Missouri
Protected
Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe:
Voters approved a 2024 amendment to the Missouri Constitution to protect reproductive freedom. On December 23, 2024, a state circuit court held that the state’s trigger ban and other abortion restrictions were unconstitutional and enjoined those laws.
Restrictions
On June 24, 2022, Missouri began enforcing its trigger ban,[1]Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.017(2); Immediate Efficacy of Section 188.017, RSMo, 22 Op. Att’y. Gen. 2022 (2022). which bans all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant person, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.[2]Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S 215 (June 24, 2022), rev’d Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 945 F.3d 265, 274 (5th Cir. 2019). However, the ban is currently being challenged as unconstitutional due to the state’s constitutional amendment.[3]Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains & Planned Parenthood Great Rivers v. Missouri, 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnty. Cir. Ct. Nov. 6, 2024). On December 23, 2024, a state circuit court held that the state’s trigger ban and other abortion restrictions were unconstitutional and enjoined those laws.[4]Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnt. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2024). The court also enjoined the eight-week ban, fourteen-week ban, … Continue reading On February 14, 2025, a state circuit court enjoined the facility licensing requirement.[5]Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnt. Cir. Ct. Feb. 14, 2025) (enjoining the facility licensing requirement).
Missouri has not repealed other laws related to abortion. Missouri retains gestational bans at eight weeks LMP, a ban that is currently enjoined, and after viability.[6]MO. REV. STAT. § 188.056(1); see Reprod. Health Servs. of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc. v. Parson, 1 F.4th 552 (8th Cir. Jun. 9, 2021), reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated … Continue reading Missouri law asserts that life begins at conception.[7]MO. REV. STAT. § 188.026.2(1)-(2). See also id. §1.205, Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 505 (1989) (“the life of each human being begins at conception” and … Continue reading It also prohibits D&X procedures[8]MO. REV. STAT. § 565.300.3. and abortions sought for reasons of sex, race, or Down syndrome although the reason ban is currently enjoined.[9]Id. § 188.052(1); see Reprod. Health Servs., supra note 1 at 1 F.4th 552, 561 (8th Cir. Jun. 9, 2021). See also Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. … Continue reading Missouri law continues to include requirements that pregnant people must undergo a mandatory seventy-two-hour waiting period, receive biased counseling, and be offered an ultrasound,[10]MO. REV. STAT. § 188.027. and prohibitions on public funding,[11]Id. § 188.205. and private insurance.[12]Id. § 376.805. The waiting period and biased counseling provisions are currently enjoined.[13]Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnt. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2024). The state continues to require that both parents, a legal guardian,[14]MO. REV. STAT. § 188.028(1)(1). or a judge[15]Id. § 188.028(1)(4). consent to a minor’s abortion. If a parent consents, that parent is required to notify the other parent.[16]Id. § 188.028(1)(1).
Missouri retains targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws related to facilities,[17]MO. REV. STAT. § 197.200 et seq. admitting privileges,[18]Id. § 188.080. and reporting,[19]Id. § 188.052. however the facilities provisions are enjoined,[20]Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnt. Cir. Ct. Feb. 14, 2025) (enjoining the facility licensing requirement). and admitting privileges provision is enjoined.[21]Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnt. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2024). Missouri law continues to restrict the provision of abortion care to physicians[22]Id. § 188.020. and restricts providers from using telemedicine for the provision of abortion care[23]Id. § 188.021 though this provision is currently enjoined.[24]Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnt. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2024). Providers who violate Missouri’s abortion restrictions may face civil and criminal penalties.[25]See, e.g., id. §§ 188.250(2), 188.030(3).
State Protections
On November 5, 2024, voters approved Amendment 3 recognizing reproductive freedom, including abortion care, as a fundamental right in Missouri.[26]Sec’y of State, Certificate of Sufficiency of Petition, https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/Elections/Petitions/2024-086WebSufficiency.pdf; Geoff Mulvhill and Christine Fernando, Abortion rights … Continue reading The Missouri Constitution now reads:
The Government shall not deny or infringe upon a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which is the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.[27]Mo. Const. Art. 1, § 36
Post-Roe Prohibitions
In 2019, Missouri enacted a trigger ban.[28]Id. § 188.017(4); Immediate Efficacy of Section 188.017, RSMo, 22 Op. Att’y. Gen. 2022 (2022).
Missouri repealed its pre-Roe ban in 1977.[29]1977 Mo. Laws 658, 662-63 (repealing Mo. Ann. Stat. § 559.100 (Vernon 1969).
Conclusion
Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe, voters approved a 2024 amendment to the Missouri Constitution to protect reproductive freedom. On December 23, 2024, a state circuit court held that the state’s trigger ban and other abortion restrictions were unconstitutional and enjoined those laws.
References
↑1 | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.017(2); Immediate Efficacy of Section 188.017, RSMo, 22 Op. Att’y. Gen. 2022 (2022). |
---|---|
↑2 | Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S 215 (June 24, 2022), rev’d Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 945 F.3d 265, 274 (5th Cir. 2019). |
↑3 | Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains & Planned Parenthood Great Rivers v. Missouri, 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnty. Cir. Ct. Nov. 6, 2024). |
↑4 | Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnt. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2024). The court also enjoined the eight-week ban, fourteen-week ban, eighteen-week ban, reason ban, admitting privilege requirement, certain medication abortion restrictions, fetal tissue laws, biased counseling requirements, waiting period, and telemedicine ban. The court did not enjoin enforcement of the facility licensing requirements, in person appointment requirement, same physician requirement, physician only requirement, and certain criminal penalties were not enjoined. |
↑5 | Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnt. Cir. Ct. Feb. 14, 2025) (enjoining the facility licensing requirement). |
↑6 | MO. REV. STAT. § 188.056(1); see Reprod. Health Servs. of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc. v. Parson, 1 F.4th 552 (8th Cir. Jun. 9, 2021), reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated (8th Cir. Jul. 13, 2021), cert. denied sub nom. Schmitt v. Planned Parenthood, 144 S. Ct. 38 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2021); MO. REV. STAT. § 188.030(1). See also Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnt. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2024). |
↑7 | MO. REV. STAT. § 188.026.2(1)-(2). See also id. §1.205, Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 505 (1989) (“the life of each human being begins at conception” and “unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.”) |
↑8 | MO. REV. STAT. § 565.300.3. |
↑9 | Id. § 188.052(1); see Reprod. Health Servs., supra note 1 at 1 F.4th 552, 561 (8th Cir. Jun. 9, 2021). See also Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnt. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2024). |
↑10 | MO. REV. STAT. § 188.027. |
↑11 | Id. § 188.205. |
↑12 | Id. § 376.805. |
↑13 | Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnt. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2024). |
↑14 | MO. REV. STAT. § 188.028(1)(1). |
↑15 | Id. § 188.028(1)(4). |
↑16 | Id. § 188.028(1)(1). |
↑17 | MO. REV. STAT. § 197.200 et seq. |
↑18 | Id. § 188.080. |
↑19 | Id. § 188.052. |
↑20 | Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnt. Cir. Ct. Feb. 14, 2025) (enjoining the facility licensing requirement). |
↑21 | Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnt. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2024). |
↑22 | Id. § 188.020. |
↑23 | Id. § 188.021 |
↑24 | Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnt. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2024). |
↑25 | See, e.g., id. §§ 188.250(2), 188.030(3). |
↑26 | Sec’y of State, Certificate of Sufficiency of Petition, https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/Elections/Petitions/2024-086WebSufficiency.pdf; Geoff Mulvhill and Christine Fernando, Abortion rights advocates win in 7 states and clear way to overturn Missouri ban but lose in 3, AP News (Nov. 6, 2024). |
↑27 | Mo. Const. Art. 1, § 36 |
↑28 | Id. § 188.017(4); Immediate Efficacy of Section 188.017, RSMo, 22 Op. Att’y. Gen. 2022 (2022). |
↑29 | 1977 Mo. Laws 658, 662-63 (repealing Mo. Ann. Stat. § 559.100 (Vernon 1969). |