Prenatal Protection?
What does Missouri law say about unborn children?
According to the Missouri Constitution – Article I, Section 2 states that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of their own industry.
Missouri statutes (RSMo 1.205) explicitly state life begins at conception:
1.205. Life begins at conception — unborn child, defined — failure to provide prenatal care, no cause of action for. — 1. The general assembly of this state finds that:
(1) The life of each human being begins at conception;
(2) Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being;
(3) The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.
2. Effective January 1, 1988, the laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court and specific provisions to the contrary in the statutes and constitution of this state.
3. As used in this section, the term “unborn children” or “unborn child” shall include all unborn child or children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.
4. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.
Additionally, Missouri law cites interest in protecting that human life:
188.026. Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act — findings of general assembly — interests of the state of Missouri. — 1. This section and sections 188.056, 188.057, and 188.058 shall be known and may be cited as the “Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act”.
2. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), certain information about the development of the unborn child, human pregnancy, and the effects of abortion was either not part of the record or was not available at the time. Since 1973, advances in medical and scientific technology have greatly expanded our knowledge of prenatal life and the effects of abortion on women. The general assembly of this state finds:
(1) At conception, a new genetically distinct human being is formed;
(2) The fact that the life of an individual human being begins at conception has long been recognized in Missouri law: “[T]he child is, in truth, alive from the moment of conception”. State v. Emerich, 13 Mo. App. 492, 495 (1883), affirmed, 87 Mo. 110 (1885). Under section 1.205, the general assembly has recognized that the life of each human being begins at conception and that unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being;
(3) The first prohibition of abortion in Missouri was enacted in 1825. Since then, the repeal and reenactment of prohibitions of abortion have made distinctions with respect to penalties for performing or inducing abortion on the basis of “quickening”; however, the unborn child was still protected from conception onward;
(4) In ruling that Missouri’s prohibition on abortion was constitutional in 1972, the Missouri supreme court accepted as a stipulation of the parties that “‘[i]nfant Doe, Intervenor Defendant in this case, and all other unborn children have all the qualities and attributes of adult human persons differing only in age or maturity. Medically, human life is a continuum from conception to death.‘” Rodgers v. Danforth, 486 S.W.2d 258, 259 (1972);
In Missouri, unborn children are currently recognized as unique living human children from conception.
In fact, they are even protected from murder (sometimes). Numerous cases of first degree murder convictions for fetal homicide exist. A few recent examples include:
St. Louis Double Homicide (April 2025): Vanier J. Jones, 28, was charged with 17 felony counts, including two counts of first-degree murder, for shooting and killing a woman in her second trimester of pregnancy and her unborn child in St. Louis.
Lebanon Double Homicide (June 2025): Sidney Fredrick Wilson V was arrested and charged with two counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of 21-year-old Reagan Lynn Wilson and her unborn child, Silas.
Kidnapping and Murder (August 2024): A Missouri woman pleaded guilty to kidnapping and killing an Arkansas woman and causing the death of her unborn child.
In spite of what our law says, pre-born Missourians are still not offered equal protection under the law.
For nearly 50 years, killing some unborn children in Missouri has been permitted by fiat law (a faulty court finding that has since been reversed) and has been deceptively integrated into “health care”, though abortion is NOT health care because it is intentionally destructive, not restorative or healing.
About 10 years ago, aborting women were exempted from prosecution relating to the intentional killing of their child in the womb:
Under RSMo § 188.017, a woman upon whom an abortion is performed or induced in violation of the law shall not be prosecuted for conspiracy to violate the act.
In 2024, Amendment 3 was approved by the majority of voters to allow unrestricted abortion and gender mutilation under the guise of “reproductive freedom”. Since the passing of Amendment 3, which directly contradicts the Missouri Constitution as well as existing statutory law, abortionists have been cautious to “get back to business”. There has since been about 180 abortions reported in Missouri, and all of those are claimed to be medical emergencies. ALL of them. Perhaps they fear Amendment 3 will not withstand a legitimate court challenge.
Much like the portion of Amendment 3 that pertained to gender mutilation – which contradicted the SAFE Act. The SAFE Act has since been upheld and gender mutilation for minors has been banned (January 2026).
Missouri’s law is in conflict with itself. This inequity has led Missouri into a cultural conundrum. It has been said that the law is a teacher. It teaches a people, whether they realize it or not. Can it be any wonder that such inconsistency in the law regarding the life of the unborn results in such a wide variety of opinions?
The purpose of law is to restrain evil and to promote good. Law restrains evil first by deterrence when someone is contemplating the evil. Then by punishment when someone has committed the evil and has been found guilty following due process of the law. The law promotes good when innocent people are protected from harm.
Legislators must be careful when crafting legislation to avoid enacting bad laws. A bad law would be something that does not deter evil, does not punish evil and does not protect innocent people. It’s best if we just don’t pass bad laws. However, if we have already passed a bad law and after the fact realize that was a bad law, we must remove or nullify it.
Roe V Wade wasn’t a law. It was a court case, but it was touted as the basis for all the laws permitting abortion for the past 50 years. It has since been reversed and nullified, as it should be. That’s no longer an issue for Missouri.
Missouri’s statute exempting women from justice in the intentional killing of their unborn child is a bad law. It emboldens a crime, then when it occurs, it fails to punish the perpetrator, and it does not protect the innocent person.
Missouri’s constitutional Amendment 3 is a bad law. Again, it emboldens a crime, does not punish the perpetrator but does punish an innocent person. To right this injustice, it must be repealed outright. Anything less would permit the injustice to persist, much like Roe V Wade.
At some point, it’s time take a hard look at the facts. If we truly believe that human life begins at conception, which is a biological fact and already recognized in our law, shouldn’t we provide that little person the same basic protections that we all have? To be faithful to our Creator, bring justice to the people of Missouri, remain scientifically accurate, and to be consistent with our constitution as well as the federal constitution, it is time to finally recognize the personhood of the unborn child which would confer to him or her the equal protection of the law.