The argument that voting "Yes" would lead to the removal of malpractice protections for botched medical procedures is not part of what Amendment 3 proposes. Malpractice protections are typically governed by separate medical laws and are unrelated to the abortion rights being addressed in this amendment. If someone experiences a botched medical procedure, they still retain the right to seek malpractice claims under existing state and federal laws
@@kinseydesignsbrands I like how you are thinking. Just one challenge. This is a Constitutional Amendment and supercedes all laws below it. These two sentences negate any good Amendment 3 is claiming to provide. The first sentence says absolutely no laws can be put in place regarding all reproductive health. The second says that anyone "assisting" cannot be held liable. This will trump absolutely all other laws. Parental rights, malpractice protections, zoning, licensing, medical waste disposal....all these types of common sense laws, gone. "Any denial, interference, delay, or restriction of the right to reproductive freedom shall be presumed invalid." "Nor shall any person assisting a person in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with that person’s consent be penalized, prosecuted, or otherwise subjected to adverse action for doing so"
@@CoalitionLife Your interpretation of Amendment 3 is overstated. While it does create a constitutional right to reproductive health decisions, it doesn't stop all regulations. States can still regulate abortion after fetal viability (22-24 weeks), as long as it doesn't infringe on the right before that point, or when someone's health is at risk. Also, the part about "assisting a person" protects those helping others access care, like providers or supporters, but doesn't shield anyone from malpractice, zoning, or licensing laws. Courts would still review these regulations to make sure they are reasonable and don't overly restrict reproductive rights. It also does not remove common-sense laws governing unrelated areas, like transgender healthcare for minors. Transgender procedures are not related to Missouri's Amendment 3. This amendment is specifically focused on reproductive health and the right to make decisions regarding abortion and contraception. It does not address gender-affirming care, hormone treatments, or surgeries for transgender individuals. Legal reviews would likely uphold separate protections for those areas, as they are beyond the scope of this amendment.
Thanks for your reply. Please show me in the language where it restricts this to only what you referenced? As for viability it's only based on the "good faith judgement" so 22-24 weeks is just an opinion, but does not mention any rigid definitions... ... In fact the entire document is vague leaving this up to the whims of 7 unelected judges. If the writers of this Amendment wanted abortion in the first trimester they could have written it that way, but they simply didn't.
Also "legal reviews LIKELY would uphold" NOTE the comment above gives no guarantee that tax payer funded transgender surgeries couldn't be interpreted by the courts
@@CoalitionLife Amendment 3 is focused on protecting reproductive health decisions, like abortion and contraception, up until fetal viability, which doctors determine case-by-case. States can regulate abortion after viability, except when someone's health is at risk. The 'assisting a person' part protects those helping others access care, like doctors or supporters, but doesn’t prevent malpractice or health regulations from applying. The amendment is specifically about reproductive health and doesn’t extend to transgender healthcare. Some people worry that courts could interpret it broadly, but it's unlikely since the amendment clearly focuses on reproductive care, not unrelated areas like gender-affirming treatments.
Trans procedures are not related to Missouri's Amendment 3. This amendment is specifically focused on reproductive health and the right to make decisions regarding abortion and contraception. It does not address gender-affirming care, hormone treatments, or surgeries for trans individuals. You are being deceptive and manipulative with this video.
Here is just one link from Boston children's hospital tying gender affirming care to reproductive health care. A hysterectomy is considered reproductive health regardless of the reasons. This is just one of hundreds of examples that tie these two together. The "but not limited to" gives away the agenda here. www.childrenshospital.org/programs/transgender-reproductive-health-service When the writers of the amendment were asked about it they attacked Josh Hawley instead of explicitly denying these claims. The reality is that 7 unelected judges in Jefferson City will ultimately decide
Then what does "But Not Limited To" mean. Numerous liberal and medical institutions call gender affirming care reproductive care. It has everything to do with the reproductive systems after all doesn't it? Why though would you shy away from it? Isn't transgender care supposed to be a good thing?
@@CoalitionLife listen buddy. This is America. If I want to tattoo my entire body blue, get implants and call myself Papa Smurfette, I will, and there isn't a gosh darned thing you can do about it. it's called FREEDOM. "Any denial, interference, delay, or restriction of the right to reproductive freedom shall be presumed invalid." MY BODY MY CHOICE.
@@CoalitionLife The phrase "but not limited to" refers to ensuring that the amendment covers all aspects of reproductive health, like contraception, abortion, and pregnancy-related care. While gender-affirming care does involve some aspects of the reproductive system, it is distinct from reproductive health decisions in the context of this amendment, which is focused on abortion and contraception. Even though some institutions might include gender-affirming care in a broad definition of healthcare, Amendment 3 is not written with that focus. It is specifically about reproductive health decisions and protecting access to abortion and contraception. Courts would look at the intent and the specific rights being protected, and the amendment’s language is clear in its focus on reproductive autonomy, not broader medical care. Lastly, this isn't about shying away from transgender care-it’s simply that this particular amendment is focused on a different issue. Gender-affirming care, while important, is typically addressed by separate laws and policies, not those focused on reproductive rights.
@nickirmen358 Because not everyone uses the same language to describe themselves. If you don't like it, might I suggest you stop lying and whining, and turn the other cheek. Weirdo.
Voting YES means you choose to remove all protections for all reproductive health. So yes we all have a choice. If someone messes up a hysterectomy or birth control you lose all malpractice protections. Not a great choice.
Please read the Amendment language....not the summary. If you or someone you care for is hurt, you can not sue. Anyone "assisting" can not be held accountable. This includes all reproductive health including basic protections for miscarriage.
The argument that voting "Yes" would lead to the removal of malpractice protections for botched medical procedures is not part of what Amendment 3 proposes. Malpractice protections are typically governed by separate medical laws and are unrelated to the abortion rights being addressed in this amendment. If someone experiences a botched medical procedure, they still retain the right to seek malpractice claims under existing state and federal laws
@@kinseydesignsbrands I like how you are thinking. Just one challenge. This is a Constitutional Amendment and supercedes all laws below it.
These two sentences negate any good Amendment 3 is claiming to provide. The first sentence says absolutely no laws can be put in place regarding all reproductive health. The second says that anyone "assisting" cannot be held liable.
This will trump absolutely all other laws. Parental rights, malpractice protections, zoning, licensing, medical waste disposal....all these types of common sense laws, gone.
"Any denial, interference, delay, or restriction of the right to reproductive freedom shall be presumed invalid."
"Nor shall any person assisting a person in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with that person’s consent be penalized, prosecuted, or otherwise subjected to adverse action for doing so"
@@CoalitionLife Your interpretation of Amendment 3 is overstated. While it does create a constitutional right to reproductive health decisions, it doesn't stop all regulations. States can still regulate abortion after fetal viability (22-24 weeks), as long as it doesn't infringe on the right before that point, or when someone's health is at risk. Also, the part about "assisting a person" protects those helping others access care, like providers or supporters, but doesn't shield anyone from malpractice, zoning, or licensing laws. Courts would still review these regulations to make sure they are reasonable and don't overly restrict reproductive rights. It also does not remove common-sense laws governing unrelated areas, like transgender healthcare for minors. Transgender procedures are not related to Missouri's Amendment 3. This amendment is specifically focused on reproductive health and the right to make decisions regarding abortion and contraception. It does not address gender-affirming care, hormone treatments, or surgeries for transgender individuals. Legal reviews would likely uphold separate protections for those areas, as they are beyond the scope of this amendment.
Thanks for your reply. Please show me in the language where it restricts this to only what you referenced?
As for viability it's only based on the "good faith judgement" so 22-24 weeks is just an opinion, but does not mention any rigid definitions...
... In fact the entire document is vague leaving this up to the whims of 7 unelected judges.
If the writers of this Amendment wanted abortion in the first trimester they could have written it that way, but they simply didn't.
Also "legal reviews LIKELY would uphold"
NOTE the comment above gives no guarantee that tax payer funded transgender surgeries couldn't be interpreted by the courts
@@CoalitionLife Amendment 3 is focused on protecting reproductive health decisions, like abortion and contraception, up until fetal viability, which doctors determine case-by-case. States can regulate abortion after viability, except when someone's health is at risk. The 'assisting a person' part protects those helping others access care, like doctors or supporters, but doesn’t prevent malpractice or health regulations from applying. The amendment is specifically about reproductive health and doesn’t extend to transgender healthcare. Some people worry that courts could interpret it broadly, but it's unlikely since the amendment clearly focuses on reproductive care, not unrelated areas like gender-affirming treatments.
Trans procedures are not related to Missouri's Amendment 3. This amendment is specifically focused on reproductive health and the right to make decisions regarding abortion and contraception. It does not address gender-affirming care, hormone treatments, or surgeries for trans individuals. You are being deceptive and manipulative with this video.
Here is just one link from Boston children's hospital tying gender affirming care to reproductive health care. A hysterectomy is considered reproductive health regardless of the reasons. This is just one of hundreds of examples that tie these two together. The "but not limited to" gives away the agenda here.
www.childrenshospital.org/programs/transgender-reproductive-health-service
When the writers of the amendment were asked about it they attacked Josh Hawley instead of explicitly denying these claims.
The reality is that 7 unelected judges in Jefferson City will ultimately decide
Then what does "But Not Limited To" mean. Numerous liberal and medical institutions call gender affirming care reproductive care. It has everything to do with the reproductive systems after all doesn't it? Why though would you shy away from it? Isn't transgender care supposed to be a good thing?
@@CoalitionLife listen buddy. This is America. If I want to tattoo my entire body blue, get implants and call myself Papa Smurfette, I will, and there isn't a gosh darned thing you can do about it. it's called FREEDOM.
"Any denial, interference, delay, or restriction of the right to reproductive freedom shall be presumed invalid."
MY BODY MY CHOICE.
@@CoalitionLife The phrase "but not limited to" refers to ensuring that the amendment covers all aspects of reproductive health, like contraception, abortion, and pregnancy-related care. While gender-affirming care does involve some aspects of the reproductive system, it is distinct from reproductive health decisions in the context of this amendment, which is focused on abortion and contraception.
Even though some institutions might include gender-affirming care in a broad definition of healthcare, Amendment 3 is not written with that focus. It is specifically about reproductive health decisions and protecting access to abortion and contraception. Courts would look at the intent and the specific rights being protected, and the amendment’s language is clear in its focus on reproductive autonomy, not broader medical care.
Lastly, this isn't about shying away from transgender care-it’s simply that this particular amendment is focused on a different issue. Gender-affirming care, while important, is typically addressed by separate laws and policies, not those focused on reproductive rights.
@nickirmen358 Because not everyone uses the same language to describe themselves. If you don't like it, might I suggest you stop lying and whining, and turn the other cheek.
Weirdo.
LMFAO with y'alls lies. What is this, some Handmaidens Tale prequel stuff. NO THANKS. I PREFER FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
Voting YES means you choose to remove all protections for all reproductive health. So yes we all have a choice.
If someone messes up a hysterectomy or birth control you lose all malpractice protections. Not a great choice.
@@CoalitionLife Weird way to spin it. If one does not own one's own body unequivocally, all other property rights fail. #MyBodyMyChoice
Please read the Amendment language....not the summary. If you or someone you care for is hurt, you can not sue. Anyone "assisting" can not be held accountable. This includes all reproductive health including basic protections for miscarriage.
@@CoalitionLife GOOD.
@@CoalitionLife Misrepresenting the facts again (I read the bill)