Capitol Report 2/7/2025

Missouri News Network: Statehouse News for MPA Members
This report is written by Missouri School of Journalism students for publication by MPA member newspapers in print and online.

-----------------------------------------------------

Missouri News Network coverage this week includes coverage of hearings on proposals to restrict abortion, efforts to take a sunset provision off laws governing gender rights and  proposed exemptions to the new state minimum wage.

If you have thoughts or questions, contact Fred Anklam at anklamf@missouri.edu.

-----------------------------------------------------

THURSDAY
Three 'truth in sentencing' bills could increase prison populations

By Alex Cox, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Certain non-dangerous repeat felons have sentencing minimums they must face, but some law enforcement officers say there are loopholes to this system.

Three Missouri House of Representatives lawmakers have filed bills intended to address these concerns. The House’s Crime and Public Safety Committee heard these bills on Wednesday.

House Bill 862, HB 314 and HB 389 sponsored by Rep. Barry Horvis, R-Whitewater, Rep. Bennie Cook, R-Houston, and Rep. David Casteel, R-High Ridge, would impose various increases to Missouri’s required minimum sentencing.

Estimates provided with the bills project that, if approved, the number of felons required to serve extended prison terms would more than triple.

Currently, Missouri law requires repeat felons to serve a minimum percentage of their sentence after their first offense. These minimum percentages only take into account whether the person spends time in prison, rather than the number of times they’ve been convicted.

HB 862 would change provisions that look at previous convictions, rather than previous stays in prison. The other two start mandatory minimums after a person’s first conviction. Horvis said at the hearing they might need to look at the wording of the other bills to make sure they fall in line with HB 862.

HB 314 and HB 389 would require greater increases in minimum sentences. They would also require people previously convicted of certain violent felonies, such as rape or armed criminal action, to serve the entirety of their sentence regardless of whether or not it is their first conviction.

All of the bills also increase the minimum percentage of a sentence that must be served on repeated offenses.

If passed by the legislature, the language used in HB 862 will cause significantly more people to qualify for minimum sentencing. According to the fiscal note of HB 862, the number of people who qualify for minimum sentences would go from 1,134 to 5,562 if passed.

The Department of Corrections estimates in the fiscal note that HB 862 would mean a total of 6,674 additional people in Missouri prisons, with the other two adding 3,637 to prisons.

Data from the Prison Policy Institute shows that Missouri already has 23,000 people in state prisons. The Missouri Department of Corrections website notes the state’s prisons are already strained: “Our correctional facilities are over capacity and projected to continue growing.”

Proponents of the bills, who received broad support from law enforcement officers on Wednesday, say it will allow people to know the minimum amount of time someone would serve after conviction.

“I want to see a justice system where in the courtroom we have an idea of the minimum that is actually going to be served,” Webster County Sheriff Roye Cole said.

Multiple sheriffs testified at Wednesday’s hearing that their communities were upset convicted felons were being released on probation.

“My citizens say ‘Sheriff, why don’t you keep (prisoners)? You arrest them, but you let them out.’ I say ‘Look, I’ve got plenty of food, I’d be glad to, but if I did then I’d be in jail,’” Osage County Sheriff Michael Bonham said.

However, opponents said the proposals would make sentencing less flexible.

“We’re not talking about a system that can be standardized. We’re talking about (an) individualized (system). With individual lives, with individual circumstances, with individual facts of each case,” said Sharon Geuea Jones, who was lobbying on behalf of the advocacy organization Dream.org, which opposes mass incarceration, and the Missouri State Conference of the NAACP.

Rep. LaKeySha Bosley, D-St. Louis, said states that implemented similar proposals in the form of a “three strikes” law saw significant impacts on communities of color.

“ ‘Three strikes, you’re out’ affected predominantly African American communities, specifically Black men,” Bosley said.

Housing people in prison costs money. HB 862 would mean an estimated $279 million additional drain on the state’s revenue, with the other two estimated to cost $165 million.

According to the National Institute of Corrections, Missouri’s prison budget was over $800 million in 2022. The bills, if passed, have the potential to push prison spending to over $1 billion a year.

The possibility of heightened prison expenses comes as Republicans are prioritizing cutting taxes, with Gov. Mike Kehoe voicing support for gradually eliminating the state’s individual income tax in his first State of the State speech.

Whether the bills advance will depend on a future vote by the committee.

-----------------------------------------------------

Optimism colors first weeks for Boone County's freshmen legislators

By Fletcher Mantooth, Missouri News Network

Editor's Note: This is one of occasional articles tracking the experiences of Boone County's two freshmen members of the Missouri House of Representatives. 

JEFFERSON CITY — Four weeks into their first terms in the Missouri House of Representatives, Boone County’s freshmen legislators are expressing optimism.

“There’s great people in both caucuses,” said Democrat Gregg Bush, District 50’s representative. “I’m proud of how we’re standing together as a united front to help the people of Missouri.”

“We’ve got a strong group, we had a very good freshman tour,” said Republican John Martin, District 44’s representative. “The attitude around the building is one of anticipating a productive session.”

Both legislators say they feel like they have begun to find their groove and express hope for a productive 2025 legislative session.

Their work of acclimating to the pace of their new positions began before they were sworn into office on Jan. 8, the day the Missouri General Assembly convened.

Before the start of a session, new representatives attend a freshmen tour, where they meet other freshmen, find their offices and get acquainted with the Capitol.

Martin’s office is located on the building’s second floor and is a spacious room that he’s decorated with memorabilia of Boone County’s high school sports teams, bible verses and other art. On the other hand, Bush’s office is a cramped, broom closet-esque space, where he also has taken to dressing the walls with family photos, playbills and similar decor.

Office space is controlled by the majority party, an often unrecognized perk. Because Republicans hold the majority in the House of Representatives, their members get better offices.

A crucial part of a representative’s daily life at the Capitol is their committee assignments. The process of placing representatives on committees begins at the start of the session, when leadership for the Democrat and Republican caucuses meet to discuss the ratio of members from each caucus who will go to each committee — generally reflecting the ratio reflected between the parties in the entire House. With Republicans holding a supermajority — just over 67% of the seats — most committees reflect that makeup.

From there, the caucuses assign their representatives, often based on their backgrounds.

Martin, a business owner, has been assigned to four committees: Budget, Elementary and Secondary Education, Economic Development and the Subcommittee on Appropriations for Education.

“Those four will keep me hoppin, man,” Martin said.

Bush, a registered nurse, has been assigned to three: Corrections and Public Institutions, Health and Mental Health and Professional Registration and Licensing.

Both representatives voiced enthusiasm for their assignments. In committees, representatives review legislation and participate in hearings on legislation assigned to the committee. They can question witnesses at committee hearings and offer amendments and vote on whether the committee should pass individual bills for consideration by the full House.

Of course, the main job of a legislator is, well, legislating.

Martin has filed two bills: House Bill 551, which changes some of the process for gathering signatures for initiative and referendum petitions, and HB 1133, which addresses fees paid by ambulance services.

The proposed petition changes were the subject of a committee hearing on Tuesday. Martin’s bill would standardize the process, requiring a designated form made by the secretary of state. It would require circulators of the petition to be Missouri residents or living in Missouri for 30 days before seeking signatures.

Martin said he filed the bill to protect from “somebody from out-of-state trying to influence us one way or another.” The bill would also ban pay-by-signature methods of compensation for circulators. Similar bills have passed in the House but not the Senate in past sessions, so Martin said he hopes it might go further this year.

While Bush has not filed any bills, he says that legislation helping firefighters has been given to the House drafting office, and legislation pertaining to inpatient psychiatric care and healthcare workers’ needs is also being prepared.

Bush has described a positive experience “reconnecting with (his) colleagues from the other side,” in reference to making efforts to work alongside his Republican counterparts.

But he voiced his displeasure with the priorities of the Republican majority, especially in regards to legislation that would remove provisions for gender-affirming care, bills that would require the Ten Commandments in classrooms and legislation that would block funding for diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

On Tuesday, Bush voiced concerns in a House hearing on a proposed abortion-related bill and how it might affect nurses and other health professions.

“You cannot educate a man on a subject he believes he is an expert in,” Bush said in an earlier interview. However, he added that he believes that by being curious and asking questions, he might find a way to persuade someone.

-----------------------------------------------------

WEDNESDAY
House committee hears debate on state minimum wage

By Jake Marszewski, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Voters approved raising Missouri’s minimum wage to $15 an hour last November. On Wednesday, the House Commerce Committee held a public hearing about two bills that would grant businesses some leeway.

House Bill 758 has four major components, said bill sponsor Rep. Carolyn Caton, R-Blue Springs. One component removes future changes to the minimum wage that occur in correlation with inflation.

“Higher wages are a key component to higher inflation,” Caton said during the hearing. “Having any tax, fee or cost, such as wages, tied to inflation is bad public policy.”

This bill also allows workers under 20 to be paid below the state’s minimum wage, applies minimum wage law to government jobs and changes which businesses are allowed to give paid sick time to employees.

HB 958 was presented with HB 758 at the hearing and has similar exceptions to the minimum wage. Under this bill, workers that are under 21, are employed by a company with 49 or fewer employees, quit without notice or violate company policy could all be paid below the state’s minimum wage.

Rep. Scott Miller, R-St. Charles, said the bill is about making sure that a minimum wage is earned.

“Businesses incur expenses and risk associated with employing people that employees themselves don’t incur, and what it really tries to do is balance that relationship,” Miller said about his bill.

The businesses that would be most affected by changes to the Missouri’s minimum wage seem to be small businesses. According to witness testimony from Missouri Jobs with Justice, firms employing one to 49 workers made up 96.4% of all businesses in the state.

Higher wages mean paying employees more, which can challenge some small businesses.

Buddy Lahl, CEO of the Missouri Restaurant Association, spoke in favor of the bill at the hearing. He said that wages are just a cost of doing business.

“Obviously you want the best worker for the best wage to get the most productivity,” Lahl said. “Labor and wages are a concern, but we believe in paying people what they’re worth.”

For Miller, his bill is a step in guaranteeing minimum performance for minimum wage, which he said would protect small businesses.

“We just need something that brings back into balance the relationship between businesses and employees with regards to what they’re paid,” Miller said.

Wednesday’s hearing was just one part of a wide debate about wages in Missouri. A lawsuit filed on behalf of Missouri businesses is set for next month, and it seeks to overturn the recent minimum wage increase.

Both wage bills are still being considered by the House Commerce Committee. Members say they expect to produce a committee substitute bill that combines pieces of each bill into one.

-----------------------------------------------------

Protesters rally in Jefferson City against Trump

Story by Charlie Dahlgren, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — More than 100 residents from across Missouri gathered on the Missouri State Capitol steps Wednesday to protest Donald Trump’s actions since the election.

The gathering was one of the more than 50 protests held under the “50501” title, which mobilized thousands of demonstrators across the United States.

Since Trump was elected in November, the appointment of Elon Musk, immigration raids and a rollback of transgender rights have upset progressives.

In response, a decentralized, autonomous movement has formed in the past two weeks aiming to take a stand against these and other changes pushed by Trump. It’s been dubbed the 50501 movement by its members, which is short for 50 states, 50 protests, one day.

A meditation instructor who goes by Rocco Pink DeCarlo drove two hours from St. Louis to attend the protest. Since the election, DeCarlo said he has fielded a 50% increase in inquiries to his business. He said that people feel like their world is crumbling around them and blames recent political developments for the rise in business.

“It feels kind of helpless,” he said. “So I’m just doing as much as I can to feel like I’m being proactive and standing up for the rights of these marginalized people.”

Temara Jasmine attended the protest and led many of the chants throughout the three-hour demonstration. She said she feels disenfranchised by what she sees as little fight from Democrats on a federal level.

Jasmine said she doesn’t imagine that the protest will change much in a deep red state like Missouri but hopes that it will spur more Democratic Party action in Washington.

“I’ve been wanting to see more resistance to Trump and his agenda, and maybe we can push the Democrats to actually put up a fight against this guy,” she said.

The 50501 movement is decentralized, meaning there is no single group or person organizing it. Instead, independent members are responsible for organizing their local gatherings. That fact, along with the movement’s recent genesis, has sown doubts in the group’s real purpose — even among its followers.

Columbia resident Luke Jensen heard about the protest on Reddit. Despite his suspicions about the 50501 movement’s origins, he still decided to show up with a red drum around his shoulder to lead the chants.

“I will come out here to stand up for what I believe in,” Jensen said. “I don’t know if those instructions are coming from Montana or Moscow, but, you know what, if people are standing up for trans rights and human rights then I will be there.”

Rep. Ray Reed, D-St. Louis, briefly left the Capitol to address the group through a megaphone he borrowed from one of the attendees. Speaking in support of the crowd, he said that progressives in Missouri have a home in the Democratic Party.

“People are not hard to reach, but they feel hardly reached by their government, so that’s why I am here,” Reed said. “We’re not going back” he added, echoing a campaign catchphrase of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

-----------------------------------------------------

TUESDAY
Missourians pack hearing to oppose another vote on abortion rights

By Shane LaGesse and Fletcher Mantooth, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Missourians packed a House hearing room Tuesday to debate with Republican lawmakers a topic many thought was decided in 2024: reproductive rights.

Last November, voters passed Amendment 3, which enshrined abortion access and other reproductive care into the Missouri Constitution.

Since its passage, Republican lawmakers have promised to restrict the scope and ease of this access.

House Joint Resolution 54, the subject of the hearing, would ask voters to ban abortion in Missouri except in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape or incest.

In the hearing room, it was a sea of purple “Abortion Action” shirts, and people in opposition of the bill overwhelming outnumbered those testifying in support.

As the hearing went on over three hours, opponents to the resolution reiterated feeling that the bill ignored Missouri voters.

“Amendment 3 passed,” said Jess Piper, who spoke in opposition. “There is no reason I had to drive eight hours round trip to testify against abortion restriction. Why can’t you just listen to the will of the people?”

Supporters of the resolution argued Amendment 3 contained misleading language that deceived voters and that the resolution would be a chance for voters to reconsider their decision. If the resolution is passed by the legislature, the abortion rights question would be added to the ballot in the 2026 general election.

“I think the other side spent a whole lot of money in Missouri to deceive Missourians, and I don’t think a lot of people, based on our conversations, knew exactly what they were voting for,” said Susan Klein, who spoke on behalf of Missouri Right for Life.

Some supporters also spoke about the bill as a means of refining the language or effect of Amendment 3.

“I think we need to give them a truthful way to make sure that what they voted on in November is what they’re going to get by the end product,” said Rep. Jamie Gregg, R-Ozark.

But resolution opponents dismissed this logic repeatedly, insisting that Missourians had spoken.

“Missourians voted yes on Amendment 3, and the majority of Missourians chose voting to remove politicians from a very personal medical decision,” said Lori Rooney, an opponent of the bill.

The resolution would also prohibit minors from accessing gender-affirming care, including gender-transition surgery and puberty blockers.

The resolution’s sponsor, Rep. Melanie Stinnett, R-Greene County, told the Missourian last week that the language was included because “the goal, and the language, is to protect those that are most vulnerable.”

Opponents to the resolution disagreed with the inclusion of this language, arguing that it does not relate subject of reproduction.

“This has nothing to do with trans kids,” said Kendan Elliott, who testified in opposition. “(It) is really about access to health care, and one that 1,538,600 of the constituents in this state have voted to say that they supported: Amendment 3.”

Abortion survivor bills spark debate

Two identical pieces of legislation addressing abortion were heard earlier Tuesday before the House Health and Mental Health Committee. House Bill 195 and 1119 are titled the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and caused heated inquiry from committee members.

According to the bills’ sponsors Rep. Brian Sietz, R-Branson, and Rep. Holly Jones, R-Eureka, this act would provide the same protections to “abortion survivors” as any other prematurely born child. Essentially, the same lifesaving care would be provided to a prematurely born infant regardless if the birth was the result of an attempted abortion.

Committee member Rep. Greg Bush, D-Columbia, vehemently voiced his concern for how the bill could affect health care professionals. Bush mentioned during testimony he is a registered nurse, and he is concerned for the civil suits that could result in this action.

“What your bill is doing is going to cause great harm to people going through horrible situations,” said Rep. Jo Doll, D-St. Louis, while questioning Jones on abortion terminology. “I don’t want to hear anymore.”

The bill would also mandate reporting if a fetus is delivered after an attempted abortion, making Missouri an additional state to join eight others with similar legislation.

Hannah Taylor was a contributing reporter.

-----------------------------------------------------

Republicans introduce bills to tighten regulations on initiative petitions — again

By Molly Gibbs, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Two Missouri House bills that had a committee hearing Tuesday would make it more difficult for Missourians to amend state statutes and the Missouri Constitution using initiative petitions.

In the House Elections Committee hearing, bill sponsors Rep. Brad Banderman, R-St. Clair, and Rep. John Martin, R-Columbia, noted their bills HB 551 and HB 575 are very similar to bills introduced by former Rep. Mike Haffner in the last two years.

Martin said his HB 551 is meant to standardize the format of petitions, requiring dark ink for signatures and text no smaller than 12-point “Times New Roman” font.

“This is not making it harder for people in Missouri to participate and make their voice heard — it’s organizing it,” Martin said.

The bill also changes the qualifications for circulators and removes a provision requiring a public hearing on proposed measures. It also stops completed signature pages from being released.

Under the bill, circulators — the person who represents a petition and asks for signatures — are required to be residents of the state or reside in the state for 30 consecutive days prior to collecting signatures.

Rep. David Tyson Smith, D-Columbia, added that he’s worried this requirement could slow down the initiative petition process since it depends on circulators collecting signatures.

“I am always suspicious of bills, or provisions in bills, that seem to slow down the process because ... you may have to rely on those other (out-of-state) people to help you get these petitions out,” Smith said. “The idea is that somehow we don’t want other people involved, but the reality is other people are involved ... there is out-of-state interest involved in these petition processes.”

The bill also stipulates that circulators cannot be paid per signature they collect. Smith said he is not completely opposed to this change.

“I could see how that could be incentive to get more signatures, as opposed to paying somebody by hour,” he said.

Most of Tuesday’s discussion revolved around a section of the bill that was added as an amendment in the Missouri Senate during the 2024 legislative session.

The amendment prevents completed petition pages with signatures from being released unless a U.S. citizen and Missouri resident petitions the court to review the documents under supervision. Violating this provision is considered a misdemeanor and is punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a maximum fine of $10,000.

Banderman explained this is meant to prevent fraud against those who sign a petition. The names and voter ID’s of signees will still be available, only their signatures will be protected under this requirement.

After questioning from Rep. Peggy McGaugh, R-Carrollton, Banderman clarified that anyone who knowingly released an image of someone’s signature from a petition could be penalized, including local election authorities.

Rep. LaKeySha Bosley, D-St. Louis, sought information about how these cases would be investigated and by whom. Neither Banderman nor Martin were able to provide that information.

The committee then heard from witnesses, who largely opposed the bills’ attempts to impose restrictions on the initiative petition process.

Marcel Hagens, policy coordinator at Action St. Louis, said the current initiative process holds importance to their organization and others across the state.

“The ballot initiative process is at its core inclusive, allowing all Missouri voters of all backgrounds to be heard when they feel the work of the state isn’t enough,” Hagens said.

-----------------------------------------------------

Missouri House bills aim to limit state income tax and spending

By Kat Ramkumar, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Some efforts to provide income tax relief for state residents also seek to impose spending restrictions on the legislature.

HJR1 and HB 100, the focuses of a Tuesday House hearing, highlight efforts to eliminate income tax throughout Missouri while also limiting future spending.

Bill sponsor Rep. Bishop Davidson, R-Republic, said he believes that there are three ways to do this and provide sufficient state funding.

“You can utilize your growth to buy down your rate, you can seek inefficiencies in your budget and make cuts, or you can replace that revenue with another sources,” Davidson said.

HB 100 would establish a flat 4% income tax rate. The initial flat tax, which would be implemented January 2026, would slowly phase out until there is no state income tax entirely.

The bill and the resolution also outline spending caps for the state based on population. If Missouri’s population growth is between zero and 1%, then the new spending cap is 1% of the previous year’s cap.

“I have a vision for every Missourian to lead a life where they have their needs met and even need some of their wants,” Davidson said.

Gov. Mike Kehoe expressed support for a gradual elimination of the statewide income tax during his State of the State address. However, he said he wants the decrease to happen responsibly, meaning no immediate cut.

These bills are not unanimously supported throughout the legislature. Rep. Steve Butz, D-St.Louis, said he believes that it could be detrimental for Missouri.

“If bills like this dramatically eliminate or lower the income tax without coming up with an alternative revenue source, it would be devastating.” Butz said. “I think having a broad category of taxes is the best way to ensure prosperity. Bills like this are foolish.”

HB 499, which would eliminate taxation in certain geographical zones, and HB 1007, which would remove excess tax credits, were also discussed during this hearing.

Special Committee on Tax Reform Chairman Jeff Coleman, R-Grain Valley, is in support of putting limitations on the money that goes to the government.

“There’s a lot of interest in the bills we heard. It’s early in the game, so it’s hard to know which direction they will go,” Coleman said. “There is lots of consensus on the fact that something needs to happen.”

There are currently 42 bills filed in the Missouri House to lower taxes ranging from personal property to bingo cards to emergency services.

There are 125 bills filed in the Missouri Senate that highlight tax deductions of first responders to assessment of property to the taxation of businesses.

-----------------------------------------------------

MONDAY
Bills extending gender-affirming care restrictions spark passionate testimony

By Sterling Sewell and Mary McCue Bell, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Bills extending restrictions on transgender Missourians drew passionate testimony that lasted for hours at a House committee hearing Monday evening.

The proposed bills would make permanent the state restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors and transgender student participation in athletics, which are set to expire in 2027. An additional bill heard by the committee would increase requirements for individuals wishing to change their gender on state-issued identification.

Witnesses, both for and against the bills, included medical professionals, transgender private citizens, parents, veterans and representatives of faith organizations.

Four of the eight bills proposed by Republican House members would make invalid prescriptions made for minors before Aug. 28, 2023, for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. The prescriptions were grandfathered into the law, which blocks the prescription of puberty blockers and transition surgery by doctors. These four bills remove a sunset clause that would end the current restrictions in 2027.

The consent of minors to undergo this treatment with "proven profoundly irreversible consequences" is an ethical issue for Rep. Ben Baker, R-Neosho, one of the bill sponsors. Reps. Brian Seitz, R-Branson; Jamie Gragg, R-Ozark and House Majority Whip Hardy Billington, R-Poplar Bluff, sponsored identical bills and echoed Baker's concerns for the health of minors.

During questioning, the sponsors pointed to a lack of FDA approval for gender-affirming drugs and potential cases of regret for those who transition.

Kenneth Haller, a retired pediatrician, and Sharon Dunski Vermont, another pediatrician, spoke in opposition to the bill. Haller and Dunski Vermont both cited studies that transgender individuals who received gender-affirming treatment were at a lower risk of suicide than those who didn't receive care — a sentiment repeated by others.

"I can't think of any other procedure, any other treatment that kids undergo that might be painful or might be exhausting, where a legislature has felt they need to take this away," Haller said.

Jamie Reed, a whistleblower who previously worked as a caseworker at the Washington University Transgender Center, spoke in favor of the bills. Reed's story helped launch the push to outlaw gender-affirming care in the state and led investigations by the Missouri Attorney General's Office.

"I saw directly the patients who were harmed by these interventions," Reed said. "Patients whose mental health got worse after initiation and patients who mourned, not regretted, mourned the permanent changes to their bodies."

Reed and others who testified in favor of the bill pointed to a recent ban on puberty blockers in the U.K.

May Hall, a Columbia resident, spoke against the bills. Hall argued that Republicans do not want to protect children.

“I see education spending cut. I see health care spending cut, and ... I have seen a child marriage bans shot down by the GOP,” Hall said. “So forgive me if when you say you want to protect children, I'm not eager to believe that.”

Hall was one of the transgender individuals who spoke against the bill. Many who opposed the bill told poignant stories of struggles — whether their own testimonies or loved ones — to understand and live with their gender identity. The majority of testimony heard by the committee, which lasted almost five hours, was opposed to the legislation.

Three other bills would remove a 2027 sunset clause in a state law that requires students to participate in sports based on the biological sex as listed on their birth certificate. 

Billington, Seitz and Rep. Bennie Cook, R-Houston, cited scientific biological differences between the sexes and a necessity to level the playing field as driving forces behind such legislation. Proponents of the bill specifically cited how female athletes' safety can be jeopardized when playing against transgender women.

“Allowing biological males to compete in women's sports destroys fair competition and women's athletic opportunities,” Cook said. 

Cait Smith, director of LGBTQI+ policy for the Center For American Progress, spoke against the bills.

"What we see when we look at the data shows that really, on a global scale, trans folks are not negatively impacting women's sports," Smith said. "Equality is an issue in women's sports, but trans people aren’t the reason why women's sports are underfunded and under-resourced."

Witnesses against the bills expressed concern that laws restricting transgender individuals would lead to increased numbers of LGBT Missourians to leave the state. 

Committee Chair Brad Christ, R-St. Louis, described the issue as "black-and-white," predicting the legislation would be a party-line vote. He inquired if any Democrats worked with the sponsors to find a middle ground, none said that had been done.

The sunset provisions for both sports and gender-affirming care came following a 13-hour filibuster and negotiations by Democratic senators in 2023. Former Sen. Greg Razer, the only openly gay senator in Missouri history, spearheaded the filibuster in 2023.

Senate Assistant Minority Floor Leader Steven Roberts, D-St. Louis, said that if the bills reach the Senate, Democratic leadership would oppose them.

"A lot of those provisions had sunsets in them and those were part of a negotiated deal within the Senate," Roberts said in a statement to the Missourian. "I would expect me and my colleagues to make sure that those deals continue."

Driver's Licenses
A bill proposed by Rep. Brandon Phelps, R-Warrensburg, would create increased requirements for individuals seeking to change the gender listed on their driver's license. Individuals seeking a change would need to provide medical documentation of gender reassignment surgery or a court order declaring a gender designation.

Rep. Wick Thomas, D-Kansas City, and other legislators met before the hearing to protest the bills. Thomas is a freshman legislator and the first nonbinary and transgender legislator in Missouri history. They also sit on the House Committee on Emerging Issues, which heard Monday's proposed bills.

"I have called Missouri my home all my life. I love our state and I am trans," Thomas said in a statement during the rally. "The Missouri legislature, through its overwhelming attack on the gay and trans community, has put the focus on my identity rather than what we should be doing, focusing on the welfare of the people of this beautiful state."

-----------------------------------------------------