Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.038 (2026)

Pregnant women, bias or discrimination against

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  188.038.  Pregnant women, bias or discrimination against — findings of general assembly — limitations on performing an abortion, when. — 1.  The general assembly of this state finds that:

  (1)  Removing vestiges of any past bias or discrimination against pregnant women, their partners, and their family members, including their unborn children, is an important task for those in the legal, medical, social services, and human services professions;

  (2)  Ending any current bias or discrimination against pregnant women, their partners, and their family members, including their unborn children, is a legitimate purpose of government in order to guarantee that those who "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" can enjoy "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness";

  (3)  The historical relationship of bias or discrimination by some family planning programs and policies towards poor and minority populations, including, but not limited to, the nonconsensual sterilization of mentally ill, poor, minority, and immigrant women and other coercive family planning programs and policies, must be rejected;

  (4)  Among Missouri residents, the rate of black or African-American women who undergo abortions is significantly higher, about three and one-half* times higher, than the rate of white women who undergo abortions.  Among Missouri residents, the rate of black or African-American women who undergo repeat abortions is significantly higher, about one and one-half* times higher, than the rate of white women who undergo repeat abortions;

  (5)  Performing or inducing an abortion because of the sex of the unborn child is repugnant to the values of equality of females and males and the same opportunities for girls and boys, and furthers a false mindset of female inferiority;

  (6)  Government has a legitimate interest in preventing the abortion of unborn children with Down Syndrome because it is a form of bias or disability discrimination and victimizes the disabled unborn child at his or her most vulnerable stage.  Eliminating unborn children with Down Syndrome raises grave concerns for the lives of those who do live with disabilities.  It sends a message of dwindling support for their unique challenges, fosters a false sense that disability is something that could have been avoidable, and is likely to increase the stigma associated with disability.

  2.  No person shall perform or induce an abortion on a woman if the person knows that the woman is seeking the abortion solely because of a prenatal diagnosis, test, or screening indicating Down Syndrome or the potential of Down Syndrome in an unborn child.

  3.  No person shall perform or induce an abortion on a woman if the person knows that the woman is seeking the abortion solely because of the sex or race of the unborn child.

  4.  Any physician or other person who performs or induces or attempts to perform or induce an abortion prohibited by this section shall be subject to all applicable civil penalties under this chapter including, but not limited to, sections 188.065 and 188.085.

­­--------

(L. 2019 H.B. 126)

*Words "a half" appear in original rolls.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: Reproductive Health Servs. of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc. v. Parson (W.D. Mo. 2019).
Reproductive Health Servs. of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc. v. Parson (W.D. Mo. 2019). · cites it 6× “All except the ripeness issue (relating to imminence of actual harm) may be readily rejected, at least for preliminary injunction purposes, for reasons noted by Judge Sutton in 1 Mo.”
Reproductive Health Servs. of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc. v. Parson (W.D. Mo. 2019). · cites it 6× “All except the ripeness issue (relating to imminence of actual harm) may be readily rejected, at least for preliminary injunction purposes, for reasons noted by Judge Sutton in 1 Mo.”
Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, et al. vs. State of Missouri, et al. (Mo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “375; and a ban on abortion because of Down Syndrome or due to sex or race (the “Reasons ban”), §§ 188.038, 188.052; 19 CSR 10- 15.010(1).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.