SJR 72 is a proposed constitutional amendment to be submitted to Missouri voters. It would repeal and replace Section 2 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution to define “person” as including every human being with a unique DNA code, regardless of age, and specifically every unborn human child from the moment of conception until birth. The resolution also states that the Missouri Constitution does not secure or protect a right to abortion and does not require public funding for abortion.
The measure is framed as a protection-of-life amendment and would place this definition directly into the state constitution if approved by voters at the 2026 general election, or at a special election called by the governor. It also includes the official ballot summary language and a fiscal note summary stating that the proposal is expected to have no fiscal impact.
Impact
If adopted, SJR 72 would alter Missouri constitutional law by redefining “person” for purposes of the state constitution to include unborn children from conception, which could affect how equal protection and other constitutional rights are interpreted in future cases. It would also expressly remove any constitutional basis for abortion rights and for requiring abortion funding, potentially affecting state abortion policy, litigation, and related statutory or constitutional challenges. Because it is a joint resolution, it does not itself change statutes; it proposes a constitutional amendment that would take effect only if approved by voters.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the resolution appears to be presented in strongly pro-life terms and is intended to advance protection for unborn life. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history provided here, so no formal legislative debate or recorded opposition is available in the supplied materials. The official ballot language and fiscal note summary suggest the proposal was drafted for direct voter consideration rather than as a routine statutory change.
Contention
The central point of contention is the constitutional definition of “person” and whether that definition should extend to unborn children from conception. Supporters would view the measure as affirming equal protection and unborn life, while opponents would likely focus on the elimination of any constitutional abortion right and the potential downstream effects on reproductive rights, medical decision-making, and litigation. Another likely area of dispute is the ballot language itself, since the summary frames the amendment as protecting “each human life with a unique DNA code,” which may be viewed as advocacy-oriented rather than neutral.