JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced last week a significant legal victory for the state's pro-life laws.
Previously, abortion activists had sued to overturn the state's laws, but the city of St. Louis’ Circuit Court dismissed the challenge.
Bailey celebrated this as a win for women and unborn children, emphasizing his personal connection to the issue, noting the loss of a child in his personal life.
He pledged to continue defending these laws.
"Having lost a child, this issue is personal for me," Bailey said in a provided statement. "My office will continue to use every tool at its disposal to protect the unborn. Our children are worth the fight."
Missouri's anti-abortion law, which bans abortions at all stages of pregnancy, took effect just six minutes after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, which allowed states to regulate abortion.
Abortion activists challenged the decision and other related statutes in January 2023.
Bailey responded by filing a motion to dismiss these challenges. On June 30, 2023, the court dismissed ten out of the eleven challenges. The latest court decision has now dismissed the final challenge, fully upholding Missouri's pro-life laws.
Petitioners in the lawsuit included Rev. Traci Blackmon, Rev. Barbara Phifer, Maharat Rori Picker Neiss, Rev. Molly Housh Gordon, Rabbi James Bennett, Rev. Holly McKissick, Rev. Krista Taves, Rev. Cynthia S. Bumb, Rabbi Susan Talve, Rabbi Douglas Alpert, Rev. Janice Barnes, Rabbi Andrea Goldstein and Rev. Darryl Gray.
Respondents in the lawsuit were Bailey, the state Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, Marck Taormina and other officers and members of the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts and Paula F. Nickelson, the acting director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services.
In the June 14 order and judgment, Judge Jason M. Sengheiser wrote that there is no language of a religious nature in Section 188.017.
"The Court finds that the restrictions in the ban are consistent with Missouri's historical criminalization of and restrictions on abortion," Sengheiser wrote. "Essentially, the only thing that changed is that Roe was reversed, opening the door to this further regulation. Dobbs, provided in part that the State has an 'interest in protecting prenatal life' even 'before viability'"
Sengheiser wrote that the total abortion ban is consistent with this interest and a result of the holding in Dobbs.
Sengheiser wrote that the court does not accept the petitioners' argument that the determination that human life begins at conception is strictly a religious one.
"While the determination that life begins at conception may run counter to some religious beliefs, it is not itself necessarily a religious belief," Sengheiser wrote. "As such, it does not prevent all men and women from worshipping Almighty God or not worshipping according to the dictates of their own consciences; it does not control or interfere with the rights of conscience; it does not establish any official religion, it does not infringe a citizen's right to pray or express his or her religious beliefs..."
Sengheiser wrote that regarding Section 188.021, which is identified as the Medication Abortions Restrictions, the court found that restrictions in the ban are consistent with Missouri's historical criminalization of and restrictions to abortion.
"State Respondents have shown that they are entitled to judgment on the pleadings that Section 188.021 does not violate Article I, Sections 5, 6 or 7 of the Missouri Constitution," Sengheiser wrote.
Sengheiser also wrote that the court agrees with the state respondents that the canon of constitutional avoidance is a canon of statutory construction recognized in Missouri.
Missouri Circuit Court Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit case number: 2322-CC00120