Missouri Legislator Inadvertently Shows Why Anti-Choice Legislation is Totally Contradictory


There’s a funny thing that happens when you start piling too many anti-choice bills at once.  You start to notice how much they really contradict themselves.

Take two new bills being submitted by Sen. Scott Rupp in Missouri.  One is an expanded conscience clause for any medical provider or researcher.  The second, a bill that would mandate that only doctors could provide abortion causing drugs, has a “women’s right to know” informed consent act rolled in.

But it’s Rupp’s explanations that put the contradiction into stark contrast. 

One of my bills, SB 657, would ensure that no medical professional would be mandated to perform an abortion or other related procedures against his or her conscience. If a physician morally objects to performing an abortion, he or she would not be punished or suffer employment discrimination because of his or her decision.

My bill would also protect the conscience rights of medical researchers with regard to fetal tissue research, human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research, and somatic cell nuclear transfer.

This legislation is of great importance due to actions by the National Institute of Health. Currently, the federal panel is seeking to force medical providers—both care personnel and facilities—to perform procedures even when it goes against their beliefs. No one should be forced to carry out an act against their will.

I am also sponsoring a measure that protects the health and well-being of mothers and their unborn children. Under my bill, SB 658, drugs (such as mifepristone) to facilitate the induction of an abortion, including drugs used during a subsequent visit to complete an abortion, would only be administered in a hospital or in an abortion facility in the physical presence of a physician.

Before the procedure is carried out, the mother would be presented with several alternatives to abortion, and she would be informed of the possible risks associated with having an abortion. If the mother decides to continue with having the abortion, the procedure would be handled safely.

A person’s beliefs must be protected at all times, and no one should be forced to carry out an act against their will…unless it’s carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty