"The law would prohibit us, also family members, clergy people, health care providers, from giving young women information about their options if they're pregnant," said Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood's Kansas and Mid-Missouri chapter.

The actual text reads, "This act provides, as to a minor's consent for an abortion, that the term "next friend" shall not include another minor child or any persons or entities who have a financial interest or potential gain from the proposed abortion."

The way that is written, they are basically making the speech support structure criminally responsible. Jane's boyfriend gets her drunk and they have sex. They're teenagers and in this state they don't really know how people get pregnant, so suddenly, Jane's pregnant. Jane's dad is a nut job that Jane is already afraid of and the last thing she wants is for him to find out she's pregnant, so she goes off to the clinic to try to explain all this.

They listen, but they can't represent Jane, they work for the clinic. They can't get anyone, because that person would be a voluteer. So Jane has to find someone completely on her own. She of course, being a teenager, doesn't really have any adult friends (except the boyfrind who knocked her up and you think he wants to deal with this?).

Welcome to catch-22.

Fortunately, this is likely to be struck down on any of three fronts. First, it places undue limits on speech. It is illegal for someone to speak on the person's behalf because of their job or where they volunteer? That won't fly.
Second, it places undue limits on other professionals. A psychiatrist who works at a hospital where abortions are performed would no longer be able to act in that capacity for a patient.
Third, there is another expressed clause that states

It is not a defense to a claim brought pursuant to this act that the abortion was performed in accordance with the required consent of the state or place where the abortion was performed.

Meaning, let's say sister lives in California and takes Jane in. Sister is guilty under Missouri law. At best, that one is an utter mess, and has all kinds of problems with the interstate commerce clause.
Additionally, it is only restricting action by one side. With any luck, the stays will show up putting the law on hold and this one will be still born.