Porn site users in Missouri will have to prove they are at least 18 under verification bill 30%

By Sarah Kellogg38%

5/14/2026, 7:23:06 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, In-Group Bias, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 14.4% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 599 faulty-reasoning hits from 478 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.7% and a BS Rank of 30% (15,445 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 70.60% of the article peer group.

Pornography sites will be required by state law to make sure users are at least 18 years old in order to operate in Missouri under a bill passed Wednesday. 
Members of the House voted 112-25 to approve the legislation. 
Since the House took up the Senate-amended bill without requesting changes, it now goes to Gov. 
Mike Kehoe. 
The bill is putting into statute rules on age verification that the attorney general's office implemented last year. 
In November, Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway began enforcing a rule requiring providers of adult content to implement verification laws. 
That could include providing an ID to access pornography sites. 
Those rules have already caused changes. 
Pornhub, a major website in the industry, blocked access to Missouri users last year. 
The House originally gave initial approval earlier in the session. 
Rep. 
Sherri Gallick, R-Belton, said in March it was important to enshrine those rules into statute to stop children from accessing pornographic material. 
"What once required proof of adulthood is now just a click away. 
For a child in Missouri, all they have to do is check a box claiming that they are 18 years or older with no proof," Gallick said. 
Through the legislation, businesses that publish or distribute online pornographic material must verify that anyone attempting to access that material is at least 18. 
Those businesses would be barred from retaining any identifying information. 
The attorney general will be responsible for enforcing the provisions of the bill. 
Earlier in the week, the Senate briefly debated the legislation before sending it to the House. 
It passed on a vote of 32-0. 
"We have responsibility to protect minors from harmful online content, and this bill ensures children do not have access to adult content and are protected through age verification requirements," Sen. 
Mike Henderson, R-Desloge, said. 
Most of the no votes from the House on Wednesday came from Democrats, including House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, D-Kansas City. 
She said in March that she was concerned that creating these rules would create more opportunities for unregulated websites. 
"Websites that are less inclined to follow the rules also tend to be the types of websites that are filled with content that includes child sexual assault material that includes nonconsensual sex acts," Aune said. 
Aune also said she was not sure how much of a difference the bill would make regarding access to pornography. 
"If a child wants to see this content, they are going to see this content," Aune said. 
Rep. 
Raychel Proudie, D-Ferguson, is one of the Democrats who supported the bill. 
"I know that it gives some people some heartburn, but, you know, vote your conscience. 
I'll be voting in favor of it," Proudie said. 
The legislation is HB 1839. 
Copyright 2026 St. 
Louis Public Radio 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic2.9%This article: 7.3%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic7.3%This article: 1.3%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias1.3%This article: 5.6%Sarah Kellogg: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias5.6%This article: 6.1%Sarah Kellogg: 7.4%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Sarah Kellogg: 3.7%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias6.3%This article: 9.6%Sarah Kellogg: 2.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias9.6%This article: 14.4%Sarah Kellogg: 4.2%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias14.4%This article: 4.2%Sarah Kellogg: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 3.6%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma3.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.0%Sarah Kellogg: 3.5%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization13.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.5%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon1.5%This article: 5.6%Sarah Kellogg: 9.4%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion5.6%This article: 6.3%Sarah Kellogg: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question6.3%This article: 1.3%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.6%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof3.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 2.6%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.6%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.5%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection2.5%This article: 9.4%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice9.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

478 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers49%attributed speech243writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMike Kehoe • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Hanaway • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageSherri Gallick • 22 words • 0.0% coverageSherri Gallick • 12 words • 100.0% coverageSherri Gallick • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageMike Henderson • 30 words • 100.0% coverageMike Henderson • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAshley Aune • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAshley Aune • 35 words • 0.0% coverageAshley Aune • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAshley Aune • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRaychel Proudie • 15 words • 100.0% coverageRaychel Proudie • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageLouis Public Radio • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sherri Gallick

100%flagged-word coverage
61 attributed words26% of attributed speech43% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Quote-first Misdirection+19.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sherri Gallick: 19.7%19.7%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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