Missouri Press Association
Serving Missouri Newspapers Since 1867
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 last week included coverage of Republican efforts to overturn reproductive rights, the state treasurer’s efforts to end investments in China-related companies, a bill that would open public school athletics and activities to homeschooled children and an explainer on the paid sick leave provisions that went into effect on Thursday.
If you have thoughts or questions, contact Fred Anklam at anklamf@missouri.edu.
-----------------------------------------------------
THURSDAY
Under looming deadline, Senate Republicans vow action on abortion, paid sick leave
By Natanya Friedheim, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri’s legislative session ends May 16, and Republican senators are vowing to curtail two measures voters approved last fall: a constitutional amendment on abortion rights and a law requiring paid sick leave and minimum wage increases.
Aside from passing the budget, Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, R-Shelbina, said efforts to repeal or replace those measures will take priority over other bills.
“Those are the two big things that are still coming,” she told reporters Thursday. “That’s our goal, you know: We support life, we support moms, we support businesses, we support economic growth, we support jobs.”
Proposition A went into effect Thursday, requiring qualifying businesses to give employees one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. It also raised the minimum wage to $13.75 in January, and to $15 per hour next January, with future increases adjusted to inflation.
One measure, which has been blocked by Senate Democrats so far, would remove the paid sick leave provision and end future inflation-adjusted minimum wage increases. Democrats have filibustered twice to keep House Bill 567 from advancing through the Senate.
The Senate’s top Democrat, Sen. Doug Beck, D-St. Louis County, said he is in “good faith” negotiations with Republicans on the issue but doesn’t know what to expect.
Those conversations haven’t happened yet around efforts to repeal Amendment 3, Missouri’s abortion rights constitutional amendment, Beck said.
Amendment 3 legalized abortion in Missouri up to the point of viability after more than two years of a near-total ban. It also nullified a number of regulations that apply to abortion clinics, including a mandatory 72-hour waiting period and the requirement that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
Because Amendment 3 changed the state’s constitution — unlike Proposition A, which changed only state law — it would require a statewide vote to repeal.
House Joint Resolution 73 has emerged from a pool of contenders as the measure Republicans hope will persuade voters to repeal Amendment 3. It passed the Senate’s Families, Seniors and Health Committee on Wednesday.
The resolution would reinstate the abortion ban with exceptions for fetal anomalies, medical emergencies and for rape and incest survivors who seek an abortion prior to 12 weeks of gestation. The ballot language voters would see does not explicitly say the amended constitutional language would ban abortion.
Instead, voters would be asked, “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
However, the resolution would clear the way for the state’s near-total abortion ban to go back into effect.
Republican lawmakers could bypass filibustering and force a vote on the measures with a rarely used procedure called “previous question,” or PQ.
“We do not use the PQ except in rare instances,” O’Laughlin said in an email April 21 regarding HB 567. “Having said that, it is not off the table.”
-----------------------------------------------------
WEDNESDAY
Open enrollment bill stalls in Senate
By Molly Gibbs and Mary McCue Bell, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A House bill to expand public school choice was put aside Wednesday after Senate Democrats spoke in opposition and amendments were passed that would send it back to the House.
After some five hours of debate, the bill was moved to the informal calendar to potentially be taken up at a later date.
House Bill 711 would establish the Public School Open Enrollment Act, which would allow students to attend public schools outside of the district they live in. Districts would have to opt in to the program in order to accept students from other districts.
Sen. Doug Beck, D-Affton, began the filibuster saying he felt shut out of conversations about the bill.
"Now we're here on the floor, we have all the time in the world to go as deep into this as you would like," responded Sen. Curtis Trent, R-Springfield, the bill handler.
Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, D-Kansas City, said she doesn’t want to see districts pitted against each other. She also pointed out that districts across the state from every senators' constituencies voiced opposition to the open enrollment bill.
Sen. Karla May, D-St. Louis, asked for clarification on parts of the bill, including a Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education database that would be created. The database would show available open seats in participating school districts.
Bill sponsor Rep. Brad Pollitt, R-Sedalia, listened to parts of the debate among senators. With less than three weeks left in the legislative session, Pollitt told the Missourian it is difficult to predict if a bill will be successful, even at this point in the process.
"We're trying to appease as many groups as we can," Pollitt said. "I've filed this bill because I want to give public schools a seat at the school choice table."
Two amendments were added to the bill, which would require the House to vote on the bill again after Senate approval. Forcing another vote in the House this late in the session might be an impossible hurdle to pass, given the narrow margin it passed by in the House earlier this year.
Sen. Joe Nicola, R-Grain Valley, offered an amendment to protect certain districts' four-day school weeks, among other provisions.
Another adopted amendment, offered by Sen. Lincoln Hough, R-Springfield, focused on the legislature's power of the purse. It will not allow open enrollment unless the foundation formula and other program-related expenses, such as transportation, have been fully funded in the previous school year.
The bill is similar to legislation that has passed in the House every year since 2021, but this time it's backed by Gov. Mike Kehoe, according to previous Missourian reporting.
Supporters have argued that open enrollment in public schools would increase parental control and offer more flexibility in education and extracurricular activities.
Opponents are concerned that the bill could disrupt the public school system, causing some districts to lose students and potentially be forced to consolidate with nearby districts.
"If you got a good school, you got nothing to worry about," Pollitt told the Missourian. "If you got a bunch of parents wanting to leave, there's a reason."
Support for the bill is not clearly divided by party. It passed the House by a vote of 88-69, with 22 Republicans voting against the bill and three Democrats voting in favor of it.
Just before the Senate adjourned, Sen. Patty Lewis, D-Kansas City, asked school district leadership opposed to the bill to call their senators as the session winds down.
-----------------------------------------------------
Prop A takes effect Thursday, but for how long?
By Molly Gibbs, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A provision of Proposition A that mandates businesses to provide paid sick leave takes effect Thursday.
Missouri voters passed Prop A with about 58% of the vote last November.
Prop A requires that businesses give employees one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours they work. On Thursday, eligible employees will begin to accrue this paid sick leave.
The proposition also mandated a minimum wage increase to $13.75 in January and a further increase to $15 per hour in January 2026 with annual cost-of-living increases.
Here are answers to some of the key questions about Prop A’s paid sick leave provision:
Who does Prop A apply to?
The minimum wage increase applies to all employees across the state except for those who work for an entity exempt from the law, such as federal and state governments, political subdivisions, school districts and education institutions.
The paid sick leave provision applies to all businesses except those exempt from the law, but has more exemption scenarios. The federal and state government, political subdivisions, counties, municipalities, school districts and public higher education institutions are exempt, as well as private retail and service businesses whose annual gross revenue is less than $500,000.
Businesses with tipped employees must pay them either their standard hourly wage or state minimum wage, whichever is higher.
Does the size of a business matter?
Employees of businesses with 15 or more employees can use no more than 56 hours of paid sick leave per year. Those at businesses with less than 15 employees can use no more than 40 hours of paid sick leave per year. Businesses may choose to increase the number of hours that can be used but cannot decrease them. Up to 80 hours of unused paid sick leave can be carried over to the next year or paid out to the employee.
What happens on Thursday?
Employees at eligible businesses will begin to accrue paid sick leave, earning one hour for every 30 hours worked.
While employees earn paid sick leave for all hours worked during the year, only a certain amount can be used in that same time period, according to guidelines listed above.
Absent a new law, will employees be able to take paid sick leave after 30 hours of work?
Yes. Starting Thursday, employees are entitled to both earn and use paid sick leave time.
Can the legislature eliminate paid sick leave?
Yes. Prop A enacted a new law regarding employee benefits. Unlike with the state constitutional amendment on reproductive rights, the legislature can enact new laws changing what voters approved.
House Bill 567, proposed by Rep. Sherri Gallick, R-Belton, would repeal the paid sick leave provisions. While leaving the $15 per hour minimum wage in place, it would end future annual cost of living increases to the minimum wage.
The House approved Gallick’s bill. So far, efforts to pass the bill have been stalled on the Senate floor by Democrats filibustering, arguing that the bill undermines the will of Missouri voters.
Republicans vow to continue trying to reverse Prop A until the legislative session ends May 16, Senate Majority Leader Cindy O’Laughlin, R-Shelbina, wrote in an email to the Missourian.
Can the legislature eliminate paid sick leave before employees can claim that benefit?
Yes. An emergency clause could be added, allowing the it to take effect as soon as Gov. Mike Kehoe signs it. However, the bill failed to get the necessary two-thirds approval for that provision when it passed the House.
The Senate could still vote to enact an emergency clause, but because that would change the original House bill, it would be sent back to the House for another vote. It’s unclear if either of those actions will occur.
What happens in August if the legislature eliminates the paid sick leave provisions?
If the Senate passes HB 567 without an emergency clause, it would take effect 90 days after the end of session on May 16.
As the bill is currently written, sometime in August employees would stop being able to accrue paid sick leave, and after January 2026 annual minimum wage increases would not occur.
It is unclear how this would impact sick leave time employees may have earned but not taken up to that point.
What if the legislature fails to act?
Kehoe could call a special legislative session to try to pass the bill again, otherwise the law would continue to go into effect as approved by voters.
-----------------------------------------------------
Homeschoolers' participation nears in public school athletics, activities
By Sterling Sewell, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A Senate bill allowing homeschooled student participation in public and charter school activities and athletics passed the Missouri House on Wednesday.
Senate Bill 63, proposed by Sen. Ben Brown, R-Washington, would prohibit public and charter schools from banning homeschooled or full-time virtual students from taking part in school athletics and activities.
A similar bill proposed by Brown in the last session stalled in the House. This year, Brown’s bill passed unanimously out of the Senate and passed the House on a 91-53 vote.
Because the House made minor changes, it will return to the Senate for a final vote. Brown said he anticipates the bill will pass should it be taken up on the Senate floor for its final vote. Nothing is assured, as the session adjourns May 16 with several other bills among its priorities.
State law allows public school districts to ban or restrict the participation of homeschoolers in athletics. The policy of the Missouri State High School Activities Association, which many schools follow, is to allow homeschoolers to participate in sports if they are enrolled in one credit hour of coursework at a public school.
Rep. Ben Baker, R-Neosho, advocated for the bill in the House, saying that the bill “ensures that every child has access to opportunities that add to and foster their academic, social and personal growth.”
Baker, whose children have been homeschooled, argued that homeschoolers’ parents who pay taxes should be able to send their children to programs in publicly funded schools.
Rep. Kathy Steinhoff, D-Columbia, a former Columbia Public Schools teacher, said she was sympathetic to the bill’s intent, but expressed concerns that the passage could lead to an unfunded mandate.
State funding for education is partially determined by the level of enrollment in a school. Steinhoff’s concern is that potential homeschoolers who take part in public school programs or utilize school resources would not be considered in enrollment counts.
“(Schools) will not be getting state money to support these students participating in these activities,” Steinhoff said.
Baker said the strain brought by increased participation would likely be minimal, as few homeschoolers would be likely to participate in each school.
Several Democrats also expressed concerns that the bill could be unfair to public school students as homeschoolers may not have to meet the same standards as public school students. Steinhoff pointed specifically to grade and attendance requirements for some athletic programs in schools.
“There’s also some requirements and conditions in accessing the privileges provided by our schools,” Steinhoff said. “Often you have to keep your grades up, you have to keep your attendance up, you have to maintain positive relationships with peers and adults.”
Rep. Dirk Deaton, R-Seneca, spoke to the long history of this legislation, beginning with its first proposal in 2014 by former Rep. Elijah Haahr, R-Springfield. Deaton, along with other General Assembly members, have taken up the bill unsuccessfully since then.
Deaton also pointed out a provision of the bill which allows schools to require homeschoolers to attend courses, rehearsals or practices related to their participation in school activities.
“For example, if you’re going to be involved in a band, and there’s a band class directly related to that, you absolutely should have to play in that band class,” Deaton said.
Another concern, voiced by Rep. Michael Burton, D-Lakeshire, involved vaccine requirements.
Missouri public school students are required to have several vaccines to attend school. Burton said he worries that unvaccinated homeschoolers participating in school activities could put public school students at risk.
-----------------------------------------------------
Proposed abortion amendment sparks committee debate
By Hannah Taylor, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Questions of faith and freedom were key topics during a Missouri Senate hearing Wednesday on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban nearly all abortions.
The hearing on House Joint Resolution 73 featured another packed committee session dominated by public comments opposing legislators’ efforts to overturn voter approval last November of reproductive rights.
The resolution passed in committee.
Since the legislative session opened in January, Republican legislative leaders have made putting the abortion issue back before voters a key agenda item.
In November of 2024, Missourians chose to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution. HJR 73 would make citizens vote again on the issue next year with more restrictions on the already polarizing procedure.
If the amendment proposed in HJR 73 passed, it would only allow abortions for victims of rape and incest up until 12 weeks — and in the case of fetal anomalies and medical emergencies.
When the Missouri House passed the resolution, 94-50, bill handler Rep. Brian Seitz, R-Branson, said the goal of this legislation was to “protect women,” something “Amendment 3 took away from them,” according to previous Missourian reporting.
Sietz echoed the same sentiment as he testified before the committee Wednesday. Behind him members of Abortion Access Missouri were decorated with purple bandanas to show solidarity for their cause.
Seitz said the language in Amendment 3 was “ambiguous,” and Missourians did not vote for “abortion on demand.”
“With Amendment 3, voters were presented with a false dichotomy. Advertising went along these lines,” Sietz said. “These commercialized statements were blatantly false.”
A main concern voiced by Republican senators was the lack of safety provisions in clinics and the ability for abortion providers to be absolved of punishment if a patient was harmed in their care.
Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, D-Kansas City, quickly tried to disprove that rhetoric. Nurrenbern stated that prior to Amendment 3, the state imposed more rigorous health regulations for clinics that provided abortion care. Now, she said they are, “aligned with other outpatient clinics and procedures.”
Nurrernbern also addressed the claims of liability for practitioners of the procedure.
“Amendment 3 did not absolve liability,” Nurrenbern said. “People can still seek for remedy negligence. I’m clarifying that once and for all. It is abundantly clear.”
Only a few individuals came to testify in favor of the bill, citing their religious beliefs as the reason for their support.
Many women who testified in opposition also cited their own faith as the reason they were speaking in front of the committee.
“I’m here today because my experience and my faith tells me that abortion is a sometimes difficult, but always moral choice that the people of Missouri are equipped to make as moral agents formed in the image of the divine,” said Rev. Molly Housh Gordon, a pastor at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Columbia.
Theresa Daniels, an associate priest at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in St. Louis, spoke on her personal experience guiding women making the decision to have an abortion.
Daniels said she told them “shame on anyone who told you God would condemn you for having an abortion.”
Here is the provisional language that would appear on Missouri’s ballot if this resolution passed through the Senate:
Following the affirmative House vote earlier this month, a protest was held in the House gallery. Citizens wearing Abortion Access Missouri shirts were quickly escorted out while they chanted in opposition.
-----------------------------------------------------
TUESDAY
State treasurer continues push for divestment from China
By Hannah L. Graves, Missouri News Network
Missouri Treasurer Vivek Malek has made several pushes lately toward state divestment from ‘foreign adversaries,’ particularly China.
Twice within the last month Malek released statements encouraging divestment from both state pension systems and Missouri’s MOST 529 investment plans.
Malek has said publicly that divestment from China is not just a symbolic move, but a “serious policy decision rooted in sound financial judgment.”
In an interview with the Missourian, Malek identified multiple reasons for the push including poor performance from the Chinese market and national security concerns. He said China is acting as an “aggressor” toward the United States and is the country’s “strongest adversary.”
Malek pointed to research from his office that showed investment portfolios that did not include China outperformed those that did. He also mentioned that if China were to take control of Taiwan, a U.S. ally, American assets in China could be frozen and seized, similar to what happened after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
“If this is not the time to divest from China then when is?” he asked.
In response to the push from Malek, David Mitchell, a Missouri State University professor of economics, said, “There’s no real economic reason behind it, it’s more political grandstanding.”
“I don’t know if he’s noticed or not but the U.S. stock market hasn’t been performing very well for the past couple of weeks either, so I’m not sure the argument that ‘they’re not performing well, therefore we should divest from them’ is a sound argument,” said Mitchell, who is director of the university’s Bureau of Economic Research and of the Center for Economic Education.
“With all due respect to his opinion, I think that he is completely on a very different tangent,” Malek said in response.
“Our judgment was based on, initially, economic reasons,” he said, citing performance reviews of the Chinese market.
Malek also said national security interests were the second aspect of considerations informing his position.
“We’ve seen economic reasoning from the Wall Street Journal, from reputable financial newspapers and analysts that China is in big trouble,” he said.
Mitchell said financial risk based on things like political environment or economic trends is true of any country when considering international investment.
“If the Chinese stock market is starting to underperform, and the fund manager believes the underperformance is going to continue into the future, they should already be withdrawing money from that anyways, and if they’re not then they don’t know what they’re doing, and they’re not doing their job properly,” he said.
Mitchell’s opinion is that consumers should be given the option to choose where they want to invest, whether that includes international markets or not. He said the more options for investors to choose from means the higher the administrative costs will be.
Malek agrees with the sentiment that fund managers should “have inertia” to divest from China, but he asserts that some third-party fund managers, like BlackRock, which partially manages Missouri pension funds, are deeply invested and do not want to divest from China.
“When you don’t have a neutral investment manager who’s looking out for the interest of the beneficiaries of the investors in the U.S., then you get that kind of answer,” Malek said.
A customer service representative from Ascensus College Savings Recordkeeping Services, LLC, which serves as program manager and servicing agent for the MOST 529 Plan, said the prebuilt plans are set up so that consumers don’t have an option to exclude particular companies, although there are options to only invest domestically.
Malek noted that the MOST 529 Plan does not offer a total international stock index strategy that excludes Chinese companies.
“We are not taking away (investor’s) choices,” Malek said, “As a fiduciary, I need to make sure that those funds are invested in safe, secure markets and they are getting (investors) the best rate of return.”
“As an individual you are free to invest wherever you want, but that’s not the case with these pension funds,” he said.
-----------------------------------------------------
MONDAY
Recommendations for state substance abuse care heard by committee
By Jake Marszewski, Missouri News Network
Lawmakers heard suggestions Monday for addressing the behavioral health needs of Missourians struggling with substance abuse.
Missouri’s Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Task Force is comprised of state senators and representatives, and the task force chose professor Rachel Winograd to represent its recommendations before the House Health and Mental Health Committee.
Winograd researches addiction science and works to develop solutions to substance abuse at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.
Changes to the state’s drug supply inspired the task force’s recommendations. Winograd said even though opioid deaths are decreasing and deaths from stimulants have plateaued, new street drugs like Xylazine (a veterinary sedative commonly known as “tranq”) complicate efforts to combat substance abuse.
“Across my last two years of sitting with the substance abuse task force, I reviewed our recommendations, which were plentiful,” Winograd said. “I did my best to cluster them in five key domains.”
Funding
Winograd said funding for substance abuse prevention needs to increase or at least stay at its current level.
Medicaid, she said, has been crucial in caring for people with addictions without tapping into state funds.
Most state funding for substance abuse treatment comes from sales tax on cannabis and tobacco, as well as settlement funds received from tobacco companies that compensate for smoking-related medical costs.
Rep. Becky Laubinger, R-Park Hills, pointed out how the state has some of the lowest tobacco sales taxes in the nation. The tax rate per one pack of cigarettes in Missouri is 17 cents.
The task force found that the biggest gaps in funding are basic needs like recovery housing.
Transportation and housing
“I’ve been really humbled,” Winograd said, “by how little it matters if you provide really effective evidence-based treatment service if no one can get there.”
She described transportation as an issue of “equifinality,” or how different experiences can lead to similar outcomes. In rural areas, she said, treatment centers might be too far away. In urban areas, public transportation and infrastructure might be subpar.
Some current solutions to the issue are state-provided bus passes and funds for ride-booking services from care providers, but Winograd said she doubts these solutions are the most efficient way.
Housing is another basic need that effects how those struggling with substances get the help they need.
“What good is fabulous, gold-standard care if then I go back to living on the streets,” Winograd said. “The way we work as humans operating in society is that my first priority is going to be finding housing. Then I’ll deal with my sobriety.”
She recommended flexible strategies as a solution, such as outpatient treatment combined with sober living and recovery housing.
Crisis care
Overdose response makes up a large part of crisis care for substance abuse. Winograd praised the state’s push for behavioral health crisis centers, which she compared to urgent care facilities. However, she also recommended that those centers be required to provide medical treatment for people struggling with opioid addiction.
Another task force proposal was ambulance transport to non-hospital settings, such as behavioral health centers.
“Especially after an opioid overdose or a stimulant overamping event, often the hospital is not necessarily the best place for somebody to go,” Winograd said. “They don’t get the right care, it’s not what they want, it’s not what they need. They kind of get spun and churned back out to the streets.”
Behavioral health care centers can provide more comfortable or personalized care for such cases, she said.
The task force also recommended helping people navigate recovery programs, legalizing needle exchanges and expanding drug-checking services.
Legal programs
Overdoses are a “huge killer” of people who have been formerly incarcerated, Winograd said.
She recommended drug courts and diversion programs in communities to help in lowering incarceration rates. She also suggested increasing resources to treat people with addictions while they are incarcerated.
The task force also recommended judicial treatment courts, which offer care as an alternative to incarceration. Winograd said the task force wants to make sure use of life-saving tools isn’t discouraged.
“There’s a real culture in specific drug courts of success and motivation,” Winograd said. “I’m looking forward to learning more about drug courts and also making sure they are as evidence-based and effective as possible, specifically ensuring that they not only allow, but encourage and support people to stay on medications for addiction treatment.”
Other legal recommendations from the task force include evidence-based treatment for the incarcerated, expanding naloxone distribution and increased funding for public defenders.
Youth prevention
The task force found that community support and infrastructure is crucial for youth prevention of substance abuse.
“All of these things are really about letting a child have a childhood and not be running in the streets unattended and getting into dangerous stuff,” Winograd said.
The task force supported funding for youth mentoring and community service liaisons, school-based supports and youth crisis centers.
After hearing testimony in the task force, Winograd agreed that current prevention programming is not very effective, and can even be harmful.
“There is a difference between any school assembly talking about ‘don’t do drugs’ and efforts that actually work,” she said.
Winograd said targeted messaging to an age-appropriate audience can help adolescents understand what is going on inside their mind so drugs don’t seem like the easiest option.
