Missouri House passes bill requiring sex-based restrooms and dorms, but enforcement is unclear 88%

By Annelise Hanshaw0%

4/23/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Unattributed Quote, and Appeal to Emotion, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 28.1% saturation with 146 hits. Analysis detected 786 faulty-reasoning hits from 520 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.6% and a BS Rank of 88% (2,649 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.50% of the article peer group.

The Missouri House passed a bill Monday that would force entities receiving state funding to restrict usage of restrooms, changing areas and sleeping accommodations based on biological sex and codify definitions for "female," "male" and "sex" throughout state statute. 
State Rep. 
Becky Laubinger, a Republican from Park Hills, pitched the legislation as a "vital protection for women." 
Lax policies and all-gender restrooms, like facilities in the Kansas City International Airport, invite predators, she argued. 
"This is about our government facilities forcing people to share those spaces by creating all gender spaces where you don't have the option in those spaces to go to a single sex space," Laubinger said. 
But during a House debate over the bill's language last week, Democrats raised numerous issues with the legislation, saying it would be used to target transgender people. 
"If you can just call the police and accuse someone of using the wrong bathroom, think about the implications of that," said state Rep. 
Wick Thomas, a Kansas City Democrat and the House's first transgender member. 
The bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, other than allowing people to sue state-funded entities that do not "take reasonable steps" to designate single-sex spaces. 
The bill's fiscal note reflects concerns about costly litigation, though state departments could not estimate how much they will be impacted. 
The University of Central Missouri projected "an indeterminate fiscal impact," pointing to the "costs associated with enforcement of the regulations." 
The bill would require public universities to restrict dorm rooms, bathrooms and locker rooms based on biological sex. 
It states that, "no individual shall enter a restroom, changing room or sleeping quarters that is designated for females or males unless he or she is a member of that sex." 
State Rep. 
Keri Ingle, a Democrat from Lee's Summit, asked if this would bar college students from having students of the opposite sex in their dorm rooms overnight. 
Laubinger said she had heard complaints from college students who felt uncomfortable when their roommate allowed a significant other to sleep over. 
"I understand someone not wanting a boy over," Ingle said. 
"I don't know why we would legislate that. 
I don't know why we would put that in the statute." 
State Rep. 
Mark Boyko, a Democrat from Kirkwood, said the bill would bar men from visiting women's dorm rooms at any time. 
He wouldn't be allowed to help his daughter set up her dorm room as a man, he said. 
"I understand the intention you're having," he told Laubinger. 
"But the words don't match your intention of this bill." 
House Republicans offered broad support, calling the bill a basic safety measure. 
State Rep. 
Carolyn Caton, a Blue Springs Republican, said she thinks the legislation would be a "good protection. 
"If nothing else, I think it just eases some young ladies' minds," she said. 
The bill passed along party lines Monday, apart from a lone Republican "nay" from state Rep. 
Tara Peters of Rolla, who also voted against the bill at the committee level. 
This story was originally published by the Missouri Independent. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.2%Annelise Hanshaw: 2.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Annelise Hanshaw: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic3.3%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.3%Annelise Hanshaw: 8.8%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect22.3%This article: 3.5%Annelise Hanshaw: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion3.5%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Annelise Hanshaw: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 7.9%Annelise Hanshaw: 2.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias7.9%This article: 8.5%Annelise Hanshaw: 5.8%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 1.9%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias1.9%This article: 1.9%Annelise Hanshaw: 2.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 2.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 3.8%Annelise Hanshaw: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma3.8%This article: 4.6%Annelise Hanshaw: 3.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope4.6%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.5%Annelise Hanshaw: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization3.5%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.4%Annelise Hanshaw: 12.6%Columbia Missourian: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion9.4%This article: 3.7%Annelise Hanshaw: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question3.7%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 2.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.5%Annelise Hanshaw: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal7.5%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 28.1%Annelise Hanshaw: 5.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)28.1%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.7%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground2.7%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.9%Annelise Hanshaw: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote12.9%This article: 7.9%Annelise Hanshaw: 1.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection7.9%This article: 2.5%Annelise Hanshaw: 4.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice2.5%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Annelise Hanshaw: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Annelise Hanshaw: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

520 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers53%attributed speech244writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageBecky Laubinger • 16 words • 0.0% coverageBecky Laubinger • 17 words • 100.0% coverageBecky Laubinger • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWick Thomas • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageUniversity of Central Missouri • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageKeri Ingle • 26 words • 0.0% coverageBecky Laubinger • 22 words • 0.0% coverageKeri Ingle • 10 words • 0.0% coverageKeri Ingle • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKeri Ingle • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageMark Boyko • 20 words • 0.0% coverageMark Boyko • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMark Boyko • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMark Boyko • 10 words • 0.0% coverageHouse Republicans • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageCarolyn Caton • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCarolyn Caton • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Becky Laubinger

100%flagged-word coverage
90 attributed words33% of attributed speech67% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Unattributed Quote+25.8 ptsWriter: 13.1%Becky Laubinger: 38.9%38.9%Quote-first Misdirection+9.1 ptsWriter: 9.8%Becky Laubinger: 18.9%18.9%Politically Right Leaning -6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Becky Laubinger: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.3 ptsWriter: 5.3%Becky Laubinger: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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