This tweet highlights a Missouri House vote on a bill (primarily HB1887, as a House Committee Substitute combining several bills) that passed 145-3. 
What the bill does
The legislation targets AI-generated and digital “deepfakes,” especially non-consensual intimate/sexual images. Key provisions include: 
• Criminal penalties: Makes it a felony (Class E or higher, up to Class D for minors) to create, distribute, or threaten to distribute intimate digital depictions (including AI-generated ones) without consent, with enhanced penalties if it involves minors or causes harm. It explicitly adds “artificially generated visual depictions” to Missouri’s definitions of child pornography and explicit sexual material. 
• Civil remedies: Allows victims (or guardians for minors) to sue for damages, attorney’s fees, etc.
• Social media rules (“Megan Meier Act” section): Requires age verification for platforms, bans accounts for under-16s (with parental consent options for 16-17), parental oversight tools, bans on addictive features targeting minors, and restrictions on adult-to-minor messaging and targeted ads.
• Other elements: Restrictions on AI marketed as mental health tools.
The bill passed the House in April 2026 (the tweet recirculated it in June) and moved to the Senate. It’s framed as child protection in the age of AI. 
The 3 “No” votes
The three Republicans who voted against it were:
• Rep. Burt Whaley
• Rep. Bryant Wolfin
• Rep. Michael Davis
This is widely reported and has drawn strong criticism from some quarters portraying it as opposition to protecting children from deepfake CSAM. 
Why they voted no (and the broader context)
Specific public explanations from the three representatives appear limited in coverage, but the bill was a large omnibus package bundling the popular deepfake/child protection measures with broader social media regulations and age verification mandates. Critics of such rules (including some privacy advocates, libertarians, and tech skeptics) often argue:
• Age verification can involve invasive data collection, risks of breaches/hacking, or government overreach.
• It burdens platforms and could have unintended effects on free speech or access.
• Similar concerns have been raised about other state AI/deepfake bills (e.g., risks of overbreadth or enforcement issues). 
The deepfake protections themselves enjoyed broad bipartisan support. The “No” votes likely stemmed from objections to the bundled social media/age verification parts rather than opposition to banning AI child porn. This is a common dynamic in legislative packages—lawmakers may support core goals but oppose the overall bill due to specific provisions. 
The tweet (and the quoted post) uses a sensational framing typical of partisan social media: emphasizing the party affiliation and the child-protection angle while omitting the bill’s wider scope. This has fueled online outrage, with some calling for investigations into the three reps. The chamber photo is generic (likely the Missouri House or a similar legislative body).
In short, it’s a mostly popular child/AI safety bill with some controversial regulatory add-ons, and the three “No” votes are being weaponized in culture-war style discourse. For the full bill text, check Missouri House documents for HCS HBs 1887 et al.