, loopholes, and vague standards into our Constitution and asking Christians to approve them at the ballot box.

6. Where do we go from here?

You don’t have to take anyone’s word for it. Read the text of SJR 8 and HJR 73 for yourself. Look at what they actually say, not just what the talking points claim.

Then ask:

• Does this proposal treat all unborn children as equal image-bearers before God?
• Does it deny any supposed “right to abortion,” or does it carve out special categories of children who may be killed?
• Can I, as a Christian who believes life begins at conception, vote to approve abortion in any situation in our state’s Constitution?

Missouri doesn’t need more clever regulation of which babies can live and which can die. We need equal protection for every child from the moment of conception—nothing less.