JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri lawmakers began debate on a number of LGBTQ-focused measures on Wednesday, elevating culture wars and drawing fiery criticism from opponents.
A Republican-controlled Senate committee took up a “Parents’ Bill of Rights” plan that would require teachers to notify a student’s parents if the student expresses “discomfort or confusion about the student’s documented identity.”
The House Emerging Issues Committee was scheduled to consider a suite of transgender-related measures starting Wednesday afternoon.
The hearings showed conservative lawmakers aren’t finished addressing transgender issues after contentious debate last year ended with new restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone therapy, and a requirement that student athletes to play on teams aligning with the sex on their birth certificates.
In addition to the “Parents’ Bill of Rights” being considered in the Senate — which the LGBT advocacy group PROMO said would lead to the forced outing of transgender and nonbinary students — the House Emerging Issues Committee was scheduled to take up:
Jamie Reed
- Legislation addressing last year’s health care restrictions. Last year’s restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors are set to expire in August 2027.
Minors who had already started treatment were also exempted from the restrictions.
Legislation this year would do away with the expiration date and exemptions for minors who were already receiving treatment. (House Bill 1520)
Jamie Reed, a former case manager at the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital who has criticized the clinic, testified Wednesday in favor of extending the restrictions beyond the 2027 expiration date.
Beth O’Malley
Another bill would forbid health care institutions from requiring providers to participate in procedures or treatments “related to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning” if the treatment conflicts with the provider’s moral, ethical or religious beliefs. (House Bill 1519)
PROMO said this measure would give doctors “license to discriminate.”
Rep. Brad Hudson, R-Cape Fair, said the law should protect medical professionals who don’t wish to provide transgender care still legal in Missouri.
“As health care becomes increasingly politicized, medical professionals are being forced to choose between their deeply held beliefs and their livelihoods,” he said.
Another measure would forbid employers from requiring that an employee share a restroom or locker room with someone of the opposite sex. (House Bill 1674)
- Another plan prohibits students from using a restroom or locker room associated with the sex opposite the one indicated on a student’s birth certificate.
The legislation allows transgender students to use alternative facilities, but the child must receive written permission from their legal guardian. (House Bills 2355 and 2357)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday passed up a chance to intervene in the debate over bathrooms for transgender students, rejecting an appeal from an Indiana public school district.
Federal appeals courts are divided over whether school policies enforcing restrictions on which bathrooms transgender students can use violate federal law or the Constitution.
In the case the court rejected without comment, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an order granting transgender boys access to the boys’ bathroom.
Another bill, called the “Defining SEX Act,” seeks to use “gender” synonymously with “sex” in state law. (House Bill 2309)
The last measure seeks to define “sex” in the Missouri Human Rights Act (House Bills 2308).
While the Missouri Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry and sex, the law does not explicitly forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
In a decision cheered by LGBTQ advocates in 2019, the Missouri Supreme Court allowed a discrimination case to proceed involving a transgender student who wasn’t allowed to use the bathroom aligning with his gender identity.
The court said that because the student’s discrimination claim was based on sex, he should be able to argue his case in a lower court.
A majority on the court ruled state law “does not provide for ‘types’ of sex discrimination claims; a claim is either a claim of sex discrimination or it is not.”
Katy Erker-Lynch, executive director of the Missouri LGBTQ advocacy group PROMO, said in a statement that lawmakers were using bodies as political pawns.
“That they would weaponize our state’s Human Rights Act, the very tool created to provide protections from discrimination for all Missourians, speaks to their lack of shame in using bodies as political pawns,” she said.
