House Joint Resolution 54 proposes a constitutional amendment to Article I of the Missouri Constitution that would be submitted to voters at the 2026 general election, or at a special election called by the governor. The amendment would create a new Section 37 titled the “Amendment to Protect Women Receiving Reproductive Health Care.” It would define “reproductive health care” broadly to include prenatal care, childbirth, perinatal and postpartum care, contraception, abortion, miscarriage care, ectopic pregnancy care, and respectful birthing conditions.
The resolution would make it unlawful to provide reproductive health care, or related health care, to a minor without prior parental notification and informed consent, except in a medical emergency. It also declares that the health, safety, and welfare of women receiving reproductive health care are compelling governmental interests and states that laws regulating such care are valid unless an aggrieved plaintiff proves the law is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. The measure further provides that women harmed by negligence, malpractice, breach of duty, misconduct, or criminal conduct by reproductive health care providers must receive the same legal protections and access to courts as patients receiving other types of health care.
The amendment would also specify that nothing in the constitution requires public or private funding for reproductive health care. In addition, it would channel legal challenges to reproductive-health-related state laws into the Circuit Court of Cole County, require notice to the attorney general in certain constitutional challenges, and give the Missouri Supreme Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction. The resolution includes severability language and defines “government” and “law” broadly to cover state and local entities and a wide range of legal instruments.
Overall, the bill’s impact would be to add constitutional protections and procedural rules governing reproductive health care in Missouri, while also imposing a parental consent requirement for minors and preserving legislative authority to regulate the field so long as the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. It would affect patients, parents, providers, courts, and state and local governments, and it could influence future litigation over abortion, pregnancy-related care, malpractice, and related regulations.
The available context shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials provided. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to combine protections for women’s reproductive health care with restrictions on minors’ access and a framework that preserves state regulatory authority, which suggests it could attract both supporters of parental involvement and opponents concerned about access to care or constitutional limits on regulation.
This resolution would amend the Missouri Constitution if approved by voters, creating new constitutional language governing reproductive health care. It would establish a parental notification and informed consent requirement for minors, define reproductive health care broadly, preserve the enforceability of health-and-safety regulations under a rational-basis standard, and set venue and appellate rules for challenges to reproductive-health-related laws. It would also clarify that the constitution does not require public or private funding for such care and would extend ordinary legal protections and remedies to patients harmed by provider misconduct.
No committee discussion or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the supplied materials. From the bill text, the measure appears framed as a protection for women receiving reproductive health care, but it also includes provisions that are likely to be viewed favorably by supporters of parental consent and state regulation and skeptically by opponents concerned about abortion access, privacy, and constitutional restrictions. The overall tone of the proposal is policy-driven and protective in language, but it is likely to generate mixed reactions.
The most likely points of contention are the parental notification and informed consent requirement for minors, the broad constitutional definition of reproductive health care that includes abortion and contraception, and the standard preserving most state regulation unless a challenger proves it lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. Opponents may object that the measure could restrict access to care or entrench regulatory authority, while supporters may emphasize parental rights, patient safety, and malpractice accountability. The venue provision for lawsuits in Cole County and the no-funding clause may also draw attention from critics and advocates alike.