Abortions can resume in Kansas City after Missouri ruling, Planned Parenthood says
Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Jerri Zhang, in an order issued late Thursday afternoon, halted requirements that abortion providers must obtain state licenses, among other restrictions. The licenses included rules that providers called unethical, including mandatory pelvic exams for women.
The order marks a key moment for abortion rights supporters, effectively restoring access after a procedural ruling from the Missouri Supreme Court temporarily banned the procedure in late May.
Planned Parenthood's clinic in Kansas City immediately planned to restore access on Monday, the organization confirmed to The Star.
'Abortion is legal again in Missouri because voters demanded it and we fought for it,' Emily Wales, the president and CEO of Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, said in a statement. 'Care starts again on Monday in Kansas City. We're not stopping until every Missourian can get the care they need, close to home.'
Thursday's ruling came roughly a month after the state Supreme Court ordered Zhang to vacate two preliminary injunctions that had allowed abortions to resume in the state. The Supreme Court order temporarily halted all abortions in what providers called a 'de facto ban.'
The court had ordered Zhang to reevaluate her rulings based on a different legal standard. After a series of legal fights between abortion providers and attorneys for the state of Missouri, Zhang's order on Thursday blocked the same restrictions and effectively restored access.
Zhang's order on Thursday was mixed and did not block all restrictions sought by abortion providers, including a ban on medication abortions. But the ruling halted enough of the regulations for Planned Parenthood to begin offering procedural abortions again.
The order states the regulations should be blocked after voters in November approved an abortion rights amendment, called Amendment 3, that enshrined reproductive rights in the state constitution.
The restrictions, often called TRAP laws or Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers, included a 72-hour waiting period before receiving an abortion and clinic licensing rules. The regulations effectively caused the number of abortions in Missouri to drop from 6,163 in 2010 to 150 in 2021 before the state's former ban was enacted in 2022.
Abortion rights supporters quickly celebrated the ruling as a victory in the fight for restored access.
'Missourians voted to end the abortion ban and establish the right to reproductive freedom in the constitution, and today, a Missouri court once again ruled to uphold the will of the people,' said Mallory Schwarz, the executive director of Abortion Action Missouri.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican who fought against restored access, said in a statement that would he would immediately appeal the decision.
'I will always fight to make Missouri the safest state in the nation for women and children,' Bailey said.
While Thursday's ruling marked a win for abortion rights supporters, it also comes as a new fight at the ballot box looms.
Republican lawmakers in May voted to put a new abortion ban on the 2026 statewide ballot. If approved by voters, the proposed constitutional amendment, which will also be called Amendment 3, would strike down the November vote that legalized access and ban nearly all abortions in the state.
Schwarz nodded at the upcoming ballot fight in a statement on Thursday, saying, 'attacking Missourians' freedom will always be a losing strategy.'
'We will defeat abortion bans as many times as we have to, and we know that the majority of Missourians are with us,' Schwarz said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
10 hours ago
- USA Today
Democrats try to force nuns to pay for abortions. Sounds authoritarian to me.
Blue states like California and Pennsylvania refuse to leave the Little Sisters of the Poor alone – and couldn't care less about their religious beliefs. The Little Sisters of the Poor are back in the news. In case you've forgotten who they are and why they matter, let's briefly review what they're all about. According to the group's website, the Little Sisters' mission is to ensure that "the elderly and dying are cared for with love and dignity until God calls them home.' The Little Sisters work in 31 countries and began work in America in 1868. Today, the nuns operate about 20 homes in the United States. It's a lovely mission and one that they should be allowed to do in peace, free from interference from the government. No such luck, however. Blue states like California and Pennsylvania refuse to leave the Little Sisters alone and couldn't care less about their religious beliefs. Since the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act birth control mandate that required employers to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health insurance plans, the Little Sisters have been locked in a legal battle for the past 14 years. Despite clear wins for the nuns and religious liberty at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 and 2020, Democrats continue to persecute the Little Sisters. Will they ever stop? Will the Little Sisters have to make a third trip to the Supreme Court? That's 'absurd.' A federal district court in Philadelphia has revived the vindictive fight, siding with Pennsylvania and New Jersey against a 2017 Trump administration religious conscience rule, which offered the nuns and other religious groups protection from the mandate. Now, these states want the Little Sisters to offer contraception and abortion drugs or face millions of dollars in fines. 'The district court blessed an out-of-control effort by Pennsylvania and New Jersey to attack the Little Sisters and religious liberty,' Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead attorney for the Little Sisters, said in a statement. 'It is absurd to think the Little Sisters might need yet another trip to the Supreme Court to end what has now been more than a dozen years of litigation over the same issue.' The Little Sisters will appeal this decision, but it truly is ridiculous that they must waste time fighting the government in this way, when all they want to do is serve people in need. And lest you think it's odd to be talking about nuns and contraception, the Little Sisters employ lay people who work as nurses, cooks and serve other roles in the group's homes for the elderly. The nuns don't want to be complicit in providing services that directly violate their deep belief in the sanctity of life, which guides their work. They shouldn't have to. There are other ways the government could provide contraceptives to these employees without pushing the nuns to do it. Progressives claim Trump is an authoritarian. They should look at themselves. For all the times we've been scolded about how Trump and his supporters are fascists and Nazis, progressives ought to take a hard look at themselves first. Democrats have decided their views on culture are the only ones that should matter, religious liberty be damned. Look at how liberal governments have gone after Catholic adoption agencies, Christian bakers, website designers and farmers and tried to force them to betray their faith just to participate in the public square. These are often yearslong court battles, much like the Little Sisters have undertaken. Thankfully, we have a strong First Amendment that protects our speech and religious freedom. And the Supreme Court keeps ruling on the side of protecting these essential liberties, which are promised in our Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in writing the majority for the 2020 case, observed that the Little Sisters 'have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.' Five years later, the fight continues. It's time for Democrats to leave these nuns alone. Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@ or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
World's first robot ‘could give birth to human baby'
The world's first humanoid robot surrogate could give birth to a live baby, scientists have claimed. Experts are developing technology that will mimic a pregnancy from conception to delivery, with the infant growing inside an artificial womb and receiving nutrients through a tube. After nine months, a live baby will be born, according to Dr Zhang Qifeng, who founded the company Kaiwa Technology, in the city of Guangzhou. Dr Zhang, a PHD graduate from Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, has claimed the technology is already in a 'mature stage'. He added: 'Now it needs to be implanted in the robot's abdomen so that a real person and the robot can interact to achieve pregnancy, allowing the fetus to grow inside'. A prototype of the humanoid is set to be sold for around £10,000 (100,000 yuan) next year. Reports in the Chinese media said that the humanoid has been designed to mimic the entire process of pregnancy, from the moment of conception to birth. However, the specifics on exactly how the egg and sperm are fertilised are currently unclear. For the entire gestation period, the infant will live inside the robot's body, although experts have not yet stated how the foetus will be implanted in the tech womb. The developing babies will be surrounded by artificial amniotic fluid to create a womb-like environment. Dr Zhang said the technology is not an entirely new concept, as scientists in the past have successfully kept premature lambs alive inside a 'biobag' for weeks. The innovation has already prompted a legal and ethical debate. Dr Zhang said he had already been in talks with Guangdong Province authorities to prepare drafts for policy and legislation. If successful, the science could revolutionise medical science and our notions of family and fertility. The humanoid could be seen as a tool to tackle rising rates of infertility in China, which has gone up from 11.9 per cent in 2007 to 18 per cent in 2020. 'Problematic' technology But some critics have condemned the 'problematic' technology, arguing that depriving a foetus of maternal connection is unethical and cruel. Chinese News outlet The Standard reported that some medical experts are sceptical over the technology's ability to replicate human gestation. The experts have allegedly stated that complex biological processes, such as maternal hormone secretion, cannot be duplicated by science. Andrea Dworkin, the radical feminist writer, has previously hit out at artificial womb technology for fears that it would result in 'the end of women'. Researchers from The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia published an article in 2022 in which they said that such technology might 'pathologise' pregnancy. However, some argue that artificial wombs could liberate women from pregnancy risks so that they would no longer have to endure the physical burden of carrying a baby. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
World's first robot ‘could give birth to human baby'
The world's first humanoid robot surrogate could give birth to a live baby, scientists have claimed. Experts are developing technology that will mimic a pregnancy from conception to delivery, with the infant growing inside an artificial womb and receiving nutrients through a tube. After nine months, a live baby will be born, according to Dr Zhang Qifeng, who founded the company Kaiwa Technology, in the city of Guangzhou. Dr Zhang, a PHD graduate from Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, has claimed the technology is already in a 'mature stage'. He added: 'Now it needs to be implanted in the robot's abdomen so that a real person and the robot can interact to achieve pregnancy, allowing the fetus to grow inside'. A prototype of the humanoid is set to be sold for around £10,000 (100,000 yuan) next year. Reports in the Chinese media said that the humanoid has been designed to mimic the entire process of pregnancy, from the moment of conception to birth. However, the specifics on exactly how the egg and sperm are fertilised are currently unclear. For the entire gestation period, the infant will live inside the robot's body, although experts have not yet stated how the foetus will be implanted in the tech womb. The developing babies will be surrounded by artificial amniotic fluid to create a womb-like environment. Dr Zhang said the technology is not an entirely new concept, as scientists in the past have successfully kept premature lambs alive inside a 'biobag' for weeks. The innovation has already prompted a legal and ethical debate. Dr Zhang said he had already been in talks with Guangdong Province authorities to prepare drafts for policy and legislation. If successful, the science could revolutionise medical science and our notions of family and fertility. The humanoid could be seen as a tool to tackle rising rates of infertility in China, which has gone up from 11.9 per cent in 2007 to 18 per cent in 2020. 'Problematic' technology But some critics have condemned the 'problematic' technology, arguing that depriving a foetus of maternal connection is unethical and cruel. Chinese News outlet The Standard reported that some medical experts are sceptical over the technology's ability to replicate human gestation. The experts have allegedly stated that complex biological processes, such as maternal hormone secretion, cannot be duplicated by science. Andrea Dworkin, the radical feminist writer, has previously hit out at artificial womb technology for fears that it would result in 'the end of women'. Researchers from The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia published an article in 2022 in which they said that such technology might 'pathologise' pregnancy. However, some argue that artificial wombs could liberate women from pregnancy risks so that they would no longer have to endure the physical burden of carrying a baby.
