-
If supporters gather enough signatures by May, voters could decide the fate of Missouri’s abortion ban in either August or November.
-
Missouri abortion-rights initiatives face a ‘torturous’ road to the 2024 ballot. Here's what to knowTwo coalitions are hoping to put abortion on the 2024 ballot in Missouri, where virtually all abortions are illegal. Both groups face the same question: Is there enough time and money to get their proposed amendments off the ground?
-
The group behind a proposed ballot initiative that would add rape exceptions to Missouri’s abortion ban says a reporting requirement would give victims access to help. But some survivor advocacy groups worry it could cause further harm.
-
The Missouri Secretary of State's language for reproductive rights ballot issues has been savaged by two courts, most recently when the Western District Court of Appeals unanimously ruled his summaries are “replete with politically partisan language."
-
The St. Charles Republican is running to be Missouri’s next secretary of state.
-
A Missouri appeals court ruled that Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft's titles for six abortion-rights ballot issues were "replete with politically partisan language." Even though the proposed constitutional amendments cover all aspects of reproductive health care, Ashcroft's titles had a single-minded focus on abortion.
-
The Missouri Court of Appeals in Kansas City is weighing a pair of cases relating to a ballot initiative that would amend the Missouri Constitution to establish a right to abortion. The court is expected to rule soon.
-
Two groups have wildly different ideas on a constitutional amendment regarding abortion access that could go on the ballot in Missouri during the 2024 election cycle.
-
With Missouri's 2024 primaries less than a year away, political hopefuls are attempting to sway voters into their corners ahead of the election.
-
The unanimous verdict was scathing in its assessment of Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who refused to sign off on the work of Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick. The court concluded that nothing in state law “gives the attorney general authority to question the auditor’s assessment of the fiscal impact of a proposed petition.”