Prior to the 2006 legislative session, Governor Matt Blunt laid out his plans for enactment of three items of legislation that he proposed to regulate abortions in Missouri. The first would offer tax credits for contributions made to crisis pregnancy centers. The second would prohibit abortion providers from providing educational materials and services in public schools. The third would protect health care providers’ rights of conscience in deciding whether to provide certain health care services.

Members of the governor’s staff met with representatives of pro-life organizations, including the Missouri Catholic Conference, the Missouri Baptist Convention, Campaign Life Missouri, Missouri Right to Life, and others, seeking their support for these priorities. Legislative leadership designated specific legislators to act as liaisons for the pro-life community. All participants agreed to support enactment of these three bills during the 2006 legislative session.

Early in the session, bills were introduced to implement these three priorities. HB 1485, introduced by Rep. Allen Icet (R-Wildwood), would provide tax credits for contributions to crisis pregnancy centers. This legislation was quickly heard and approved by the House Children and Families Committee, chaired by Rep. Susan Phillips (R-Kansas City), the designated House liaison to the pro-life community. The bill has progressed quickly through the legislative process, was approved the full House of Representatives, and is now awaiting hearing in the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

The other two bills have not fared so well. HB 1075 was introduced by Rep. Cynthia Davis (R-O’Fallon), would have revised current requirements for public school curricula relating to contraception and sexually transmitted diseases. As originally proposed, the bill ensured that abortion providers could not furnish sex education materials and instruction. However, as later drafted, the bill also deleted current requirements that students be presented with the latest medically factual information regarding side effects, health benefits, and failure rates for the methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and replaced that requirement with a new requirement that personally and medically relevant information concerning contraception, abortion, and pregnancy may be obtained from their family practitioner.

Substantial opposition arose to HB 1075, in part from BJC HealthCare (Barnes-Jewish-Christian), which although providing abortions in its facilities, also seeks to provide sex education in public schools. BJC sought to exempt all state licensed medical facilities from the legislation, including its hospitals. Other opposition arose to the provisions of the bill regarding student information about pregnancy prevention and sexually transmitted diseases, and the advisability of modifying current legal requirements. HB 1075 was taken up for debate for a short while in the House of Representatives on April 5, but with 20 amendments sought to be offered on the House floor, debate was quickly ended by Rep. Tom Dempsey (R-St. Charles), the House majority floor leader. The bill sat on the House calendar now for nearly three weeks until April 25, when it was again taken up for debate. Amendments were adopted exempting licensed hospitals from providing sex education relating to subjects other than abortion, and deleting the new provisions of the bill regarding student information about pregnancy prevention and sexually transmitted diseases. The bill was finally passed by the House on April 27, and awaits consideration by the Senate. However, considering the late date of the House action, it faces significant obstacles to passage.

HB 1539 was introduced by Rep. Bryan Stevenson (R-Webb City) and would have established the Health Care Rights of Conscience Act to protect the religious, moral, or ethical principles held by a health care provider, health care institution, or health care payer. The bill provided that a health care provider, institution or payer is not required to participate in a health care service that violates his or her conscience. Any individual or institution declining to participate in providing healthcare would not be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable and would not be discriminated against in any manner for refusing to participate; and no health care payer would be required to pay for or arrange for the payment of any health care service or product that violates the payer’s policy or policies. This bill was heard twice in the House Children and Families Committee was voted out of committee twice and sent to the House Rules Committee (chaired by Rep. Shannon Cooper, R-Clinton), which in turn twice returned the bill back to the Children and Families Committee. At this late date, this legislation has minimal chances of passage. Opposition from the business community has been cited for the bill’s demise.

Several other bills were introduced during the 2006 legislative session relating to abortion, but most have fared no better. Legislation was introduced by Rep. Belinda Harris (D-Hillsboro) to ensure continued existence and funding for the state’s Alternatives to Abortion Program. That legislation was heard by the House Health Care Policy on February 23, but no further action has been taken. HB 1444, introduced by Rep. Therese Sanders (R-Moberly), would have prohibited expenditure of state funds to subsidize abortions. That legislation was heard by the House Health Care Policy on March 9, but in the face of opposition from BJC HealthCare and other health care providers, no further action has been taken.

Health care and business interests have openly opposed legislation designed to impede abortions during the 2006 legislative session. Governor Blunt and legislative leaders have attempted to define priorities for the pro-life community, but then have shown little inclination to move abortion related legislation if health care providers or business interests are concerned about its affect on their interests. The subject of abortion is controversial in both society and in the General Assembly, and there will always be much discussion and some disagreements regarding how to regulate abortion. Some health care providers and business interests profit from both surgical and chemically induced abortion, and similar practices. Until the General Assembly is willing to put the interests of the state’s unborn citizens ahead of business and health care interests, there will be little progress regulating abortions in Missouri.