Abortion bans violate
church-state separation
Summary
Abortion bans impose one narrow religious doctrine on everyone. These bans violate the separation of church and state.
Missouri’s abortion bans impose one narrow religious doctrine on everyone and in doing so deny equality and bodily autonomy. Missouri officials repeatedly told us that they were imposing their religious law on every Missourian. So, we’re suing.
Reproductive rights and religious freedom are intertwined. When your most intimate, personal decisions are held hostage to religious beliefs with which you may strongly disagree and even consider oppressive, you are not free.
But our lawsuit isn’t looking to nullify the abortion bans only for those whose religion mandates otherwise.
Resources
Details
See more details about the case
Case Materials
Review the AU Legal Library case materials
FAQ
Read our Frequently Asked Questions
Videos
Watch related videos on the case
Plaintiffs
Learn more about our Plantiffs
Support
Meet our local supporters
Details
Abortion bans impose one narrow religious doctrine on everyone. These bans violate the separation of church and state.
Missouri’s abortion bans impose one narrow religious doctrine on everyone and in doing so deny equality and bodily autonomy. Missouri officials repeatedly told us that they were imposing their religious law on every Missourian. So, we’re suing.
Our lawsuit has widespread religious support.
That’s why Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the National Women’s Law Center, leading experts in religious freedom and gender justice, are challenging Missouri’s draconian abortion bans on behalf of FOURTEEN clergy from SEVEN different denominations. Our plaintiffs include an Episcopal bishop, an orthodox Jewish maharat, a United Methodist pastor and state legislator, as well as Reform Jewish rabbis and United Church of Christ and Unitarian Universalist ministers. Fittingly, we filed just days after Religious Freedom Day and before the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
State abortion bans are unconstitutional
Reproductive rights and religious freedom are intertwined. When your most intimate, personal decisions are held hostage to religious beliefs with which you may strongly disagree and even consider oppressive, you are not free.
But our lawsuit isn’t looking to nullify the abortion bans only for those whose religion mandates otherwise.
Missouri’s abortion bans are unconstitutional.
We are challenging Missouri’s abortion bans because when state legislators give their personal religious doctrine the force of law, they violate America’s promise to separate church and state and protect everyone’s religious freedom, from the devout to the nonbeliever.
That’s why so many religious leaders are suing. And it’s why the bans have got to go.
Case Materials
Missouri Abortion Ban Lawsuit
STATUS
TYPE
COURT
ISSUES
Rev. Blackmon v. Missouri
Laws banning or restricting abortion access impose one narrow religious belief on everyone bound by those laws, including those whose religions counsel in favor of abortion access. Americans United and the National Women’s Law Center represent fourteen clergy members in Missouri across seven denominations who support abortion access because of their faith, not in spite of it. Together, we argue that Missouri’s abortion bans violate their state constitution’s guarantee of absolute separation of church and state.
In 2019, Missouri state legislators passed H.B. 126, a bill imposing numerous abortion restrictions on Missouri residents in the name of “Almighty God.” The bill established a trigger ban on virtually all abortions that was set to go into effect if Roe v. Wade was overturned, as well as cascading abortion bans at 8, 14, 18, and 20 weeks and a ban on abortions sought for certain reasons. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center, which overturned Roe, and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt proclaimed that same day that Missouri’s total abortion ban was effective immediately.
On the floor of the Missouri House of Representatives, state legislators defended H.B. 126 in overtly religious terms. Rep. Holly Thompson Rehder stated, “God doesn’t give us a choice in this area. He is the Creator of life.” The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Nick Schroer, said, “I’ll say this again, as a Catholic I do believe life begins at conception, that is built into our legislative findings currently in law.” And even after Rep. Ian Mackey pointed out that the religious language in the bill was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state, Rep. Adam Schnelting stated, “I know of no greater way of affirming the natural rights of man than to declare that they are a gift from our Creator that neither man nor government can abridge.”
Earlier Missouri abortion restrictions passed in 2014 and 2017 had already drastically curtailed abortion access in the state. In 2014, H.B. 1307 imposed a 72-hour delay on abortions, requiring individuals seeking abortion care to make two trips at least three days apart—taking time away from work, school, family, and other commitments and imposing greater travel costs. In 2017, S.B. 5 imposed restrictions on medication abortions (which today account for over half of all abortions in the United States) and an additional, medically unnecessary requirement that the same physician who provides the abortion must also provide information to the individual seeking an abortion at least 72 hours beforehand. And back in 1986, the Missouri legislature passed a bill stating that all Missouri laws “shall be interpreted and construed” in line with the religious belief that the “life of each human being begins at conception.” Together, these restrictions significantly limited the ability of thousands of Missourians to obtain abortion care. Legislators defended these restrictions in religious terms as well, repeatedly invoking the religious belief that life begins at conception, even after hearing testimony from a rabbi explaining how abortion restrictions infringe on Jewish understandings of life and health.
Our plaintiffs, who represent several denominations within Christianity, as well as Judaism and Unitarian Universalism, object to the Missouri legislature’s giving these sweeping religious statements the force of law. Rev. Traci Blackmon, a United Church of Christ minister, aims to be part of the legacy of the UCC—which voted in 1971 to acknowledge the right to abortion—by supporting reproductive decision-making and helping people obtain access to abortion care. Maharat Rori Picker Neiss, an Orthodox Jewish clergy member, says that Jewish law is clear that a fetus is not given the same value, status, or consideration as that of a living person until such time as it has taken its first breath outside the womb. Rev. Molly Housh Gordon, a Unitarian Universalist minister in Columbia, describes Missouri’s abortion restrictions as entirely at odds with her religious beliefs, practice, and ministry because they establish into law a religious belief about when life begins that directly conflicts with her own religious beliefs and understanding of conscience and bodily autonomy.
In enacting H.B. 126 and the earlier restrictions, the Missouri legislature did not fulfill its duty to represent the diverse views of Missouri’s citizens. Instead, it unconstitutionally imposed one narrow religious belief as law. That is why on Thursday, January 19, 2023, just shy of the fiftieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade on January 22, we filed a Complaint in Missouri state court challenging the state’s abortion restrictions as a violation of Missouri’s constitutional provisions that protect the separation of church and state. On March 14, 2023, we amended our complaint to include Progressive Baptist Rev. Darryl Gray as the 14th clergy plaintiff challenging these laws.
The court held its first hearing in the case on June 13, 2023, where AU Litigation Fellow Kalli Joslin argued against a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that the defendant state officials had filed. On June 30, 2023, the court largely rejected the state’s arguments and allowed our core claims to proceed.
On September 20, 2023, the defendant state officials filed a motion arguing that they are entitled to prevail in the case without further proceedings. We filed our opposition to this motion on October 27. Joslin presented oral argument opposing the motion at a hearing on November 16. Unfortunately, on June 14, 2024, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion, meaning that the plaintiffs’ claims cannot proceed in the trial court. That June 14 order was slightly amended and reentered on August 13, 2024. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s decision to the Missouri Supreme Court on August 22, 2024.
On November 20, 2024, following Missouri voters passing Amendment 3 on Election Day and enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution, the 13 Missouri clergy who sued to overturn the state’s total abortion ban as a violation of church-state separation today announced their intent to dismiss their lawsuit. A motion was filed with the Missouri Supreme Court requesting the appeal in the case, Rev. Traci Blackmon v. State of Missouri, be dismissed because Amendment 3 invalidates the abortion ban.
The case was formally dismissed on November 25, 2024.
Case Documents
- 3.14.23 Amended Complaint in Rev. Blackmon v. Missouri
- 5.23.23 Opposition to Prosecutors' Motion to Dismiss
- 5.23.23 Opposition to State's Motion to Dismiss
- 6.30.23 Order on Prosecutors' Motion to Dismiss
- 6.30.23 Order on State's Motion to Dismiss
- 10.27.23 Opposition to State’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
- 8.13.24 Circuit Court's Amended Order and Judgment
FAQ
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CASE
What are Missouri's abortion bans?
Missouri’s expansive abortion ban (H.B. 126) passed in 2019 and included a trigger ban that prohibited all abortions with no exception for rape or incest and only the narrowest exception for medical emergencies involving the life of the pregnant person. It went into effect in June 2022 immediately upon the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down Roe v. Wade.
Prior to the trigger ban taking effect, H.B. 126 also enacted a cascading series of 8-week, 14-week, 18-week, and 20-week pre-viability abortion bans (called gestational age bans) and a ban on particular reasons for obtaining an abortion (called a reason ban).
Our lawsuit also challenges abortion restrictions that were enacted by the Missouri Legislature prior to H.B. 126, including a 2017 law that established medically unnecessary regulations on abortion providers and unnecessary, onerous procedural requirements on medication abortion, and a 2014 law that required people seeking an abortion to wait 72 hours after receiving state-mandated information before obtaining care.
What does religion have to do with abortion bans?
Everything.
The American legal system has adopted a taboo against mentioning religion in legal cases involving abortion. Lawyers and judges go out of their way to avoid discussing religion and religious motivations for abortion restrictions, and treat abortion bans as if they are religiously neutral. They are far from that, but only rarely is someone willing to shatter this polite fiction—to cry out that the emperor has no clothes. If they did, it would quickly become obvious that these bans give the force of law to one narrow religious doctrine.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor broke the spell during oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade. “How is your interest anything but a religious view?” Sotomayor asked the lawyer for the state of Mississippi, “… when you say [abortion] is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that’s a religious view, isn’t it?” Mississippi had no answer.
Justice Alito was actually reasonably clear when he overturned Roe in the Dobbs opinion, beginning and ending with religion, though he cloaked it as “morality.” The Missouri legislators who banned abortion were clear about imposing their narrow version of religious law on us all.
Abortion bans have always been about forcing every person to obey one particular religious edict.
Is this the same as other religious freedom cases we're seeing?
This lawsuit is different because we’re not seeking a religious exemption from abortion bans, but challenging the bans as unconstitutional—a violation of church-state separation. We don’t want an exemption for some believers and a ban for everyone else—we are coming after the bans for everyone.
The narrow religious and personal beliefs of a vocal, politically powerful minority cannot be given the force of law.
Religious freedom demands the right to an abortion so people can make their own reproductive decisions according to their own principles. The separation of church and state protects religious freedom and reproductive freedom – the freedom to decide for yourself.
Shielding our shared laws from any religion’s influence frees us to come together as equals and build a stronger democracy. AU has been on the forefront of religious freedom and reproductive freedom for 75 years. We first challenged religiously motivated restrictions on contraception back in the 1950s.
The fundamental right to be treated equally under the law depends on church-state separation.
VIDEOS

