Divine Law or Constitutional Flaw: The Clash of Religious Belief and Legal Neutrality in Missouri’s Abortion Ban

Abstract

This Note explores the constitutional implications of Missouri’s recent abortion ban enacted in the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This Note examines the clash of religious beliefs and the law by dissecting the legislative history and intent behind Missouri’s abortion ban. The ban, known as House Bill 126 or the “Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act,” took effect immediately upon certification by State Attorney General Eric Schmitt and prohibits nearly all abortions, except in cases of a narrowly defined “medical emergency.” Notably, the law invokes religious language, asserting that “Almighty God” is the author of life and framing the state as a “sanctuary of life.” Through an analysis of the historical background, legislative series of events, and contemporaneous statements made by lawmakers, this Note argues that Missouri’s abortion ban unconstitutionally establishes Christian beliefs into law. This Note analyzes a hypothetical Establishment Clause-based challenge to Missouri’s abortion ban, arguing that the ban infringes upon the neutrality required by the First Amendment. It scrutinizes the religious undertones in the legislative process, which seemingly favor Christian beliefs over other faith traditions or non-religious perspectives. Ultimately, this Note offers a critical examination of the implications of Missouri’s abortion ban within the context of religious freedom and constitutional law. It contends that the ban, rooted in religious ideals, violates the Establishment Clause by imposing religiously motivated legislation on all citizens, regardless of their personal beliefs or traditions