Missouri Bill Would Create Registry of Pregnant Women "At Risk" of Having An Abortion

2.18.25

Click to skip ahead: In Legislation Watch, a new Missouri bill would create a state-run registry of pregnant women the government deems “at risk for seeking an abortion.”

In the States, good and bad news over Missouri’s ban.

Media Attacks on Planned Parenthood I break down the NYT’s hit piece.

In the Nation, Trump issued an executive order on IVF—and I can’t help but wonder what he’s trying to distract us from.

AED Housekeeping has news about a new weekly thread!

---

Legislation Watch

Well this is a nightmare: A new Missouri bill would create a state-run registry of pregnant women the government deems “at risk for seeking an abortion.” If tracking pregnant women wasn’t dystopian enough, the Republican-sponsored legislation would also give people interested in adopting babies access to this registry—because what’s more on brand for Republicans than turning pregnancy into a state-monitored marketplace?

“We’re looking at something like e-Harmony for babies,” adoption attorney Gerard Harms told the House Children and Families Committee. Harms apparently worked on the bill alongside its sponsor, Rep. Phil Amato.

I don’t think I need to explain why this is terrifying. Missouri Republicans are proposing a government database to track pregnant women they suspect might want an abortion. But how would the state decide who makes the list? What qualifies someone as “at risk of seeking an abortion”? And why in the ever-loving fuck would they hand over these women’s information to anyone?

If the premise isn’t chilling enough, the fine print makes it even worse. The bill appears to clear the way for anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to run the registry: House Bill 807 states that Missouri will hire outside “contractors” to run the system—specifically ones with a “proven record of providing resources to expectant mothers and children.”

Sound familiar? Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) already receive millions in funding from Republican-led states, prey on vulnerable women, and have deep ties to evangelical adoption agencies.

Many also run ‘maternity homes’—residential facilities that seek to shame and control pregnant women, and pressure them into terminating their parental rights. And let’s not forget: Republicans in multiple states are also pushing to “streamline” adoption processes, aka making it easier for the state to terminate people’s parental rights.

Meanwhile, these centers have a long history of tracking and misusing women’s data. It wasn’t long ago that Abortion, Every Day revealed how Heartbeat International—the country’s largest network of crisis pregnancy centers—was lying to women about how their personal information was being stored and shared.

Knowing all of the above, I’ll tell you what this Missouri bill sounds like to me: Republicans creating a system that targets vulnerable pregnant people they deem “unfit,” coercing them into giving birth and surrendering their parental rights, then placing their children with families it considers more ‘worthy.’ I think we all know the race and class implications here, too.

What’s more, the bill also says that the groups offering these services “shall have qualified immunity from civil liability for providing such services.” In other words, they could track, manipulate, and exploit pregnant women without fear of lawsuits.

Policy attempts like this are nothing new: We’ve watched Republicans like then-Senator Marco Rubio push for a state-run website to collect data on pregnant women—all while claiming to 'help women.'

Breaking: GOP bill would create gov't website to collect data on pregnant women

I’ll keep you updated on Missouri HB 807, but I’m hoping the backlash against it will make the bill too poisonous to pass. But as always, Republicans are making clear what kind of future they want—we’d do well to listen.

In the States

While we’re talking about Missouri, we have a good news, bad news situation: A court ruling has cleared the way for abortion care to resume—but so far, there’s no sign that Planned Parenthood or other clinics have actually started seeing patients.

As you know, Missouri voters passed Amendment 3 this November—protecting abortion rights until ‘viability’ in the state’s constitution. But Republicans are determined to ignore the will of voters: They’ve fought to keep the state’s abortion ban in place and are even pushing a new ballot measure to undermine Amendment 3 altogether.

A judge temporarily blocked Missouri’s ban in December, but that ruling left Republican-imposed licensing restrictions intact—meaning clinics still couldn’t resume abortion care. Then on Friday, Judge Jerri Zhang struck down the licensing requirement, calling it discriminatory because it holds abortion facilities to different standards than other healthcare providers.

But abortion being legal doesn’t mean it’s accessible. So far, Missouri clinics haven’t resumed abortion care. And activists in the state are warning against celebrating too soon. What’s Next, a Missouri group tracking abortion laws, put it bluntly:

“Let’s be clear, the court temporarily opened a pathway to abortion care for those who have money, are over 18, or earlier in pregnancy. Public and private insurance bans, parental involvement laws, and bans on later care remain unchallenged and enforced.”

In other words, even if clinics reopen, Missouri’s most marginalized residents will still be shut out. And then there’s the inevitable backlash: Anti-abortion extremists are already mobilizing. According to POLITICO, clinic protesters are preparing to ramp up harassment, and KCUR reports that Abortion Action Missouri is bringing in more clinic escorts to help protect patients.

All of this is happening as Trump is giving anti-abortion extremists the green light to terrorize clinics, providers, and patients without fear of consequences. More on Republicans’ plan to escalate clinic attacks below:

"God Demands Justice": The GOP's Chilling Plan to Attack Clinics

Media Attacks on Planned Parenthood

Speaking of attacks on abortion rights groups, let’s talk about the New York Times hit piece on Planned Parenthood. I’ll write in-depth on this tomorrow—once I have a chance to settle in and I’m not writing from an airplane—but I had to say just a couple of things right away.

I was actually legitimately shocked to see how the Times piece fully adopted anti-abortion rhetoric, using language that would be more at home in places like the Daily Caller. Not only does the article call a fetus a 'baby' in a 'womb,' but it also uses the term 'botched abortion,' one of the most inflammatory anti-choice phrases there is. In fact, 'botched'—which is not a medical term—shows up several times in the piece. It’s even in the headline!

By way of comparison, guess how many times the word ‘Dobbs’ appears: Zero. And ‘Roe’? Just once—and only to say that Planned Parenthood "enjoyed a fund-raising boom" when Roe ended.

Part of me worries that the Times’ coverage is part of the broader acquiescence to the Trump administration that we’re seeing happening in so many institutions. But mostly I think it's the result of reporters and editors covering abortion who have little experience doing so. (And we know how dangerous that can be.)

As I wrote on Bluesky earlier today, I don’t believe any pro-choice group should be immune from criticism—even in times like this. And I’m grateful for the spotlight on how poorly reproductive healthcare workers are paid, and just how under-resourced clinics are. But there's a difference between critical coverage seeking accountability and cherry-picked sensationalism that relies on inflammatory anti-abortion rhetoric. The piece from the Times is absolutely the latter.

The article won’t come without consequences. You can be sure that the Trump administration will use this article to push a Congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood, and to justify defunding the group that provides contraception and STI testing for millions of low-income, underserved American women.

If you've ever wanted proof of how desperately we need reporters, editors and publishers with experience and knowledge in abortion rights, this is it. Because let’s be real: Women are literally dying from being denied abortions. Maternal and infant mortality is spiking. How media covers abortion is a matter of life and death.

In better news: If you go to the Times Instagram post promoting the article, the comments are largely from folks singing Planned Parenthood’s praises, sharing their positive patient experiences, and being very pissed at the paper of record.

In the Nation

Donald Trump signed an executive order today that he claims will lower the cost of IVF. The order said that “Americans need reliable access to IVF and more affordable treatment options,” and directs officials to give Trump a list of policy recommendations to “aggressively reduc[e]” out-of-pocket and insurance costs for IVF.

Now, as Sen. Patty Murray noted today on Twitter, this is a pure PR stunt that doesn’t actually increase access to IVF:

“Republicans created this mess by overturning Roe and they've blocked legislation MULTIPLE TIMES that WOULD make IVF care more accessible and affordable for families. Give me a break.”

She’s right—and this isn’t the first time Republicans have tried to pretend they support IVF. Last year, Sen. Katie Britt and Sen. Ted Cruz introduced the so-called IVF Protection Act, which didn’t actually protect IVF at all. In fact, it would have allowed states to restrict it:

The GOP's IVF Lie

But what concerns me about Trump’s executive order isn’t just that it won’t actually do anything—it’s the timing. Why now? Because let’s not forget: The last time Trump talked about “free” IVF, it was an attempt to distract from the fallout of Republican abortion bans. And in the months before the election, he made a habit of suddenly pretending to be “moderate” on abortion whenever a horrific abortion-related news story breaks—whether it’s the Alabama ruling declaring frozen embryos “extrauterine children” or yet another woman dying from a forced pregnancy.

I hope I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this executive order is just the latest well-timed smokescreen before Republicans launch a new attack.

AED Housekeeping

Thanks to everyone who filled out the Abortion, Every Day reader survey—it was super helpful to find out what folks are most interested in and how we can make the newsletter and community more useful for you all.

One of the things we heard a lot of was the desire for more action items: People want to know what they can do to help right now. That’s why next week AED will launch a weekly thread where folks can plug their projects, groups, and activist campaigns. I’ll use those threads to find action items that I can go on to highlight in the daily report.

So please keep an eye out, and be ready to share something!