Missouri legislator want to make getting an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy illegal

if your not aware an ectopic pregnancy is one that develops in a womans tubes instead of her uterus
its the #1 cause of death in the first trimester for women as the pregnancy burst the fallopian tube and she bleeds out.

actual text of the bill

This bill establishes the offense of trafficking abortion-inducing
devices or drugs if a person or entity knowingly imports, exports,
distributes, delivers, manufactures, produces, prescribes,
administers, or dispenses, or attempts to do so, any instrument,
device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance to be used to
perform or induce an abortion on another person in violation of
state or federal law. The offense is a Class B felony, but is a
Class A felony when:
(1) The abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a
woman carrying an unborn child of more than 10 weeks gestational
(2) The abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a
woman who has an ectopic pregnancy;

the legislator who introduced this bill shoudl be arrested for attempted murder. period.
My wife had 2 ectopic pregnancies and almost died when her tube burst the second time.
this bill is pure evil.

That statement is as stupid as the poison-pill ectopic pregnancy clause in the proposed bill.

(Ditto the specific calling out of abortions on women who are victims of sex trafficking. Another poison pill, and enough to ensure the failure of the bill, even without the ectopic clause.)

I really don’t understand why abortion abolitionists insist on pushing bans on the extremes that guarantee failure of their initiatives.


Aren’t they also trying to make it illegal to travel outside of the state to seek an abortion?




1 Like

It doesn’t say what you think as far as your “ditto” piece. It says trafficking in abortion inducing drugs/devices.

I DO agree that the ectopic section is reason to trash it.

Yes, that’s what it addresses – devices, material, instruments, drugs…

But it specifically calls out devices used for this:

“The abortion was performed and induced, or attempted, on a
woman who is a victim of sex trafficking”

This is a bad, bad law.


What you linked is not what’s referenced in the OP.

The OP’s bill is about trafficking in abortion devices, instruments, drugs, etc. Not the abortions themselves.

Oh must be in the link, didn’t open.
My apologies

There is no way that law could stand. Right? :grimacing:

Looks like false flag operations to me. Gets the whackos to send him campaign funds knowing it will never pass.

When pro life Christians actually do when they legislate, as opposed to what they say they’ll do.

Great post.

I don’t remember you being so broad brushed in your observations.

A link would have been helpful in making the Original Post less emotional:

The proposed legislation is a prime example of zero tolerance=zero brainpower. What part of an ectopic pregnancy is never viable does this moron not understand?

At the other extreme, what in the ■■■■ is a “pregnant person”? What in the ■■■■ is that?

Is this latest nonsense language in such examples as “We’re pregnant” and “pregnant persons” pc reality allergy?

It’s pregnant WOMEN to the dumb ■■■■ who edited this article and allowed it to go forward with the illusion of pregnant men and women :face_with_symbols_over_mouth:


Things change. Trump broke @TommyLucchese

Calling someone a “pregnant person” does not end in needless suffering and possible death.

So there is a tad of difference.

Every abortion ends in needless suffering and sure death. And you’re still for it. Go figure.


“Missouri legislator want to make getting an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy illegal.”

This headline appears to be fake news on its face.

Someone has proposed a bill that includes a proposed clause to criminalize ectopic pregnancy abortions. Since the legislature have not passed the bill, we do not know what the legislature wants to do via the bill. We only know what someone ( the proponent) had put up for debate and adjustment.

The OP does not say why the proponent chose to include that clause in that form from the get-go. Maybe they deliberately included extreme notions so they could have some things to compromise with opponents over and indicate a willingness to listen…

It says “legislator” wants. Not “legislature” wants.

It’s accurate.

OP has a link to the actual bill.