Defines a person in relation to the equal protection of laws
Summary
SJR5 is a proposed constitutional amendment to the Missouri Constitution that would repeal and replace Section 2 of Article I. The resolution would define the term “person” to include every human being with a unique DNA code, explicitly including every unborn child at every stage of biological development from conception until birth. It also states that nothing in the constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the state to fund abortion.
If approved by voters, the measure would place this definition and abortion-related limitation directly into the state constitution. The joint resolution sets the question for the 2026 general election, or a special election if called by the governor, and provides the official ballot language and fiscal note summary, which says the proposal is expected to have no fiscal impact.
Impact
The bill would amend the Missouri Constitution, changing the legal definition of “person” for constitutional purposes and potentially affecting how equal protection and other constitutional rights are interpreted in relation to unborn children. It would also constitutionally bar any claim that the Missouri Constitution protects a right to abortion or requires public funding for abortion, which could affect future litigation, state policy, and the scope of reproductive rights in Missouri. Because it is a joint resolution, it does not itself change statutory law; instead, it submits the proposed constitutional amendment to voters for approval or rejection.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented debate or recorded floor sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the text alone, the resolution is clearly framed as a pro-life measure intended to protect unborn life and limit abortion rights. The absence of recorded discussion prevents a definitive assessment of legislative support or opposition from the provided context.
Contention
The central point of contention is the constitutional definition of “person” to include unborn children from conception, which would have broad implications for abortion rights and potentially for other areas of law involving fetal rights. Supporters would likely view the measure as protecting unborn life and clarifying that the constitution does not guarantee abortion rights, while opponents would likely argue that it restricts reproductive freedom and could create legal uncertainty around constitutional protections. Another likely dispute is whether the ballot language fairly describes the amendment’s effect, since the official summary focuses on protecting “each human life with a unique DNA code regardless of age.”