Missouri Lawmakers' Attack on Abortion Rights Exposed through Elaborate Lies and Misdirection

In a stunning display of paternalism and lies, Missouri lawmakers have continued to push for the reinstatement of an abortion ban that was previously rejected by voters. The bill, House Joint Resolution 73, is a deliberate attempt to mislead voters and reinstate the ban on abortion, despite the fact that it was already voted down. The bill's sponsor, Republican state Rep. Brian Seitz, has been accused of perpetuating falsehoods and infantilizing women, claiming that the ban is necessary to "protect" women and that they need to be protected from their own choices.

Key Takeaways:

• The bill sponsor, Republican state Rep. Brian Seitz, has been accused of making "elaborate and hurtful lies" during the hearing, including claiming that the ban is necessary to "protect" women and that they need to be protected from their own choices.
• The bill contains a ballot summary that does not accurately inform voters of the consequences of voting for the ban, instead claiming that it will "protect treatment for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies."
• Republican legislators have been accused of paternalizing women, implying that they are not intelligent enough to understand the issue, and infantilizing them by claiming that they need to be "protected" from their own choices.
• The bill's language is intentionally misleading, using phrases such as "align itself with the will of the voter" and "protecting women" to justify the ban.
• Doctors who testified against the ban were interrogated and berated by lawmakers, who blamed them for not understanding the law.
• The bill's sponsor, Seitz, made the claim that the legislation seeks to "align itself with the will of the voter" because "the people expressed that they wanted exceptions," despite the fact that Amendment 3 had no mention of exceptions.
• The Truth: The voters did not express a desire for exceptions, and the purpose of the bill is to reinstate the ban on abortion.
• House Speaker Jon Patterson acknowledged that a child who is being sexually abused is unlikely to realize she is pregnant by the 12-week cutoff for the victim exception in HJR 73.
• Doctors who testified against the ban were questioned about when life begins and berated by lawmakers who blamed them for not understanding the law.
• The harm caused by the ban has been widely reported, with deaths and injuries resulting from denied abortion care in both Texas and Missouri.

Statistics:

• The rate of sepsis among pregnant women has increased by 50% since Texas banned abortion.
• Missouri has a nearly identical exception language to Texas' ban, which has been widely reported to cause harm to women.
• The language of the bill's exception is intentionally misleading, requiring that a patient be at "a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function" and that the impairment be "substantial and irreversible."
• Missouri has fewer reported stories of women injured due to the ban compared to Texas, but it has happened, and the rate of sepsis has increased.

Sources:

• https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills251/hlrbillspdf/2454H.05P.pdf
• https://missouriindependent.com/2025/04/17/missouri-abortion-ban-amendment-jon-patterson-senate/
• https://reproductiverights.org/case/zurawski-v-texas-abortion-emergency-exceptions/zurawski-v-texas/
• https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.015&bid=54595&hl=
• https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.017
• https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/31/missouri-woman-sues-university-of-kansas-hospital-emergency-abortion/
• https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-abortion-ban-sepsis-rates-dallas-houston