Increases the penalty for performing an abortion in the state of Missouri
The legislation would introduce significant changes to how abortions are performed in Missouri by ensuring that physicians take additional steps to confirm both the viability of the unborn child and the medical necessity of proceeding with the abortion. This could result in delaying access to abortion services due to the required consultations and documentation processes. Furthermore, none of the provisions within the bill are intended to create or recognize a right to abortion, which echoes the sentiments of anti-abortion advocates who see it as a way to reinforce abortion restrictions while solidifying existing legal frameworks that limit reproductive rights.
House Bill 1636 seeks to amend existing abortion legislation in Missouri by imposing stricter regulations on the performance of abortions involving viable unborn children. The bill specifies that except in cases of medical emergencies, no abortion shall be performed or induced unless it is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or if the continuation of the pregnancy poses a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment to the woman. The bill also mandates that prior to any abortion procedure, a physician must determine the gestational age and viability of the unborn child, along with obtaining concurrence from a second physician on the necessity of the abortion due to the woman's medical condition.
Notably, the bill has raised points of contention among legislators and advocacy groups. Supporters argue that the added regulations are necessary to protect the health of both the mother and the unborn child, ensuring that all medical protocols are strictly followed. However, opponents view these measures as barriers designed to limit access to safe and legal abortions, asserting that they could lead to unnecessary hardships for women seeking reproductive healthcare. The penalty provisions included in the bill, such as class D felony charges for non-compliance, highlight the serious legal repercussions that physicians could face, which further intensifies the debate surrounding reproductive rights in the state.