>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US FOR NEXT UP.

THIS IS WHERE WE INTERVIEW COMMUNITY LEADERS ABOUT ISSUES OF THE DAY AND I CAN'T THINK OF ONE TOPIC THAT'S MORE OF AN ISSUE OF THE DAY THAN ABORTION.

LAST WEEK, AS YOU KNOW, THE SUPREME COURT SAID THERE'S NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN ABORTION AND ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, MISSOURI OUTLAWED ALL ABORTIONS EXCEPT FOR THOSE INVOLVING A MEDICAL EMERGENCY.

FOR THIS EDITION, WE'D LIKE TO WELCOME MALLORY SCHWARZ FROM PRO CHOICE MISSOURI, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THERE, AND SAM LEE FROM CAMPAIGN LIFE MISSOURI.

AND THANK YOU, SAM, THANK YOU MALLORY FOR JOINING RAY AND ME ON NEXT UP.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING US.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WELL, THE TITLE OF OUR SHOW IS NEXT UP, SO I WANT TO ADDRESS SOMETHING TO BOTH OF YOU IN WHATEVER ORDER YOU WANT, AND THAT IS, WHAT IS NEXT UP IN YOUR VIEW FOR YOUR -- SAM, YOU WRITE A LOT OF LEGISLATION FOR MISSOURI, AND MALLORY, YOU'RE INVOLVED IN THE PRO CHOICE MOVEMENT.

IN EACH OF YOUR CASES, WHAT'S NEXT FOR YOU?

WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP?

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK FOR US, FOR PRO CHOICE MISSOURI, THERE IS NOT ABORTION LEFT TO PROTECT IN THE STATE, AND SO WE ARE LOOKING AHEAD TO HOW WE REBUILD LIBERATED, EQUITY ACCESS TO ABORTION FOR OUR STATE.

ROE V. WADE WAS NEVER ENOUGH.

IT LEFT SO MANY PEOPLE BEHIND.

THE PEOPLE MOST HARMED BY THE BILLS THAT MR. LEE PASSES HERE, BLACK PEOPLE, PEOPLE OF COLOR, PEOPLE SURVIVING PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK, FOLKS WITH DISABILITIES, YOUNG PEOPLE, OUR RURAL COMMUNITIES AND LGBTQ FOLKS HAVE ALL BEEN LEFT BEHIND BY ROE, SO NOW WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A MORE EQUITABLE FUTURE.

THAT'S A LONG GAME, BUT WE'RE HERE FOR THE LONG HAUL.

>> FOR US, WE WANT TO ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT ARE ALREADY IN EFFECT.

ONE OF THOSE IS A LAW THAT WE ACTUALLY PASSED IN 1986 WHICH PROHIBITS THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR PERFORMING OR ASSISTING AN ABORTION.

AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, AND KANSAS CITY ARE ALL CONSIDERING LEGISLATION, ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, WHATEVER, THAT WOULD USE PUBLIC FUNDS NOT TO PAY FOR THE ABORTION ITSELF, BUT TO PAY FOR OTHER THINGS THAT ASSIST IN THAT ABORTION, AND THAT'S PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW AND THE REMEDY FOR THAT IS FOR ONE OF TWO THINGS.

A TAXPAYER TO FILE SUIT IN CIRCUIT COURT OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI ALSO HAS JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THOSE LAWS.

BASICALLY ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE NOW AND WE'LL LOOK TO THE FUTURE IN JANUARY WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

>> WHAT IF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS REIMBURSES THE CHILDCARE FOR A WOMAN WHO CROSSES FROM THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS TO FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS TO GET AN ABORTION?

USING FEDERAL DOLLARS.

WOULD THAT ACTUALLY BE AGAINST THE LAW?

>> UNDER STATE STATUTE, FEDERAL DOLLARS THAT ARE IN POSSESSION OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, IT COULD BE ANY SOURCE OF FUNDING AS LONG AS THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS HAS POSSESSION OF THAT, THOSE ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC FUNDS BY DEFINITION.

SO IF IT IS BEING USED TO ASSIST AN ABORTION, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHILDCARE, TRANSPORTATION, HOTEL ROOMS, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE -- >> THAT'S SAM'S OWN INTERPRET OF WHAT ASSIST MEANS.

IF I TOLD YOU THAT I NEEDED A BUS PASS TO GET TO MY MAMMOGRAM, WOULD THAT BE ASSISTING IN THE PROVIDER IN PROVIDING THAT CARE?

I DON'T THINK SO.

WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS POVERTY BEING AN AGGRESSIVE BARRIER TO PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO ACCESS HEALTHCARE APPOINTMENTS.

SO WHETHER THEY NEED TRANSPORTATION, AN UBER, A TRAIN, CHILDCARE, OR A HOTEL, THAT IS NOT RELATED TO THE PROCEDURE ITSELF, WHICH IS WHAT OUR LAW TALKS ABOUT IN AID AND ASSIST.

>> WELL, THE COURTS OF MISSOURI OR THE FEDERAL COURTS WILL DECIDE THAT IF AND WHEN THERE'S A LAWSUIT FILED.

>> I WAS WONDERING IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE SHOW, IS ABORTION DE FACTO LEGAL IN ST. LOUIS COUNTY NOW IF THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR REFUSES TO PROSECUTE ANY ABORTION CASES?

>> WELL, IT'S INTERESTING.

UNDER MISSOURI LAW, AND MISSOURI MAY BE UNIQUE AMONG ALL THE STATES, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI HAS ORIGINAL CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE ANY ABORTION-RELATED OFFENSE, TO ENFORCE THE LAWS ON PUBLIC FUNDING OF ABORTION, ANYTHING IN CHAPTER 188 WHICH IS THE ABORTION CHAPTER.

SO REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WESLEY BELL DECIDES TO PROSECUTE OR NOT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE OR SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

I WOULD EXPECT THAT WOULD HAPPEN IF NECESSARY, BUT THAT'S JUST SOMEONE'S ATTEMPT TO VIOLATE THE LAW.

>> OKAY, SHOULD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI INVESTIGATE MISCARRIAGES?

>> NO.

>> WHY NOT?

>> THOSE AREN'T ABORTIONS.

>> YOU DON'T KNOW.

IF SOMEBODY SAYS THEY HAD A MISCARRIAGE, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IT WASN'T AN ILLEGAL ABORTION?

>> I MEAN, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE EVIDENCE, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMEBODY COMING FORTH TO PRESENT THAT.

I DON'T EXPECT SOMEONE GOING INTO A HOSPITAL OR DOCTOR'S OFFICE TO TREAT A MISCARRIAGE AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE COVERED BY THE LAW.

>> WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THAT HAPPEN, THOUGH, IN TEXAS WHERE PEOPLE ARE INVESTIGATED FOR MISCARRIAGE OR OTHER PREGNANCY OUTCOMES BECAUSE IT IS TO THE EYE NOT DIFFERENTIAL, NOT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT AN ABORTION WOULD LIKE.

A MISCARRIAGE IS A SPONUS ABORTION -- SPONTANEOUS ABORTION, SO YOU CAN SAY THAT'S NOT THE IMPACT, BUT PEOPLE ARE ALREADY BEING CRIMINALIZED.

WE'RE SEEING IT ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND HAVE FOR MORE THAN FIVE, TEN YEARS.

PEOPLE HAVE BEEN AND ARE STILL IN PRISON FOR PREGNANCY OUTCOMES.

>> NO WOMAN IN MISSOURI IS CRIMINALIZED FOR HAVING AN ABORTION.

OUR LAW IS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN TO ANY CRIMINAL PENALTY OR CIVIL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY IS ONLY AGAINST THE PERSON WHO PERFORMS OR INDUCES AN ABORTION ON ANOTHER.

THAT'S NOT ONLY THE CURRENT HAW NOW, THAT'S BEEN THE LAW SINCE 1825 WHEN MISSOURI PASSED THE FIRST LAW.

>> WHAT ABOUT THIS CONTROVERSIAL CONSPIRACY LANGUAGE WHICH SAYS THAT THE WOMAN INVOLVED IN THE CONSPIRACY COULD BE PROSECUTED, CORRECT?

>> ACTUALLY, THE LAW SAYS SHE CAN'T BE PROSECUTED FOR A CONSPIRACY.

>> OH, THAT'S CORRECT.

BUT IF YOU TAKE AWAY CONSPIRACY, SOME PEOPLE ARE INTERPRETING THAT AS SAYING IT WASN'T A CONSPIRACY, IT WAS ACTUALLY GETTING AN ABORTION.

>> THE LAW IS CLEAR.

IF IT'S SOMEONE WHO PERFORMS OR INDUCES IT ON ANOTHER.

A WOMAN IS PERFECTLY FREE TO GET AN ABORTION WITHOUT ANY SORT OF CONCERN ABOUT CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

SHE CAN BUY ABORTION PILLS ON THE INTERNET.

NOW, IF SOMEONE ELSE PURCHASES THOSE FOR HER AND PROVIDES THOSE TO HER, LET'S SAY HER BOYFRIEND, OKAY, OR LET'S SAY SOMEBODY WHO SHE'S IN AN ABUSIVE SITUATION AND HER BOYFRIEND BUYS SOMETHING FROM INDIA AND FORCES HER TO TAKE IT, HE COULD BE PROSECUTED, BUT NOT THE WOMAN HERSELF.

>> BUT AS YOU KNOW, SOME STATES, AND I CAN'T IMAGINE MISSOURI WON'T BECOME ONE OF THEM, WANT TO PROHIBIT WOMEN FROM GOING ACROSS STATE LINES TO HAVE AN ABORTION.

DO YOU SEE THAT AS SOMETHING THAT MISSOURI SHOULD BE LOOKING AT?

>> NOW, WAS THE FIRST STATE TO INTRODUCE THAT LEGISLATION, THAT CROSS-STATE BAN.

WE WERE THE FIRST ONE.

I'M SURE YOU HAD A HAND IN IT, AND THAT'S -- AND WELL AS A MEDICATION ABORTION BAN, WHICH AS YOU JUST SAID, IF THE PERSON IS PURCHASING AND SELF-ADMINISTERING AND SELF-MANAGING THEIR ABORTION AT HOME, THEY ARE THEIR PROVIDER, SO YOU CAN SAY YOU DON'T WANT THE WOMAN PROSECUTED, BUT THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE CRIMINALIZATION.

>> THE LAW DOESN'T ALLOW THAT, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN SAY THAT.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THAT, I'M ON RECORD IN TESTIFYING, IN SPEAKING AGAINST ANY SORT OF PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION, A TEXAS-STYLE LAW WHERE PEOPLE CAN JUST -- RANDOM PEOPLE COULD FILE SUIT AND TRY TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM CROSSING STATE LINES OR HAVING AN ABORTION.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY WE SHOULD GO HERE IN MISSOURI.

I KNOW THEY'VE DONE THAT IN TEXAS AND DONE THAT IN ONE OR TWO OTHER STATES.

I JUST THINK THAT'S THE WRONG WAY TO GO.

>> WHAT ARE YOUR TWO UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE SO-CALLED MORNING-AFTER PILL WHICH IN SOME CASES CAN PREVENT A FERTILIZED EGG FROM ATTACHING ITSELF TO THE WOMB.

ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL APPARENTLY IN KANSAS CITY HAD SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THAT.

THEY WEREN'T SURE IF THAT CONTRAEXCESECEPTIVE IS NOW LEGAL OR NOT.

>> EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION, PLAN B OR THE MORNING-AFTER PILL IS CONTRACEPTION.

IT'S A PREVENTIVE METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL LIKE BIRTH CONTROL PILLS OR IUDs OR OTHER METHODS, AND I THINK WE SAW A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH THIS WEEK THAT ULTIMATELY HAD BOTH THE GOVERNOR AND THE A.G. STATE THAT CONTRACEPTION, INCLUDING EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION, WOULDN'T BE INCLUDED UNDER THIS -- UNDER THE TRIGGER LAW, WHICH WE ALSO THEN SAW ST. LUKE'S REVERSE THEIR POSITION.

AND SO I THINK THAT'S POSITIVE, BUT THE HARM FRANKLY HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE BECAUSE AT PRO CHOICE MISSOURI, OUR BOXES AND DMs AND VOICE MAILS HAVE BEEN FLOODED ALL WEEK BY PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE TERRIFIED ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THEIR ACCESS.

THAT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHATEVER THE LAW IS, THE CULTURAL IMPACT, THE IMPACT ON PROVIDERS AND PATIENTS AND PENAL IS SO MUCH GREATER AND THERE'S A -- AND PEOPLE IS SO MUCH GREATER AND THERE'S A CHILLING EFFECT THAT WE ARE ALREADY SEEING PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM GETTING ACCESS TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE THEY NEED, STARTING WITH ABORTION, BUT THEY'RE LOOKING AT BIRTH CONTROL AND GOING BEYOND.

>> WE AGREE.

PLAN B, THE MORNING-AFTER PILL, IS NOT AN ABORTION PILL.

IT'S NOT COVERED UNDER THE ABORTION HAW LAW.

I'VE SAID THAT PUBLICLY AND I KNOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE GOVERNOR MADE THAT CLEAR.

>> BUT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, DOESN'T THE LAW STATE -- >> I CAN READ THE ACTUAL DEFINITION, BUT IT REQUIRES THE INTENT TO DESTROY AN EMBRYO OR FETUS IN HIS OR HER MOTHER'S WOMB OR AN INTENT TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY, AND YOU CAN'T INTEND TO DO SOMETHING WHICH YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IF YOU'RE PREGNANT OR NOT.

IT'S NEVER BEEN COVERED BY THE LAW.

IF MORNING-AFTER PILLS WERE COVERED BY THE LAW -- THAT'S A DEFINITION THE SAME BEFORE AND AFTER THE SUPREME COURT DOBBS DECISION, SO IF MORNING-AFTER PILLS WERE A METHOD OF INDUCING ABORTION, THEN EVERY WALGREENS AND CVS THAT SELLS MORNING-AFTER PILLS WOULD HAVE TO BE LICENSED AS AN ABORTION FACILITY, WHICH OF COURSE THEY WEREN'T.

IT'S AN ABSURD ARGUMENT.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT PEOPLE LIKE CLAIRE McCASKILL WHO'S BEEN ON TV AND SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHERS, WHO HAVE BEEN PROMOTING THIS MYTH FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND I KNOW THAT THE PRO CHOICE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN UNHAPPY WITH THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DOING THAT.

>> WELL, THROUGHOUT THIS DEBATE OVER DECADES, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM HAS BEEN INVOKED BY YOUR SIDE OFTEN.

SO THERE ARE ISSUES, SHOULD CATHOLIC HOSPITALS HAVE TO DO ABORTIONS?

SHOULD PEOPLE HAVE TO PRESCRIBE THE MORNING-AFTER PILL THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE IN IT?

AND THAT'S BEEN A COMMON REFRAIN AND I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN SYMPATHETIC IN SOME CASES TO THAT ARGUMENT.

I HAPPEN TO BE JEWISH, OKAY?

I'M NOT -- I AIN'T A MODEL JEW BY ANY MEANS, BUT WHY SHOULD WOMEN OF MY FAITH BE GOVERNED BY A PRINCIPLE, YOUR -- WHATEVER YOU PUT IN THERE ABOUT LIFE BEGINNING AT CONCEPTION, THAT THE JEWISH FAITH ACTIVELY DISAGREES WITH?

AND I'LL TALK ABOUT REFORMED AND CONSERVATIVE JEWS, TIFL DISAGREE WITH THE -- ACTIVELY DISAGREES WITH THE DEFINITION OF LIFE.

IN JUDAISM, WHETHER YOU GRO TOTAL MUD, WHETHER YOU GO TO THE -- THE TALMUD, WHETHER YOU GO TO OTHER SACRED TEXTS, LIFE BEGINS AT BIRTH.

THAT'S THE VIEW.

IT'S NOT A CULT, AND BY THE WAY, THERE'S OTHER RELIGIONS, WHETHER THE ISLAMIC FAITH AND BUDDHISM AND OTHERS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS THAN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR EXAMPLE.

WHY SHOULD OUR GOVERNMENT ESTABLISH THAT ONE FAITH'S VIEW OF THIS SHOULD PREVAIL?

>> THE LEGISLATURE IN 1986 MADE A LEGISLATIVE FINDING THAT THE LIFE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.

THAT WAS PART OF THE LAW AND THAT WAS UPHELD BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN 1989.

AND THE LEGISLATURE LOOKED INTO THE SCIENTIFIC AND BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.

THE LIFE AVID HUMAN BEING BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.

NOW, THE VALUE THAT WE PLACE ON THAT -- >> THAT'S NOT BASED ON SCIENCE AT ALL.

>> WELL, OF COURSE, IT IS.

ASK BIOLOGISTS, WHEN DOES AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?

>> WHAT DO YOU SAY TO WOMEN OF MY FAITH WHO DISAGREE WITH THAT LEGISLATIVE PANEL?

GREAT SOME LEGISLATIVE PANEL DECIDES.

WHAT DO YOU SAY TO REAL LIVE WOMEN WHOSE FAITH TELLS THEM THAT THEY ARE BEING GOVERNED BY A PREMISE THAT RESPECTFULLY THEY DISAGREE WITH?

RELIGIOUSLY, SPIRITUALLY, AND WE'RE NOT EVEN GETTING TO PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT -- THE INSPIRITUALITY.

I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT DO YOU SAY.

I GET THAT YOU'VE GOT THIS PROCESS YOU'VE GONE THROUGH.

MY QUESTION IS WHAT DO YOU SAY TODAY TO A WOMAN WHO SAYS YOU'RE TELLING ME I'VE GOT TO BE GOVERNED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S VIEW?

WHAT'S TO KEEP THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FROM DECLARING THAT JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS?

THAT WILL BE PART OF OUR LEGISLATION TOO.

>> OKAY, LET'S -- >> WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY, THE LAW HAS TO APPLY TO EVERYONE EQUALLY AND IN THIS CASE, MISSOURI'S LAW THAT PROVIDES THAT THE FINDING THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION AND THAT UNBORN CHILDREN ARE TO BE PROTECTED IN THE LAW HAS TO APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL MISSOURIANS.

I MEAN, THAT'S THE BEST ANSWER I CAN GIVE.

I KNOW YOU DISAGREE TO IT.

>> THAT'S NO ANSWER TO PEOPLE.

YOU ARE SAYING BASICALLY THAT OUR NONSECTARIAN GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO GIVE PREFERENCE TO ONE FAITH OVER ANOTHER IN DEFINITIONS THAT THEY DON'T AGREE.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT JUST JUDAISM.

THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE OF FAITH AND PEOPLE, ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS WHO HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT AS ANYBODY ELSE THAT DON'T WISH TO BE GOVERNED, AND FOR ONE IS SAYING, BY THE WAY THAT, PEOPLE OF THOSE FAITHS SHOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO THEIR VIEW.

IN OTHER WORDS, CATHOLICS AND BAPTISTS AND OTHERS WHO BELIEVE THAT, BY ALL MEANS, SHOULD BE PROTECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO PRACTICE THEIR FAITH AS THEY SEE FIT.

THAT'S WHY I'M SYMPATHETIC TO PEOPLE WHO SAY I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PERFORM AN ABORTION IF I'M A CATHOLIC.

THAT'S FINE.

I GET THAT.

BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S NO RESPECT FOR OTHER FAITHS.

YOU SAY, WELL, THIS IS SCEIENCE.

IT DIDN'T SCIENCE.

IT IS NOT THAT.

>> YOU AND I JUST DISAGREE ON THAT.

>> LET ME ASK YOU, IS IT POSSIBLE, MALLORY SCHWARZ, THAT YOUR ORGANIZATION, FOR A DOCTOR WHO MIGHT BE BASED IN ST. LOUIS, TO HAVE A TELECONFERENCE WITH A WOMAN IN ST. LOUIS CITY OR ST. LOUIS COUNTY AND DIRECT THEM TO GO TO THE FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS ABORTION CLINIC?

>> SO I THINK IT DEPENDS ON KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

IF YOU'RE SAYING CAN SOMEONE CALL AND GET A RECOMMENDATION THAT THERE IS ABORTION AVAILABLE IN ANOTHER STATE?

ABSOLUTELY.

IF IT'S A QUESTION OF A TELEMEDICINE PRESCRIPTION, NO, MISSOURI LAW ALREADY PREVENTS THAT DESPITE THE FDA SAYING THAT A MEDICATION ABORTION IS SAFE TO ACCESS BY MAIL AND SHOULD BE AVAILABLE LIKE THAT.

SO I THINK THAT, YES, WE ARE TELLING PEOPLE EVERY DAY THAT THEY CAN CALL OUR PARTNERS, OUR CLINICS AT FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS OR HOPE CLINIC IN GRANITE CITY AND GET ACCESS TO ABORTION AND MAKE THEIR APPOINTMENTS THERE.

>> BUT IF A WOMAN HAS AN APPOINTMENT WITH AN ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, A DOCTOR, COUNTY DOCTOR SAY I'VE TAKEN A LOOK AT YOUR SITUATION, HERE ARE YOUR OPTIONS, ONE OF THEM IS IN FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS?

>> THERE'S NOTHING IN THE LAW THAT PROHIBITS THAT PHYSICIAN FROM TELLING HER TO GO ACROSS STATE LINE TO HAVE AN ABORTION.

WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE A CHEMICAL -- AN ABORTION PILL, THE PHYSICIAN HAS TO DO IT IN PERSON AND AT LEAST THE FIRST DOSE HAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE WOMAN.

OF COURSE, WE KNOW THERE'S -- IT'S A TWO-DOSE REGULAR REGIMEN AND SHE CAN TAKE THAT SECOND DOSE AT HOME.

IN MISSOURI, THAT WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF A MEDICAL EMERGENCY.

IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THE PHYSICIAN CANNOT DO THAT IN MISSOURI, BUT HE OR SHE IS FREE TO REFER HER TO ILLINOIS, KANSAS, OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

>> WOULDN'T THAT BE ASSISTING HER, JUST LIKE THE CHILDCARE WORKER LIKE ASSISTING THE WOMAN IF SHE HELPS THE WOMAN OUT WITH THE PARENTS WHILE THE WOMAN HEADS OVER TO FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS?

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

ONE IS REFERRING SOMEONE TO ILLINOIS FOR AN ABORTION.

THE OTHER IS USING PUBLIC FUNDS TO ASSIST AN ABORTION WHICH IS PROHIBITED UNDER LAW.

>> IS THAT CLEAR TO YOU?

>> THAT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME AT ALL THAT OFFERING SOMEONE CHILDCARE IS MORE OF AN ASSIST THAN PROVIDING A PHONE REFERRAL WHICH IS LEGAL.

THEY'RE BOTH PERFECTLY LEGAL AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS ENSURE THAT POVERTY IS NOT A BARRIER TO ACCESSING BASIC HEALTHCARE.

I KNOW GOING BACK, BUT I'D LOVE TO ADDRESS THE IDEA THAT A LAW WRITTEN IN 1887 OR WHATEVER THE YEAR WAS THAT YOU SAID IS BASED IN SCIENCE AS IF WE HAVEN'T HAD PROGRESSION IN SCIENCE AND MEDICINE SINCE THEN.

AND EVEN FROM 1973 WHEN ROE -- WHEN THE ROE DECISION FIRST CAME DOWN.

THE WORDS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT ARE IN OUR STATE STATUTE, CONCEPTION, UNBORN CHILD, THESE ARE NOT MEDICAL TERMS.

THEY ARE NOT BASED IN SCIENCE.

THEY ARE BASED IN IDEOLOGY.

THEY ARE RELIGIOUS-BASED AND IDEOLOGICAL, AND IT IS EXACTLY WHAT RAY SAID.

IN PUTTING YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS ON OTHER PEOPLE, AND EVEN BEYOND THAT, CATHOLIC WOMEN, CATHOLIC PEOPLE WITH THE CAPACITY FOR PREGNANCY USE AND ACCESS ABORTIONS AS MUCH AS ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUP, AND 99% OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CATHOLIC AND MIGHT FACE AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY HAVE USED BIRTH CONTROL IN THEIR LIFETIME.

THESE ARE SERVICES THAT APPLY AND ARE NEEDED BY EVERYBODY ACROSS RELIGIONS, SO THERE IS NOT UNIFORMITY IN THIS BELIEF.

>> AND I HAVE TO GET BACK TO THIS.

SO WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT YOU HAVE DISAGREEMENT WITH WOMEN OF MY FAITH, THEIR RIGHT TO PRACTICE THEIR FAITH IN THIS CASE, BASICALLY.

I GUESS -- FIRST OF ALL, DOES THIS -- SHOULD THIS NOT, IF YOU'RE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST, I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY -- YOU SAY, WELL, WE'D NEVER PROSECUTE WOMEN.

A WOMAN IS THE PERSON, IF YOU ASSUME THAT THE TAKING OF A ZYGOTE'S LIFE, A FETUS'S LIFE IS A MURDER, YOU HAVE A WOMAN WHO COMES UP WITH THE IDEA FOR THIS CRIME, AGAIN, YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE, WHO PLANS IT, WHO HIRES THE HITMAN AND YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT SHE IS SOMEHOW TO BE VIEWED AS A VICTIM?

YOU KNOW, WHICH IS THE ULTIMATE PATRONIZING VIEW OF WOMEN IF THERE EVER WAS ONE.

HOW IS IT THAT YOU CAN SIT THERE AND SAY THIS IS A MURDER, BUT THAT THE PERSON WHO ARRANGES FOR IT, PLANS IT, AND PACE FOR IT, WE WOULD NEVER PROSECUTE HER.

THAT SEEMS AWFULLY EXPEDIENT AS OPPOSED TO PRINCIPLED.

>> BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW IT WILL LOOK.

THEY KNOW IT LOOK BAD.

>> IT IS TRADITION IN MISSOURI -- LET ME FINISH.

SINCE 1825, UP UNTIL TODAY, CERTAINLY 1973 WITH THE ROE V. WADE DECISION, THAT THE ONLY PERSON WHO WAS PROSECUTED WAS THE PERSON WHO PERFORMED OR INDUCED AN ABORTION ON ANOTHER.

WHEN THE LEGISLATURE PASSED THIS BILL IN 2019, THEY CONTINUED THAT TRADITION, THAT WOMEN ARE NOT PROSECUTED.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I THINK THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT EVERY STATE IN THE UNION, THAT'S BEEN THE POLICY.

IT WAS THE POLICY BEFORE ROE V. WADE AND IT'S THE POLICY TODAY.

>> IS THERE NOT A RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE SOME LOGIC TO IT?

IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT'S A MURDER, HOW DO YOU -- AGAIN, I DON'T WANT YOU TO PROSECUTE WOMEN, BUT THE POINT IS, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ILLOGIC OF SAYING THIS IS A MURDER.

WHICH I DON'T THINK IT IS, BY THE WAY.

AT EIGHT WEEKS, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A MURDER, BUT THE POINT IS YOU DO AND YOU'RE SAYING WE'VE NEVER DONE THIS.

IT SEEMS VERY EXPEDIENT AS OPPOSED TO PRINCIPLED.

I DON'T KNOW.

I'M SORRY.

>> AMONG OTHER THINGS, I WAS WONDERING, IS IT ACTUALLY THE LAW THAT A VICTIM OF INCEST OR RAPE CANNOT HAVE AN ABORTION IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI?

>> IT IS THE LAW.

I THINK WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO KNOW ABOUT THAT IS WHEN HB-126 PASSED IN 2019 WITHOUT THE RAPE AND INCEST EXCEPTIONS, THERE WAS OUTRAGE EVEN FROM FOLKS ON MR. LEE'S SIDE OF THE AISLE.

AND IT SHOWS HOW UNPOPULAR THAT IS, BUT I THINK WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT ABOUT THAT IS RAPE AND INCEST EXCEPTIONS AS THEY ARE EXEMPTIONS DON'T REALLY PROTECT ANYONE.

THEY EXIST WITHIN MEDICAID IN THE STATES AND THERE'S ONE INSTANCE IN THE PAST THREE YEARS OR SO, BECAUSE THEY CREATE SUCH INSURMOUNTABLE HOOPS FOR A SURVIVOR TO HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH, THAT THERE IS NOT REALLY ANY WAY FOR THEM TO ACCESS AN ABORTION IN A TIMELY WAY THAT THEY NEED ANYWAYS.

SO IT'S NOT PRACTICAL IN REALITY, BUT WHAT WE SAW WHEN THAT LEGISLATION PASSED AND WHEN THAT FIRST WAS PUT FORTH WITHOUT THOSE EXCEPTIONS WAS WILLINGNESS TO SAY THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD.

A WILLINGNESS TO SAY WE DON'T ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT THE LIVES OF SURVIVORS AND OF PREGNANT PEOPLE.

WE ACTUALLY JUST CARE ABOUT MAINTAINING OUR POWER AND CONTROL OVER OTHER PEOPLE'S DECISION MAKING AND BODIES.

>> YOU KNOW, WHEN THAT BILL PASSED IN THE HOUSE IN 2019, NO ONE OFFERED AN AMENDMENT.

NOT A REPUBLICAN, NOT A DEMOCRAT OFFERED AN AMENDMENT IN COMMITTEE OR ON THE HOUSE FLOOR TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS, WHETHER RAPE OR INCEST OR ANYTHING ELSE.

SAME THING IN THE SENATE.

NOBODY OFFERED IT.

SO IT DIDN'T GET ON.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF IT HAD BEEN OFFERED AND IF THERE HAD BEEN AN UP OR DOWN VOTE ON IT.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT TODAY, BUT THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO DO IT.

>> AGAIN, WHAT DO YOU THINK -- AND I WANT TO ASK -- >> NO, I WANT TO ASK SOMETHING.

YOU'RE A 13 OR 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL AND YOU'RE A VICTIM OF RAPE AND YOU'RE PREGNANT, YOU BELIEVE THE GIRL SHOULD TAKE THE PREGNANCY TO TERM?

>> THAT'S A HORRIBLE SITUATION, ANY RAPE OR SEXUAL ASSAULT IS HORRIBLE, BUT THAT UNBORN CHILD IS AN INNOCENT STRIM IN ALL OF THIS.

THAT CHILD WAS CONCEIVED AND IF YOU HOLE TO THE PRO LIFE POSITION THAT A HUMAN LIFE BEGINS FROM CONCEPTION ONWARD AND THAT LIFE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME VALUE AS ANY OTHER LIFE THAT IS BORN, WE CAN'T HOLD ANY OTHER MORAL POSITION THAN THAT LIFE SHOULD BE PROTECTED AS WELL.

REGARDLESS OF HIS OR HER CIRCUMSTANCES OF BEING CONCEIVED.

NOW, HOW THAT PLAYS OUT IN THE LAW, THAT CAN BE A DIFFERENT QUESTION.

THERE ARE SOME STATES THAT -- A HANDFUL OF STATES THAT HAVE RESTRICTED ABORTION, THAT DO HAVE RAPE AND INCEST EXCEPTIONS.

WE DON'T IN MISSOURI, AND AGAIN -- >> AND IT'S ONLY BECAUSE NO ONE OFFERED AN AMENDMENT.

>> NOBODY DID, AND AGAIN, FOLKS ARE COMPLAINING, BUT THERE ARE DEMOCRATS WHO OFFERED AMENDMENTS TO THAT BILL, BUT THAT WASN'T ONE OF THEM.

>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT?

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE WITH PRO CHOICE MISSOURI AT THE TIME, MS. SCHWARZ, BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY NOBODY OFFERED AN AMENDMENT TO THAT?

>> I ACTUALLY STARTED IN THIS ROLE IN JUNE OF 2019, SO I WAS NOT THERE FOR THOSE DEBATES, BUT I THINK IT GOES TO WHAT I WAS SAYING, THAT THOSE AMENDMENTS -- AN AMENDMENT OF THAT SORT, THOSE EXEMPTIONS ARE MEANINGLESS IN REALITY.

WE ARE ALREADY SEEING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE CURRENT EXEMPTION IS GOING TO PROVE POTENTIALLY MEANINGLESS, THAT YOU ARE ASKING PHYSICIANS AND TO WAIT TILL THE PREGNANT PERSON IS ON THEIR DEATHBED BEFORE QUALIFYING THAT AS A MEDICAL EMERGENCY.

THESE EXEMPTIONS ARE MEANINGLESS AND THEY'RE A WAY FOR FOLKS LIKE MR. LEE AND THE OTHER SIDE TO SAVE FACE SO THAT IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THEY'RE DOING WHAT THEY ARE CLEARLY DOING, WHICH IS JUST TRYING TO CONTROL PREGNANT PEOPLE AND LIMIT THEIR DECISION-MAKING AND ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE.

>> THE MEDICAL EMERGENCY EXCEPTION HAS BEEN IN THE LAW FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW AND NO ONE HAS HAD A PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT MEANS.

IT APPLIES TO CIRCUMSTANCES, LET'S SAY A PARENTAL CONSENT LAW.

OUR LAW RIGHT NOW IS THAT A MINOR HAS TO GET THE CONSENT OF ONE PARENT.

IF THERE'S A MEDICAL EMERGENCY, THEN THAT LAW DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED.

SAME THING WITH THE 72-HOUR WAITING PERIOD AND THE INFORMED CONSENT LAW.

>> BUT WE'RE ALREADY SEEING A CHILLING EFFECT ON PHYSICIANS.

THAT'S -- I'M GLAD YOU'RE LIVING UP HERE, BUT THE IMPACT ON THE REAL WORLD IS PEOPLE ARE BEING HARMED.

PHYSICIANS ARE CONCERNED, AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE PHYSICALLY HARMED.

>> I HAVE TO SAY, AS A FATHER OF A 16-YEAR-OLD, IF YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THE GOVERNMENT -- THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO ENFORCE CHILDBIRTH ON MY LITTLE GIRL UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, MY ANSWER IS STILL I'VE GOT A SECOND AMENDMENT SOLUTION FOR YOU.

TROY TO -- TRY TO COME INTO MY HOUSE.

SERIOUSLY, YOU'RE BASICALLY ARGUING THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ENFORCE THE CHRISTIAN FAITH VIEW ON ALL WOMEN WHO, WHETHER THEY SUBSCRIBE OR NOT, IN THE NAME -- TO USE YOUR PHRASE, MORALITY, AND I CAN'T THINK AS A FATHER OF A LESS MORAL POSITION THAN TO TELL ME, AN AMERICAN, AND MY DAUGHTER THAT YOU'RE GOING TO -- GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO ENFORCE CHILDBIRTH ON -- AND IF ANYBODY -- >> LESS THAN 450 SECONDS TO GO.

>> I'M SORRY.

>> THE GOOD THING IS THERE ARE OVER 75 PREGNANCY RESOURCE CENTERS AND CLOSE TO 20 MATERNITY HOMES WHO ARE WILLING TO TAKE ANY TOWER CAM AT ANYTIME -- >> I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO ADDRESS THAT IN 45 SECONDS.

PREGNANCY RESOURCE CENTERS, THEY ARE ANTI-ABORTION FAKE CLINICS.

>> AT NO COST WHATSOEVER.

>> TO TRY TO COERCE AND MANIPULATE PEOPLE.

THEY DO NOT HELP HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS.

>> THEY MAKE RESOURCES AVAILABLE -- >> I'M AFRAID WE'RE OUT OF TIME.

THANKS, EVERYBODY, FOR JOINING US.

WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK AT THIS TIME.

HAVE A GREAT INDEPENDENCE DAY.

* * >> Announcer: DONNYBROOK IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORT OF THE BETSY AND THOMAS PATTERSON FOUNDATION AND THE MEMBERS OF NINE PBS.