Opinion -- State Mental Health Waitlist Going from Bad to Worse

By the Missouri ACLU, MacArthur Justice Center, and ArchCity Defenders

Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking intervention from the court to compel the Missouri Department of Mental Health to remedy the ongoing harm from failing its legal duties to provide treatment to people living with serious mental illness and disabilities during pretrial detention after having been deemed incompetent to stand trial or awaiting an evaluation of their competency. The motion was filed in an existing case, Darrington, et al. v. DMH, et al., which was brought in Western District’s Central Division by the ACLU of Missouri, ArchCity Defenders, and the MacArthur Justice Center in November 2025.

DMH and the state have failed to respond reasonably and adequately in the face of the worsening waitlist problem. Despite the department’s admission before the Missouri House Committee on Health on February 5, 2024, that the waitlist for competency evaluation and restoration would grow beyond the 297 individuals at that time, Director Valerie Huhn declined to ask for adequate fiscal appropriations to mitigate the growing crisis. As the situation deteriorated further and the waitlist ballooned to over 500 individuals, Governor Mike Kehoe proposed a meager increase in the 2027 fiscal budget for only 50 additional individuals to be treated in community-based programs.

The ACLU of Missouri, ArchCity Defenders, and MacArthur Justice Center issued the following statement: 

“These extended wait times are a direct result of DMH’s failure to follow the law. Worse, the situation is rapidly deteriorating. In just three years, the average wait time has doubled from an already unacceptable and illegal duration. In some instances, people are unconstitutionally held in a detention center while waiting to receive treatment for a longer period of time than the maximum sentence available for the crimes alleged. The court must intervene and order DMH to remedy this crisis.”

While average wait times for evaluation and restoration treatment have surged, so have the waitlists for these services. In 2013, the waitlist to enter a facility for restorative treatment was ten names long. In July 2023, the number had risen to 252, a twenty-five-fold increase. By September 2025, the average number was 492, nearly doubling in a two-year span. In January 2026, the waitlist reached an all-time high: 528 people had been found incompetent to stand trial and were on a waitlist for restoration services, while another 200 individuals were waiting to be evaluated in the first instance.

Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to file a detailed proposal for complying with the terms of the injunctive order within 21 days of the order indicating their plan to:

—Ensure that DMH completes all currently pending court-ordered capacity evaluations for all Plaintiffs still on the waitlist within 60 days of the order;

—Ensure that all future court-ordered capacity evaluations are completed within 60 days of a judicial order directing such evaluations;

—Ensure that the defendants provide mental health services and competency restoration treatment to all relevant individuals within a constitutionally appropriate time, not to exceed 30 days, following a commitment order, said treatment to be provided either in a DMH facility or another suitable and the most integrated setting possible (e.g., in a hospital or community-based treatment center) and, in any event, not in a jail setting.

This requested relief is necessary and narrowly tailored to remedy the ongoing violation of Plaintiffs’ rights while more comprehensive and sustained solutions are developed in this litigation.

In support of their motion, the plaintiffs provided preliminary reports by two experts. Dr. Terry Kupers, a board-certified psychiatrist, Institute Professor Emeritus at the Wright Institute, Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, and an expert on correctional mental health issues, discussed in his declaration the harmful effects of long waits in jail on individuals like the six named plaintiffs. A second expert declaration was provided by three nationally-renowned forensic psychologists, and provided a critical analysis of the current state of Missouri’s competence evaluation and restoration system. That declaration also details certain best practices for managing competency evaluation and restoration systems–information which might shine a light on a path forward for the state.

 

Opinion -- Court Rules Language for Anti-Abortion Measure Insufficient

 By the Missouri ACLU

A panel of judges at the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District found ballot language from both the Legislature and Secretary of State insufficient for failing to inform voters that the anti-abortion Amendment 3 would repeal and replace the Right to Reproductive Freedom that Missourians approved in 2024.

“With bills filed already threatening prosecution against providers and patients, it is crucial that Missourians know they are being asked to end the protections for reproductive health care that we just passed in the last general election,” said Tori Schafer, Director of Policy and Campaigns at the ACLU of Missouri. “This amendment 3 not only imposes strict bans on health care for Missourians but allows the anti-abortion politicians to impose similar restrictions on abortion that prevented access to care.”

The court recognized the potential impacts of Amendment 3, passed as HJR 73, stating, “HJR 73 eliminates the fundamental right as established by [the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative], and, in its place, places more limitations on the circumstances under which an abortion may be performed and allows the General Assembly to enact laws broadly regulating abortions, abortion facilities, and abortion providers.”

The court rewrote both the summary statement that voters will see on the ballot and the fair ballot language which informs voters of what a yes and no vote will mean.

The court certified the following summary statement:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

Repeal the 2024 voter-approved Amendment providing reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion through fetal viability;

Allow abortions for rape and incest (under twelve-weeks’ gestation), emergencies, and fetal anomalies;

Allow legislation regulating abortion;

Ensure parental consent for minors’ abortions;

Prohibit gender transition procedures for minors?

The court certified the following fair ballot language:

A “yes” vote will repeal Article I, Section 36, of the Missouri Constitution approved by the voters in 2024 which provided reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion through fetal viability; continue to ensure women’s ability to access medical care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages; allow legislation to regulate abortion providers and facilities to ensure health and safety; require informed and voluntary consent for an abortion, including parental or judicial consent for minors; allow restriction of abortions to cases of medical emergency, rape and incest under twelve weeks gestation, and fetal anomalies; prohibit public funding of abortions except in limited circumstances; and prohibit gender transition procedures for minors including gender transition surgeries, cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs, with exceptions for specific medical conditions.

A “no” vote will leave Article I, Section 36, of the Missouri Constitution approved by voters in 2024 in place; will not limit abortion to cases of medical emergency, rape and incest under twelve weeks gestation, and fetal anomalies, but leave access to abortion available through fetal viability; will not prohibit gender transition procedures for minors.

If passed, this measure will not increase or decrease taxes. 

The ACLU of Missouri and Stinson LLP filed the lawsuit against the Secretary of State in July of 2025.

 

Opinion -- ACLU Sues Alleging Misleading Ballot Language on Abortion Ban Measure

By the ACLU of Missouri

The ACLU of Missouri and Stinson LLP filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Denny Hoskins for certifying an intentionally misleading and inaccurate summary statement and fair ballot language for a measure that would overturn the recent voter-passed constitutional protections for reproductive freedom.

The ballot measure was placed on the ballot by the legislature in the form of House Joint Resolution 73 but will appear on the ballot as Amendment 3. Amendment 3 fails to inform voters that, if passed, will eliminate the fundamental right to reproductive freedom; abolish explicit constitutional protections for prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, and respectful birthing conditions; and would overturn protections against prosecution for physicians related to pregnancy outcomes.

“Less than six months after we voted to end Missouri’s abortion ban and protect reproductive freedom, politicians chose to ignore the will of the people so they can reinstate their ban on abortion,” said Tori Schafer, Director of Policy and Campaigns at the ACLU of Missouri. “Amendment 3, passed as HJR 73, is a copy and paste bill from special interest groups that will abolish our constitutional right to reproductive freedom, including access to abortion care.”

In addition to the misleading and inaccurate summary statement, Amendment 3 violates the state’s single subject clause for ballot measures that will amend the Constitution. Specifically, Amendment 3 erroneously categorizes several topics to fall under the definition of “reproductive health care,” including banning health care for transgender adolescents, arbitrarily forcing all legal actions “relating to reproductive health care” to be heard in Cole County Circuit Court, and creating a notification system for the Attorney General on all private and non-state involved lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of state statutes.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare Amendment 3’s summary statement and fair ballot language unfair and insufficient and to certify a new, compliant summary statement for voters, or to declare Amendment 3 in violation of the state Constitution and deny it from being placed on any ballot.

Opinion -- Judge Blocks Most Abortion Restrictions in Missouri

     By Planned Parenthood and the ACLU

A Jackson County circuit court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Missouri’s abortion bans and several targeted regulations of abortion providers. The new preliminary injunction clears the way for Missouri’s Planned Parenthood members to again provide procedural abortion care. 

In May, the Missouri Supreme Court clarified the state’s legal standard for issuing a preliminary injunction, forcing the circuit court to temporarily vacate its original orders, and effectively implement a de facto abortion ban. 

“While the clarification on the standard is welcome, its immediate consequence temporarily pulled back implementation of Missourians’ constitutional right to access abortion care and providers’ right to offer that care,” said Gillian Wilcox, Director of Litigation at the ACLU of Missouri. “This critical win begins to restore abortion access in our state, but Missourians must be vigilant and defeat the attacks on the constitutional rights that we secured at the ballot box last November.”

“Abortion is legal again in Missouri because voters demanded it and we fought for it,” said Emily Wales, president and CEO, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains. “Care starts again on Monday in Kansas City. We’re not stopping until every Missourian can get the care they need, close to home.”

“We are grateful that procedural abortion can resume in the state of Missouri, just as voters demanded last November. However, the whiplash has created immense confusion for patients in Missouri,” said Margot Riphagen, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers. “This decision is a step forward toward fully realizing Missourians' right to reproductive freedom, and the staff at our Central West End health center in St. Louis will work as quickly as possible to resume scheduling abortion appointments."

The order did not address the pending request to enjoin other targeted restrictions that are preventing medication abortion access from being restored in Missouri. Previously, both Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri submitted complication plans to satisfy the existing requirements to allow them to offer medication abortions. The Department of Health and Senior Services failed to respond to either affiliates’ submissions or follow-up inquiries for several weeks. Instead, the department manufactured an “emergency rule” that resembled many of the court-blocked regulations and cited it as the reason for refusing the submitted plans. 

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri, who are represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, the American Civil Liberties Union, Crowell & Moring, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The full case is currently slated for trial in January 2026.

 

Keeping drones out of Missouri's skies gains support

By Andrew Weil
(MDN News) -- Citizens and state government agencies would not be allowed to use unmanned drones to pry into the lives of Missourians, under a measure heard by a House Agri-business Committee Tuesday, Feb. 5.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Casey Guernsey, R-Bethany, would only permit the use of drones for surveillance with a warrant.

Several farming organizations in the state as well as the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union voiced their support for the measure. Guernsey said he plans to change some provisions of this legislation to ensure it doesn't outlaw business use of drones, particularly for farming.

But the ban could have a impact on a Columbia NPR affiliate, KBIA/91.3 FM. The station is operated at the University of Missouri's flagship campus and recently received a grant to operate its own drone.

In response, Guernsey said after the hearing that he doesn't want to create problems for education and has no problem with the students learning about drone technology; however, he is concerned about them using it for news-gathering.

"If we're moving into an age of news agencies using drones to collect information on private citizens, I'm definitely concerned about that," Guernsey said.

KBIA's content director, Scott Pham, was at the hearing but didn't testify one way or another. After the hearing, however, Pham told Guernsey the drone is different than a military drone in that it can stay in the air no more than 14 minutes. He also said the station doesn't use the drone over any land without permission from the owner.

"I'm in public radio, you know, we're not chasing down ambulances, we're not looking for criminals or scandals or something, we're telling these big deep stories that seek to explain," Pham said.

The Associated Press reported that a total of nine states have currently proposed limiting the use of drones by police.

St. Louis police force hopes to eliminate state oversight on the November ballot

(Missouri Digital News) -- Missouri voters will decide if St. Louis City will gain control of its police force on the November ballot.  St. Louis and Kansas City are the only two cities in the country that have police forces governed by a state board.

For the past few decades, St. Louis has tried to regain control of its police department, but the legislature has been unable to pass the measure.

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay is a longtime advocate of local control.

"We're looking for accountability, we're looking for efficiency, we're looking to save money and we're also looking to make a better department that is going to help reduce crime in our city as well," Slay said.

Currently, the St. Louis police department is controlled by a five-member board, with four appointments made by the governor and the mayor as the fifth member.

Supporters said passage of this proposition will hold police officers more accountable and will help eliminate the high levels of crime in the city.

The American Civil Liberties Union says passage would limit citizen input and deny them a civilian review board.

Slay said the ACLU has already taken this issue to court and the case was dismissed. 

Opinion -- Sins of the Father: Abortion, Birth Control, and the ACLU

By Dr. Paul Kengor

Editor’s note: This article first appeared in the National Catholic Register.

As someone with the highly unusual task of researching old, declassified Soviet and Communist Party USA archives, I often get quizzical looks as to why certain things from the distant past still matter.

Well, it’s indeed true that past is often prologue. And it’s striking to see how something in communist archives from, say, the 1920s, pertains to America right now.

That certainly seems the case with what I’ve found on the American Civil Liberties Union, whether challenging Christmas carols in public schools seven decades ago, or, currently, trying to compel Catholic hospitals to do abortions, or denouncing the Catholic bishops for opposing birth-control funding in “healthcare” legislation.

How ironic that I would find seeds of these things in communist archives, or, even more directly, in the pro-communist or pro-Soviet writings of the ACLU’s founders.

The ACLU’s early atheism is no surprise; its founders’ sympathies toward Bolshevism and the Soviet state are not disconnected from that atheism. Yet, most interesting, and unexpected, is how the ACLU’s founders’ views on the Leninist-Stalinist state’s advancement of abortion and birth control are connected—symbolically, at the least—to the organization’s advancement of abortion and birth control today.

Consider the founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin:

To get a sense of where Baldwin stood on all this, the best source is his 1928 book, Liberty Under the Soviets. The title was no joke. This champion of American “liberties,” like many ACLU founders, was fascinated with the Leninist-Stalinist state, having travelled there with other progressives in the hope that they had found the new world.

As to Baldwin and abortion and birth control, it isn’t easy to pin him down at the time of the Soviet legalization in the early 1920s. That said, Baldwin’s book comes close. Baldwin had to tread lightly on abortion in particular, as did birth-control feminists like racial-eugenicist Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder. Baldwin understood that only the most vulgar Americans considered legalizing abortion.

So, what did Baldwin say about these things in Liberty Under the Soviets? He hailed the “significant” “new freedom of women” in Soviet Russia. On page 118, he came nearer to endorsing Soviet abortion and birth-control policy:

Birth control is legal throughout Russia, but not encouraged as an official policy. Abortions are legal also, but may be performed legally only in hospitals or by qualified physicians upon permits issued by local commissions to whom women apply. This, however, does not prevent illegal abortions by practitioners to whom women may go when refused permission by the commission. Birth control not being generally understood and abortions being controlled, women are not yet freed from unwilling child-bearing, though the regime is extending its efforts to aid them.

Such are the freedoms of women under the Soviets today, on paper and in practice. On paper they are an advance over the status of women elsewhere in the world, pushing to their logical ends what are only tendencies in other lands. In practice they are a great advance over the very limited position of women before the Revolution.

Here, Baldwin seemed to support the Soviet legalization of abortion and birth control, and generally freeing women from the shackles of “unwilling child-bearing.” This he viewed as an advance, if not “great advance.”

Where did Soviet Russia go from here? The rest of the story is hellacious.

Within a decade, there were millions of abortions. It got so bad that Joseph Stalin, mass-murdering tyrant, was horrified, and actually temporarily banned abortion, given that entire future generations were being wiped out in the womb. Re-legalization took place under Nikita Khrushchev in the mid-1950s. By the 1970s, there was a staggering seven to eight million abortions per year in the USSR. The very worst year for abortion in America, post-Roe, pales to the average year in the Soviet Union. To the extent that Roger Baldwin supported that legalization, here was the bitter fruit.

To that end, the ACLU is a group with some rotten roots, and I believe today, a century later, we are reaping the dark harvest in America. When the ACLU today challenges the liberty of Catholic hospitals to refuse to do abortions—obscene as that challenge is—or blasts bishops for opposing taxpayer-funded contraception, it isn’t a surprise to those of us familiar with the sins of the father.

— Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism" and the newly released "Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century."