The legal battle over abortion rights in Missouri underscores a fundamental clash between religious beliefs and constitutional principles. Laws such as H.B. 126, passed in 2019, impose severe restrictions on abortion access under the guise of religious conviction, disregarding the diverse religious perspectives within the state. This legislation, triggered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, immediately banned most abortions in Missouri. Such laws, supported by legislators who justify them on religious grounds, blatantly disregard the principle of separation of church and state. Missouri’s abortion restrictions, dating back to 1986 and exacerbated by subsequent bills in 2014 and 2017, significantly impede access to abortion services, imposing burdensome requirements such as mandatory waiting periods and physician-specific counseling. Despite objections from clergy members representing various Christian denominations, Judaism, and Unitarian Universalism, the legislature persists in enacting laws that reflect a singular religious viewpoint. In response to these restrictions, a coalition led by Americans United and the National Women’s Law Center filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Missouri’s abortion laws. Their argument is based on the violation of Missouri’s constitutional provisions safeguarding the separation of church and state. The litigation, supported by clergy plaintiffs like Rev. Traci Blackmon and Maharat Rori Picker Neiss, aims to overturn these laws and restore reproductive autonomy. The legal proceedings commenced with a hearing on June 13, 2023, where the plaintiffs argued against a motion to dismiss the case, which was largely rejected by the court on June 30, 2023. Subsequent motions and arguments have been filed, with the defendants contending that they should prevail without further proceedings. The litigation represents a critical effort to defend individual liberties and uphold the principle that laws should not be based on religious doctrine, but rather on constitutional rights and freedoms.