Latest news with #AnnaSpoerre
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
With Missouri abortion access in limbo, both sides eye battles in court, on the ballot
An abortion procedure room pictured on March 3 at Planned Parenthood in Columbia (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent). Both sides of the abortion debate seemed caught by surprise last week by the MIssouri Supreme Court's order that essentially reimposed the state's abortion ban. Planned Parenthood clinics were sent scrambling, cancelling abortion appointments and working with patients to ensure access in other states — a return to the way things operated before voters enshrined reproductive rights in the state constitution last year. Anti-abortion advocates, meanwhile, celebrated the return of regulations but acknowledged the win could be temporary. With no clear indication of when — or if — access to abortion will be restored, and a GOP-crafted amendment banning the procedure heading for the ballot next year, advocates on both sides are navigating the uncertainty and gearing up for the fight ahead. '…anti-abortion politicians in Jeff City have once again weaponized our political system against Missourians. What's really clear here is the confusion this will cause among patients was the whole point,' said Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Abortion Action Missouri, later adding: 'Missourians proved at the ballot box that what we want is access to abortion. This is not over, and I'm confident that ultimately abortion care will continue in Missouri.' Sam Lee, a longtime anti-abortion advocate with Campaign Life Missouri, expressed relief that state regulations are back in place but cautioned that the only way to 'safeguard the lives of unborn children' is to amend the constitution next year. 'While it is good news that abortion has ended in Missouri – at least for now – it would be a mistake for the pro-life movement to rely on the state courts to keep these health and safety laws and regulations in place,' he said. Missouri Supreme Court order reinstates 'de facto abortion ban' across the state While the court last week imposed what abortion providers called a 'de facto ban,' it didn't actually weigh in on the constitutionality of state regulations. The decision was procedural, calling into question the legal standard a Jackson County judge used to justify blocking certain abortion regulations enacted over the years by state lawmakers. The injunction was vacated and the judge was ordered to re-evaluate the case using the standards the Supreme Court laid out last week. A new injunction could be issued, or access could be left in limbo while the case makes its way to a January 2026 trial. Fifty-two percent of Missouri voters in November approved Amendment 3, which said 'the right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, interfered with, delayed or otherwise restricted unless the government demonstrates that such action is justifiable by a compelling governmental interest achieved by the least restrictive means.' The amendment made Missouri's abortion ban unconstitutional, at least until the point of fetal viability, which is generally considered at or around 24 weeks. Attorney General Andrew Bailey acknowledges this in his appeal to the Supreme Court, writing that among the laws which are no longer enforceable because of Amendment 3 are 'Missouri's prohibitions on abortion before viability.' But myriad other restrictions remained on the books, including wait times before abortions and constraints on where abortions could be performed. Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri sued in December to overturn the state's Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers, or TRAP laws. Over the course of a decade before an outright ban on abortion was put in place, those laws resulted in the number of abortions performed in Missouri falling from more than 5,000 to less than 200. Over the course of two rulings — one in December and one in February — Jackson County Judge Jerri Zhang pointed to the voter-approved constitutional amendment in issuing the temporary injunction. Most notably, Zhang struck down licensing requirements for abortion clinics, arguing the regulations were 'unnecessary' and 'discriminatory' because they do not treat services provided in abortion facilities the same as other types of similarly situated health care, including miscarriage care. She left in place a requirement that all abortion providers have a medical license. Zhang's ruling opened the door for procedural abortions to resume in Planned Parenthood's Kansas City and Columbia clinics. Medication abortions, which nationally make up two-thirds of all abortions, have not been available as the clinics have been unable to get the state to approve a required complication plan. The state Supreme Court order, signed by Chief Justice Mary Russell, means even procedural abortions are now inaccessible in Missouri. 'This is not the end of the legal battle, but it is a critical victory for every pro-life Missourian,' said Brian Westbrook, executive director of Coalition Life. Abortion may be inaccessible in Missouri, but 'the good news is that this court ruling does not affect other reproductive and sexual health care provided at Planned Parenthood health centers across the state,' said Dr. Margaret Baum, chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood Great Rivers. The hope, Baum said, is that the court's order is only a 'temporary setback.' In the meantime, she said access to abortion is still available in Kansas and Illinois and that Planned Parenthood will support patients 'who need lodging, transportation and other resources to access sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Experts question whether Kansas can afford its plan to lure Royals, Chiefs from Missouri
GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Kansas City Chiefs, and Kauffman Stadium, home of the Kansas City Royals, are pictured on Feb. 8 (Anna Spoerre/The Missouri Independent). Kansas is the only state or local government to pass a plan to fund a Kansas City Chiefs or Royals stadium project. Dysfunction in the Missouri General Assembly might also mean the Show Me State has nothing to offer. A last-minute plan by Gov. Mike Kehoe to help finance stadium projects for the Royals and Chiefs derailed in the state Senate. Missouri lawmakers return Monday for a special session to, among other things, pass a stadium proposal. But as it stands now, Kansas is in the driver's seat to get, in theory, both the Royals and Chiefs. Notably, an affiliate of the Royals recently purchased a mortgage in Overland Park secured by the Aspiria campus, which is at 119th Street and Nall Avenue. But economists say Kansas can't afford both teams. 'You are not going to generate enough net revenue to cover one of the facilities, let alone two,' said Geoffrey Propheter, an associate professor of public finance at the University of Colorado Denver. Propheter did say there's a way Kansas could afford both stadiums, but that requires 'cannibalizing activity from other businesses.' A majority of Kansas lawmakers disagree, and say getting the Chiefs or Royals is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. But whether STAR bonds can support one or two teams depends on who you ask. STAR bonds, or sales and tax revenue bonds, are bonds that are paid by taxes generated in a bond district — hence the name. In a stadium proposal, taxes collected from bars, restaurants or any other businesses in the bond district would pay back the debt. Typically, STAR bonds are paid off in 20 years. '(Kansans are) not going to pay a dime unless they visit the district,' Rep. Sean Tarwater, a Stilwell Republican, said last year. That's the logic behind the state's proposal. Lawmakers last year approved a plan that would authorize Kansas to finance up to 70% of stadium costs with the bonds. Supporters say the Chiefs and Royals would spark an economic boom that will bring new dollars into Kansas. All that economic activity would literally and figuratively pay off in the long run. Almost 80% of STAR bonds projects are on track to be paid off early, the Kansas Department of Commerce said in 2024. STAR bonds have been used to finance other sports stadiums like the Kansas Speedway and Sporting Kansas City's Children's Mercy Park. But STAR bonds have never been used for projects of this magnitude. A Chiefs or Royals stadium would be by far the largest project in the program's history. And previous STAR bonds have only funded at most 50% of construction costs, not 70%. The Kansas Speedway's original bond was $24.3 million for a stadium that opened in 2001. That's equivalent to about a $47 million bond when adjusted for inflation. Children's Mercy Park received a $150 million bond before its 2011 opening. Those figures would only cover a small fraction of the construction for a new Chiefs or Royals stadium. New stadiums for the Texas Rangers, Las Vegas Raiders and the Los Angeles Rams and Chargers opened in 2020. They had $1.2 billion, $1.9 billion and $5.5 billion price tags, respectively. A 2021 audit from the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit found questionable returns from some STAR bonds. Notably, the Prairiefire project in Overland Park defaulted on its STAR bonds last year. Topeka Heartland Park and the Schlitterbahn Waterpark in Kansas City, Kansas, also failed to pay back their bonds. And Strataca, the Hutchinson salt museum, is only projected to break even in 43 to 118 years. Propheter, the University of Colorado Denver associate professor, knows a lot about stadium funding plans. He said they don't always work as advertised. He said risk is unavoidable with these types of projects and they never start off profitably. It takes years to build the stadium and the surrounding district. That's years of debt not being paid back. Propheter said most of the money generated from the stadiums won't be new to the metropolitan area. The Royals aren't going to bring in tens of thousands of out-of-town fans for a Tuesday night game. But they will bring out tens of thousands of people who would already be spending money locally. These fans are spending money at the stadium instead of at a movie theater, bowling alley, restaurant or other local business. Kansas wants projects financed by STAR bonds to attract 30% of their visitors from 100 miles away and 20% from outside Kansas. The 2021 audit of STAR bonds found that only three of 16 projects — the Hutchinson salt museum, Topeka Heartland Park and Kansas Speedway — met both goals. A Chiefs or Royals stadium would likely draw a fair share of out-of-state visitors because the teams have been based in Missouri for so long. But Propheter isn't convinced the economic activity will be worth it. 'A lot more people would travel to Kansas,' he said. 'Would it be enough to generate the money needed to pay the debt? No.' Nathaniel Birkhead, associate professor of political science at Kansas State University, also is wary of sales and other tax dollars being used to pay off bonds. He said STAR bonds have struggled to pay off up to 50% of project costs before. Now, these bonds could pay up to 70% of one or more billion-dollar projects. That's concerning to Birkhead. 'There's some logic behind the STAR bonds,' he said. 'However, I still fundamentally think it's dishonest to say that something will pay for itself.' Birkhead said the Chiefs, for example, are guaranteed no more than nine regular season games. The teams also could host concerts or other events to keep their stadiums busy, but there is no guarantee that happens. He wonders how busy the STAR bond district will look when a game is not being played that day. Then there's uncertain economic projections. Ongoing concern about inflation and uncertainty around federal tariffs could make construction more expensive. A possible recession also would prevent people from spending money on sports events. Brian Mayes, a lead political strategist who also worked on the Vote Yes! Keep the Rangers campaign in Texas, said there was a point in his life where he might have agreed that stadium debt is hard to pay off. But Mayes, who has worked on the Dallas Cowboys and Texas Rangers stadium funding, said new stadium development is just different. There's just so much economic development around these stadiums, he said. Mayes said Rangers and Cowboys games always keep the businesses around the stadiums busy. But so too do the concerts, conventions and other stadium offerings. The Cowboys offer tours of the locker rooms, and people show up. That's not to mention mega events like hosting a Super Bowl. Mayes remembers when the Cowboys left Irving, Texas, for the new stadium in Arlington. The old site of the Cowboys stadium still sits undeveloped. Meanwhile, Arlington now has a booming tourism district that is helping pay off other government projects. '(We said) put the Cowboys to work for Arlington,' he said. 'It was the economic generator, and the additional tax revenue that was made by the Cowboys helped the city pay for roads and parks and police.' Scott Sayers is a senior technical architect with Gensler Kansas City. Gensler has worked on dozens of sports projects, including the Rams Village in Los Angeles, Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C., and M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore. Sayers said more people want to spend time before or after the game hanging around. Maybe they are talking about what they just saw or wanting to enhance the pregame experience. Sayers doesn't have specific opinions on STAR bonds and whether Kansas can afford one or two teams. But he does know that the Chiefs or Royals can create a prosperous stadium district if they work toward it — whether that would be in downtown Kansas City or suburban Kansas. The state already did that when it created The Legends next to the Kansas Speedway and Children's Mercy Park. Sayers said that area used to be an empty field before becoming a bustling, dense shopping and entertainment district. The teams can build thriving entertainment districts when they treat the stadium and its surrounding areas as one cohesive community, he said. 'People have expectations,' Sayers said. 'No longer are the days where 7:05, the event starts. I get dropped off at 6:40 … I want to start those experiences at 5 o'clock, at 4:30.' This article first appeared on Beacon: Kansas and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
A decade after losing an NFL team, Missouri lawmakers set to debate stadium funding plan
GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Kansas City Chiefs, is pictured on Sat. Feb. 8 (Anna Spoerre/The Missouri Independent). The last time Missouri was in danger of losing an NFL franchise, deep disagreements between the governor and lawmakers over whether the state should pay for a new stadium led to litigation and the threat of a constitutional showdown. It was 10 years ago when then-Gov. Jay Nixon and the legislature quarreled over a $1 billion plan to build a new St. Louis stadium for the Rams. Expecting GOP resistance, Nixon, a Democrat, came up with a strategy that didn't involve the legislature. That sparked a group of legislators to file a lawsuit to block Nixon's plan and threaten to refuse to allocate money the governor committed to the stadium when the General Assembly reconvened in January 2016. But that looming clash fizzled when the Rams announced an intention to move to Los Angeles two days before the 2016 session began. NFL owners overwhelmingly agreed to let them do it soon after. CONTACT US A decade later, Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe is pushing a plan for the state to pay up to half the costs of a new stadium for the Kansas City Royals and renovations to Arrowhead Stadium for the Kansas City Chiefs. Both teams have expressed interest in leaving Missouri when the lease on their current stadiums expire in 2030, and Kansas lawmakers have put a deal on the table that would use state incentives to pay for up to 70% of the costs of new stadiums. Kehoe has one advantage Nixon didn't — a legislature dominated by his own party. But while the governor successfully convinced the Missouri House to sign off on a stadium funding plan earlier this month in the final days of the session, the Senate was in no mood to play ball. House Speaker Jon Patterson, a Lee's Summit Republican, alerted his colleagues on Friday that the governor is expected to call the legislature back into session as early as next week to debate stadium funding. The governor may also include a $500 million construction package on the special session agenda, a move seen as vital to winning over support in the Senate for any stadium plan. But with partisan tensions running high after a tumultuous end to the regular legislative session, and serious heartburn among Republicans over the idea of spending hundreds of millions to subsidize sports franchises, the outcome is anything but certain. 'I love the Kansas City Chiefs. I'm obnoxious during football season,' state Rep. Darin Chappell, a Republican from Rogersville, said in a recent interview with KSGF. '… But I've got constituents trying to pay their rent and feed themselves, and they're struggling. And I'm going to take their money and give it to billionaires so multimillionaires can play in a prettier place? That's obscene.' Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O'Laughlin, a Shelbina Republican, said state funding for stadiums is 'an easy demagogue topic.' But losing the teams to Kansas, she contends, would cost much more than the proposal put forth by the governor. 'My personal belief is both the direct and indirect dollars accruing to Missouri businesses from the Chiefs and Royals being located here far exceeds what they are asking,' she wrote on social media. 'I also believe if they left the state it would tear out the heart of Missouri, leaving two big concrete structures as a forever reminder of what might have been.' Governor's plan for Chiefs, Royals stadium funding derailed in the Missouri Senate The Chiefs and the Royals face a deadline at the end of June on whether they will accept the offer from Kansas. The proposal floated by Kehoe and set to be debated next week would pay up to half the cost — estimated to be up to $3 billion — as well as up to $50 million in tax credits for any direct investments made by the teams. The stadium plan died in the regular session when the Senate twice used a rare procedural rule to end debate on controversial bills on abortion and paid sick leave. The move infuriated Democrats, who vowed the Senate will not function normally until they feel they can trust the GOP to work towards compromise. There is also lingering bipartisan anger over the projects that were lost when the House sunk a capital improvements bill. The $513 million would have paid for projects at eight hospitals around the state, supported a new nuclear reactor at the University of Missouri to make cancer treatments and a new mental health hospital in Kansas City. The rollout of Kehoe's plan didn't help soothe the tensions. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle complained that the governor kept the legislature in the dark on stadium funding plans, then demanded it sign off on the proposal with little debate and no details on the cost. The lack of legislative involvement echoes 2015, when lawmakers took umbrage at Nixon's efforts to work around them by trying to use existing incentive programs to help fund a new St. Louis stadium. Republicans and Democrats demanded Nixon either submit a proposal to the legislature or put it on the ballot for a vote. 'We will not stand idly by as the people of this state are committed to millions of dollars in debt without proper legislative approval or a public vote,' a group of House members said in a letter to Nixon at the time. Lawmakers will get their wish this time around to have a say on whether Missouri taxpayers should help subsidize Kansas City stadiums. Kehoe is optimistic, arguing that keeping the teams in Missouri 'is a critical piece of economic development. And I'd like to see us make sure we can solidify our offer with legislative approval.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Proposed abortion ban one vote away from Missouri ballot
An abortion procedure room pictured on Monday, March 3, 2025, at Planned Parenthood in Columbia, Missouri (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent). A proposed constitutional amendment that would again ban abortion in Missouri passed out of a state Senate committee on Wednesday, meaning it is one full Senate vote away from heading to a statewide ballot. The legislation approved on a 4-2 party line vote would repeal the reproductive rights amendment known as Amendment 3 but allow exceptions for medical emergencies, fatal fetal anomalies and for survivors of rape and incest in the first 12 weeks of gestation. If approved in the Senate, the proposal would be on a statewide ballot in November 2026. It could also be placed before voters earlier by Gov. Mike Kehoe. With time growing short in this year's session — lawmakers will have two weeks to complete their work after they adjourn Thursday — the Senate Families, Seniors and Health Committee held a public hearing and voted on the bill on the same day. About 150 people packed the committee room to show support and opposition to the proposal sponsored by state Rep. Brian Seitz, a Branson Republican. For the most ardent abortion opponents, the measure is a test of Republican fidelity to their cause. 'There is confidence, with a supermajority of Republicans at the helm, that those people who are pro-life at home know the representatives and senators in this building are going to do the right thing and bring this back to the vote of the people,' said Susan Klein, executive director of Missouri Right to Life. Opponents again said the proposal seeks to overturn the will of Missouri voters. 'Stripping away people's rights to their own god-given conscience in the face of some of the most intimate and tender decisions of their lives is an affront to our humanity and to god,' the Rev. Molly Housh Gordon of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Columbia said. House Republicans spent the first three months of the session groping for a proposal that represented a consensus in their ranks. The proposal heard Wednesday passed out of the House earlier this month with only one Republican — House Speaker Jon Patterson of Lee's Summit — in opposition. The measure would reinstate the almost total ban on abortions that was in place in Missouri from June 2022 until the passage of Amendment 3. Patterson at a press conference following the mid-April vote said he had concerns with the limited exceptions allowed in the proposal.. 'A debate that we should have — and I hope happens in the Senate — is 12 weeks long enough,' Patterson, a physician, said during the press conference. ' … If you're going to say it's OK to (have an abortion) after you've been raped, now we're talking time limits.' But no changes were made to the proposal on Wednesday. Nonprofit sues to overturn Missouri's parental consent laws for minors seeking abortions State Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, a Democrat from Kansas City, asked Seitz why he picked 12 weeks, noting that sexual violence is among the most under-reported crimes. Seitz said 12 weeks was chosen because it marks the end of the first trimester. In 2020, more than 93% of all abortions in the United States were performed prior to 13 weeks gestation, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Crime data shows that two out of every three sexual assaults are not reported to police, according to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, one group of researchers estimated that since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, more than 65,500 women and girls in the 14 states with abortion bans in place became pregnant after being raped. Seitz has not made clear if or how survivors would have to prove the crime occurred in order to obtain an abortion. On Wednesday he said a reporting requirement was not necessary because state law already requires sexual crimes to be reported by physicians, for example. Under Missouri statute, some professions including health care workers are required to report suspicion of rape or incest to police, but only if the victim is under 18 years old. Physicians are not required to report sexual violence against adults. 'It's also giving an incentive for those who know that a woman or girl has been sexually assaulted to get her to a rape crisis center, to get her to a counselor, to get her to a physician or nurse early enough in pregnancy so that she can make the decision that she needs to make,' longtime anti-abortion advocate and lobbyist Sam Lee said, testifying in support of the legislation. The ballot language that would appear before voters does not explicitly say the amendment would ban abortions. Instead, Missourians would be asked if they want to amend the Missouri constitution to: 'Guarantee access to care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages; Ensure women's safety during abortions; Ensure parental consent for minors; Allow abortions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape, and incest; Require physicians to provide medically accurate information; and Protect children from gender transition?' Much of Wednesday's opposition testimony Wednesday delved into details of health issues that women face during a difficult pregnancy. Dr. Christine Jackson, an OBGYN in St. Louis, testified in opposition to the legislation, detailing the experience of one of her patients who learned she was pregnant after she was admitted to the ICU with diabetes complications. 'When I met her, she was grappling not only with her acute illness, but hundreds of questions,' Jackson said. The issues the woman faced ranged from child care to her son at home to managing her diabetes while pregnant and the potential for serious complications. Jackson said the patient was too sick to go to an outpatient procedure facility for the abortion, and that she also didn't meet the criteria for a medical emergency under Missouri's abortion ban at the time. Jackson said the patient was also too sick to go to an outpatient procedure facility for the abortion. The woman ultimately traveled to a Chicago hospital to obtain an abortion. 'She traveled five hours away from her child, away from her partner, away from her home to receive care that we could have safely provided down the hall but was illegal at the time,' Jackson said. Anti-abortion lawmakers and advocates have for several months argued Amendment 3 eliminated women's ability to sue providers if something went wrong during an abortion. Attorneys behind the abortion-rights amendment have said this is false. Asked about this, Jackson said under Amendment 3, providers must still meet professional licensing requirements through the Missouri Board of Healing Arts. She is also still required to carry medical malpractice insurance. After Amendment 3 passed, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Missouri sued the state, challenging several of Missouri's laws focused on abortion facilities and providers. The proposed ban, if passed, would reinstate several of these targeted regulations on abortion providers, or TRAP laws, that were recently struck down as unconstitutional by a Missouri judge. Amy DeClue, a surgical nurse from Franklin County, testified in support of the legislation, recounting stories of a few women she cared for in the hospital after they underwent abortions. 'One in particular I'll never forget because when she showed up, you could tell she was just mentally drained. She was alone, she was afraid, and she was just very sad,' DeClue said. 'She couldn't quit bleeding and they had left products of conception in her.' Among those testifying against the legislation were women who sought out abortions decades ago in Missouri, when the procedure remained much more accessible, and pastors who said they speak often with congregants about the intersection of faith and health care. The Rev. Teresa Danieley, a priest in the Episcopal Church, said she disagreed with Seitz's assertions that Missouri has a culture of life, noting the lack of mandatory paid parental leave, the state's ongoing child care crisis and the current attempt by lawmakers to overturn the state's voter-approved paid sick leave law. Danieley, who wore a button that read 'Jesus never shamed a woman,' said she has helped counsel many religious women about their abortions. 'Over and over again I hear these deeply religious women ask, 'can God forgive me? Am I going to hell?'' she said. 'I try to ground them in that they made the best decision they could given that there is no culture of life in this state or in this country.' The committee adjourned less than two hours into testimony. Of the people crowded into the hearing room and hallway, only six were there to speak in support of the legislation. State Sen. Patty, a Kansas City Democrat, noted that after her GOP colleagues again said that Missourians only approved Amendment 3 because they didn't understand what they were voting on. 'Missouri Right to Life represents hundreds of thousands of people across Missouri,' Klein said. 'Where are they?' Lewis asked. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Nonprofit sues to overturn Missouri's parental consent laws for minors seeking abortions
Stephanie Kraft Sheley, founder of Right By You, poses for a portrait in April 2025. Her organization is suing Missouri, arguing the state's parental consent laws for minors seeking abortions are unconstitutional (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent). A reproductive health care nonprofit filed a lawsuit Wednesday seeking to overturn Missouri's law requiring minors to get parental approval before getting an abortion. The lawsuit contends the consent law is unconstitutional after voters passed an abortion rights amendment last year. Right By You, a nonprofit that helps young people navigate pregnancy decisions, including by increasing access to and awareness around contraceptives, prenatal care, abortion, parenting and adoption, filed the lawsuit in Jackson County Circuit Court Missouri's parental consent law, which remains on the books, requires that a minor attempting to access abortion receive at least one parent's consent. The other parent must also be notified. If that's not possible, they can also seek out a judicial bypass process. Right By You is also challenging Missouri's ban on aiding or assisting a minor seeking an abortion. 'The laws bully pregnant young people without parental support into giving birth and threaten legal action against and undermine the core activities of Good Samaritans who seek to help young people effectuate their own decisions about their pregnancies with dignity,' the lawsuit reads. Missourians in November narrowly voted to enshrine the right to reproductive health care, including abortion, in the state constitution. That language, known during the election as Amendment 3, includes a provision that prohibits the government from discriminating 'against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care or assisting another person in doing so.' The amendment does allow the government to legislate abortion access if compelling governmental interest exists. The current parental consent requirements and ban on assisting minors seeking an abortion 'enhance the information, guidance or support (young people) receive,' but does 'disregard, burden and punish young people's decision to end a pregnancy,' the lawsuit reads. Abortion returns to Columbia, opening access for mid-Missouri for first time since 2018 Stephanie Kraft Sheley, founder of Right By You, said most young people do involve a parent or trusted adult in conversations about abortion. It's those who can't whom she worries most about. 'It makes sense that folks that are in healthy relationships with their children have this instinct that they would want their children to come to them, but a law that forces that to happen in every case is not the solution to that problem, because it's not possible for a law to legislate a healthy family dynamic.' she said. The impact of the law, Kraft Sheley said, is 'not actually on the young person that you're imagining who has a good relationship with their parent, it's on a young person who's very safety and well being would be compromised by having this conversation with a parent.' Right By You is asking the court to strike down the parental consent law and to allow the group to begin funding and arranging logistics for minors seeking abortions, including transportation, hotel and child care costs. 'Young people are shooting this really narrow gap, and then they're navigating this obstacle course that's just traumatic and harmful and doesn't provide any corresponding benefit to them,' Kraft Sheley said. 'I see it play out with a lot of confusion, a lot of turmoil, and in some cases, I see young people not able to access care.' The state of Missouri and Attorney General Andrew Bailey are named as defendants in the lawsuit, as is the Jackson County prosecutor, who is being sued as a representative of the prosecutors across Missouri. A separate lawsuit challenging several of Missouri's other laws regulating abortion is also playing out in Jackson County. The day after the November election, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Missouri sued the same defendants on similar grounds, arguing current targeted regulation of abortion provider laws were unconstitutional under Amendment 3. A judge temporarily struck down most of the TRAP laws, allowing some abortions to resume in Missouri. The full trial is set for early 2026. Meanwhile, Bailey is also suing Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which oversees clinics in Kansas City and Columbia, over allegations that the organization is transporting minors out of state for abortions. The lawsuit is based on a video filmed more than a year ago at the Kansas City clinic. In the recording, a man secretly taped an interaction for Project Veritas in which he pretended to be the uncle of a 13-year-old in need of an abortion whose parents couldn't know. Planned Parenthood staff then directed him to their affiliate clinics in Kansas where they said he could 'bypass' parental consent. When the man asked how often girls go out of state for abortions, the Planned Parenthood employee said it happens 'every day.' During a court hearing on Monday in Cole County, attorneys for Planned Parenthood argued the lawsuit should be dropped on the grounds that the video was 'hypothetical' and that abortion is now legal. 'I find that the right to reproductive freedom initiative does not address the issue of parental consent,' Boone County Judge J. Hasbrouck Jacobs said Monday. 'And because of that, I'm going to deny the motion to dismiss.' Kraft Sheley is also a co-founder of What's Next, an Amendment 3 accountability group made up of organizers and activists who previously called for a constitutional amendment to appear on the Missouri ballot with no restrictions on abortion. Immediately after Amendment 3 was approved by voters, the coalition started calling on the state's major reproductive rights groups to challenge Missouri's parental consent law. 'They haven't done so,' Kraft Sheley said. 'And we can't sit and watch those people be left behind.' The lawsuit also notes that current policy does not clearly state how or if minors in state custody or in the foster care system can access abortion through the current parental consent law. A Missouri teen spent her life in foster care. Now she's fighting the state to keep her baby The Independent recently published a story detailing the journey of a young teenager in foster care who was denied an abortion in 2024 at the age of 15. After the state said abortion wasn't an option, she spent her pregnancy and postpartum in constant fear of the state removing her baby, despite providing her with practically no resources to help her parent. 'My fear is we'll see more cases like (this one,)' which Kraft Sheley described as 'my literal fear of what will become of young people who are forced to continue pregnancies. That's what is proposed by these criminal involvement laws, and that is what this constitutional amendment explicitly disallows.'
