Missouri bill would let drug offenders apply for SNAP benefits. It could lower prison recidivism 8%

By Maggie LeBeau0%

4/4/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Optimism Bias, and Framing Effect, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 14.4% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 800 faulty-reasoning hits from 562 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.8% and a BS Rank of 8% (19,702 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 92.90% of the article peer group.

Currently under federal law, convicted drug offenders are banned from receiving SNAP benefits. 
A proposed Missouri House bill would opt out of the federal ban. 
Drug offenders in Missouri could soon be able to fully receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. 
Currently under federal law, convicted drug offenders are banned from receiving SNAP benefits. 
States can opt out of or modify the ban, and more than 30 states have already opted out. 
Missouri modified the ban in 2014, letting some drug offenders become eligible for the benefits if they meet strict stipulations. 
But Empower Missouri Food Security Policy Manager Christine Woody said the stipulations are difficult to meet and navigate. 
"Having all of those things combined still makes most people that have any sort of drug related felony ineligible for SNAP," Woody said. 
House Bill 2751 would completely remove the ban, allowing all Missourians convicted of a federal or state drug offense to apply for SNAP benefits after incarceration. 
The SNAP ban does not apply to convicted felons of any other crime. 
In 2023, 33.8% of sentenced Missourians committed a drug related crime. 
Bill sponsor Rep. 
Chad Perkins, R-Bowling Green, believes the ban's inconsistency among different types of crimes is unfair. 
"It seems a little ridiculous to me that if you're convicted of a sexual offense toward a child or murder, once you get out of prison, you're eligible for your SNAP benefits," Perkins said. 
"If you've committed a nonviolent drug offense, you're never eligible again." 
Incarcerated people are twice as likely to experience food insecurity than the general population. 
Advocacy groups argue the SNAP ban promotes food insecurity among drug offenders. 
"When someone's returning home from incarceration, they're facing a lot of barriers from finding work and securing housing and reconnecting to families and accessing healthcare," Woody said. 
"During that fragile transition period, food security is super difficult." 
The additional SNAP costs would be funded both by Missouri and the federal government. 
In 2025, there were 1,297 Missouri convicted drug offenders  who were members of a household receiving SNAP benefits  who were unable to apply for SNAP themselves. 
There were also 138 Missouri SNAP applicants in 2025 who were unable to receive the benefits because they had committed drug-related felonies. 
The Family Support Division expects a $3.3 million annual cost to fund the additional SNAP benefits. 
If passed this year, the federal government would fully fund the cost of the benefits in 2027 and fund 85% of the costs every year after. 
Missouri would fund the other 15%, up to $508,851 annually. 
Perkins said the legislation could reduce the amount of returning offenders to prison, which would reduce Missouri spending in the long run, as incarceration costs would decrease. 
"If you're creating an environment where folks can be successful, then they're not re-entering the prison system, ultimately saving money," Perkins said. 
A 2017 study found that formerly incarcerated drug offenders were less likely to return to prison if they had full access to SNAP benefits. 
"Someone who is returning to society after being incarcerated, if they have a lot of social supports, the recidivism rate drastically decreases," Woody said. 
More than 30 other states have opted out of the ban. 
Similar legislation passed in the House last year. 
Copyright 2026 KBIA 91.3 FM 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.3%Maggie LeBeau: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Maggie LeBeau: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic8.7%This article: 2.3%Maggie LeBeau: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic2.3%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Maggie LeBeau: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias4.3%This article: 11.6%Maggie LeBeau: 3.6%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect11.6%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.9%Maggie LeBeau: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.5%Maggie LeBeau: 7.8%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias12.5%This article: 1.8%Maggie LeBeau: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias1.8%This article: 6.0%Maggie LeBeau: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias6.0%This article: 2.7%Maggie LeBeau: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Maggie LeBeau: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias2.3%This article: 2.3%Maggie LeBeau: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.8%Maggie LeBeau: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority2.8%This article: 2.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma2.0%This article: 4.8%Maggie LeBeau: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope4.8%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.4%Maggie LeBeau: 4.4%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization8.4%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.2%Maggie LeBeau: 2.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon5.2%This article: 13.5%Maggie LeBeau: 6.1%Columbia Missourian: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion13.5%This article: 3.9%Maggie LeBeau: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question3.9%This article: 14.4%Maggie LeBeau: 3.7%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.4%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.8%Maggie LeBeau: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal1.8%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.0%Maggie LeBeau: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.0%Maggie LeBeau: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote6.0%This article: 6.0%Maggie LeBeau: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection6.0%This article: 1.8%Maggie LeBeau: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice1.8%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maggie LeBeau: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

562 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers41%attributed speech330writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageChristine Woody • 18 words • 0.0% coverageChristine Woody • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageChad Perkins • 15 words • 0.0% coverageChad Perkins • 34 words • 100.0% coverageChad Perkins • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageChristine Woody • 27 words • 0.0% coverageChristine Woody • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageFamily Support Division • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageChad Perkins • 27 words • 0.0% coverageChad Perkins • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageChristine Woody • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKBIA 91.3 FM • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chad Perkins

100%flagged-word coverage
109 attributed words47% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Quote-first Misdirection+31.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Chad Perkins: 31.2%31.2%Unattributed Quote+10.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Chad Perkins: 10.1%10.1%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.