Add a note

Add your own note on the bill.

Subscribe to this bill list

Do you want to get daily or weekly updates this bill list:

ACLU MO Bills Online

Do you want to subscribe to our selected list of our priority bills, so you don't miss any major developments or upcoming hearings?


How often do you want to receive E-Mail updates on the newest bill actions and upcoming hearings? Note: of course you'll only receive an email if there are new developments to report and you can always unsubscribe with one click.

Add to your calendar

Do you want to add this event to your calendar?

Share this bill

Share this bill on Facebook, Twitter or E-Mail, or copy-paste the link to send it to anyone!

You must log in to FastDemocracy Professional to add this list to your bill lists.

Get e-mail updates

Session / Bill # Sponsors Description Last Action Full Text
MO
2020
HB 1281
Brown, Paula;
Sarah Unsicker;
Modifies provisions relating to school suspensions
In Missouri, a student can be suspended for more than a single school year largely without due process. Right now, a Missouri student can be suspended out of school for up to 180 days. The entire school year is 186 days. During the 2017-18 school year, more than 300 students were given suspensions lasting longer than 90 days. Suspensions of this length are rarely allowed in any other state. Long term out of school suspensions disproportionately affect students of color and students with disabilities. This bill would help end this harsh disciplinary policy by reducing the maximum number of days a suspension can last to ninety. Though we hope to see long term suspensions decreased further in the future, this bill is a critical first step. We support this legislation.
2020-01-09, House: Read Second Time (H)Introduced
MO
2020
SB 786
Romine;
Cindy O'Laughlin;
Modifies provisions governing school district and charter school course materials and instruction on human sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases
The ACLU of Missouri opposes.
2020-02-13, Senate: Second Read and Referred S Education CommitteeIntroduced
MO
2020
HB 2051
Pollock, Suzie;
Lynn Morris;
Ben Baker;
Sara Walsh;
Ken Wilson;
Adds that a person commits the offense of abuse or neglect of a child if such person assists, coerces, or provides for a child to undergo any surgical or hormonal treatment for the purpose of gender reassignment
The ACLU of Missouri opposes. This proposal displays a fundamental ignorance about medical treatment for transgender youth. Current care simply delays puberty until children are old enough to make their own decisions about their lived gender. This bill would take away their choices, irreversibly force them through puberty and undermine the prevailing recommendations of every major medical association.
2020-03-03, House: Public Hearing Completed (H)Introduced
MO
2020
SB 848
Eigel;
Prohibits hormonal or surgical gender reassignment for a child under eighteen years of age
The ACLU of Missouri opposes.
2020-02-20, Senate: Second Read and Referred S Seniors, Families and Children CommitteeIntroduced
MO
2020
HB 1423
Burnett, Ingrid;
Judy Morgan;
Wiley Price;
Modifies provisions relating to higher education tuition
This bill provides that no Missouri higher education institution that receives any state funds shall deny admittance to a student based the student's immigration status. We support this bill.
2020-01-09, House: Read Second Time (H)Introduced
MO
2020
HB 1345
Baker, Ben;
Hardy Billington;
Suzie Pollock;
Jim Hansen;
Dan Stacy;
Allows school districts to offer elective social studies courses on the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament
Under the First Amendment, the state cannot establish a religion in the United States. There is a clear separation between church and state in place to maintain religious freedom for all. This bill explicitly allows public schools to teach the Old and New Testament, and only those religious texts. This legislation unconstitutionally favors education in scripture that shows a preference for one or two religions over other religions. This would violate the constitutional rights of Missouri’s students. Every student, regardless of their faith, should feel safe and welcome in our public schools. When school officials promote religion generally, or signal their preference for one faith, it sends an exclusionary and destructive message that students who follow other religions, or no religion at all, do not belong. We oppose this legislation.
2020-03-11, House: Voted Do Pass (H)Committee
MO
2020
HB 1344
Baker, Ben;
Suzie Pollock;
Prohibits public bodies from entering into certain contracts
This legislation would infringe on the freedom of Missourians to express their political beliefs by prohibiting state governmental entities from contracting with a business engaged in “a boycott of Israel.” We take no position on the question of the boycotting Israel itself, as it falls outside of our purview; however, we strongly support the constitutionally protected right to protest and boycott. This bill would have broad, harmful implications for those who wish to express political stances and engage in constitutionally protected activity. We oppose this legislation and its counterparts.
2020-02-12, House: Public Hearing Completed (H)Introduced
MO
2020
HB 1393
Price, Wiley;
Ian Mackey;
Creates no-excuse absentee voting
This bill allows voters to vote absentee without providing a reason. This would expand the right to vote in Missouri significantly, allowing voters flexibility in when and how they vote. No single voter leads the same life and Missouri must move away from its heavy restrictions on voting rights to permit eligible voters access to their constitutional right. We support this bill.
2020-01-09, House: Read Second Time (H)Introduced
MO
2020
SB 739
Onder;
Prohibits public bodies from entering into certain contracts
We oppose this legislation for the same reasons we oppose HB 1344. We strongly support the constitutionally protected right to protest and boycott. This bill would have broad, harmful implications for those who wish to express political stances and engage in constitutionally protected activity. We oppose this legislation and its counterparts.
2020-03-26, Senate: Formal Calendar S Bills for Perfection--SB 739-Onder, with SCSSenate Committee Substitute
MO
2020
HB 1565
Basye, Chuck;
Jim Hansen;
Cheri Toalson-Reisch;
Sara Walsh;
Ben Baker;
Modifies provisions governing school district course materials or instruction on human sexuality or sexually transmitted diseases
The ACLU of Missouri opposes.
2020-03-10, House: Action Postponed (H)Introduced
MO
2020
HB 1763
Hannegan, Tom;
Kip Kendrick;
Greg Razer;
Sarah Unsicker;
Shamed Dogan;
Modifies provisions relating to unlawful discriminatory practices
Under the current Missouri Human Rights Act, “any unfair treatment based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age as it relates to employment, disability, or familial status as it relates to housing” is already prohibited. This legislation applies that same standard of equality on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has recognized that employment discrimination as a result of sex stereotypes is a violation of Title VII. Numerous federal cases have held that discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause or Title VII. Our own Missouri Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that discrimination based on sex stereotypes is unconstitutional and can apply to lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and transgender Missourians. Despite this helpful interpretation of state law, Missouri still needs to modify the Human Rights Act so that all individuals and businesses are crystal clear in their understanding that discrimination in Missouri will not be tolerated. We support this legislation and its counterparts.
2020-01-09, House: Read Second Time (H)Introduced
MO
2020
HB 2283
McCreery, Tracy;
Greg Razer;
Martha Stevens;
Judy Morgan;
Modifies provisions relating to youth mental health preservation
The ACLU of Missouri supports ending conversion therapy.
2020-01-28, House: Read Second Time (H)Introduced
MO
2020
HB 1756
Hannegan, Tom;
Wiley Price;
Shamed Dogan;
Modifies provisions relating to murder in the first degree
For more than three decades, we have recognized as a matter of constitutional law that executing someone who does not rationally understand the basis for their execution is cruel and unusual. Without this legislation, Missouri risks violating the 8th Amendment. We support this bill.
2020-03-12, House: Referred: Rules - Administrative Oversight(H)Committee
MO
2020
HB 2043
Baker, Ben;
Suzie Pollock;
Establishes the Adoption Protection Act
The ACLU of Missouri opposes.
2020-01-09, House: Read Second Time (H)Introduced
MO
2020
HB 1926
Kelly, Hannah;
Prohibits public institutions of higher learning from discriminating against a religious student association or denying a religious student association any benefit available to any other student association
In response to the Supreme Court decision Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, we’ve seen an uptick in legislative proposals that would require universities and colleges to recognize and provide taxpayer funds to student groups that discriminate against members based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez that a policy at the University of California, Hastings College of Law, which required all recognized student groups (i.e., those receiving university funds in addition to other privileges) to be open to all students was constitutional. The Christian Legal Society, a student group at Hasting College of Law, brought suit against the college given the group’s policy to deny membership to “unrepentant homosexuals” based on the group’s religious beliefs. In the majority opinion for the Court, Justice Ginsberg argued that the policy of Hasting College of Law to include all students was “a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization forum” and thus did not infer with the First Amendment rights of the Christian Legal Society. The Supreme Court consistently holds that efforts to institutionalize discrimination with public funds are unconstitutional. Public universities may not prohibit students from forming such groups or disseminating their messages; however, a group’s right to select its members does not include the right to government sponsorship or funding for such activities. We oppose this legislation.
2020-03-11, House: HCS Voted Do Pass (H)Introduced
MO
2020
HJR 109
Simmons, John;
Modifies provisions for voter identification
2020-03-05, House: Referred: Rules - Legislative Oversight(H)Introduced
MO
2020
SB 651
Eigel;
Modifies provisions relating to the sale of fetal tissue and establishes Missouri as a "sanctuary for life" state
This bill directs the Missouri Department of Transportation to erect signs along major highways in Missouri informing passersby that Missouri is a "sanctuary for life." Not only is this a waste of taxpayer money, its only intention is to shame those who must leave Missouri to access their constitutionally protected right to an abortion. We oppose this legislation as yet another misguided attempt to dissuade Missourians, who can and should make their own family planning decisions, from pursuing an abortion if that is what they chose.
2020-01-22, Senate: Second Read and Referred S Health and Pensions CommitteeIntroduced
MO
2020
SJR 50
O'Laughlin;
Requires students participating in any single-gender event or activity organized by a statewide activity association to participate in the event corresponding to the student's biological sex
This bill targets trans student athletes for discrimination. Trans students participate in sports for the same reasons other young people do: to challenge themselves, improve fitness, and be part of a team. Excluding trans students from participation just deprives them of opportunities available to their peers and violates state and federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection. We oppose this bill just like we do its counterpart in the House, HJR 82.
2020-02-25, Senate: Hearing Conducted S Education CommitteeIntroduced
MO
2020
SB 589
Burlison;
Modifies provisions relating to sanctuary policies enacted by political subdivisions
Missouri already has an anti-sanctuary city law on the books, one that we strongly disagree with because, in effect, it singles out immigrant families for harassment. This legislation would worsen the already bad status quo. Forcing cooperation between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local law enforcement will only strengthen fear in our immigrant communities and not, as multiple studies affirm, decrease crime. We oppose this legislation.
2020-02-11, Senate: Voted Do Pass S General Laws CommitteeIntroduced
MO
2020
HB 1422
Burnett, Ingrid;
Judy Morgan;
Keri Ingle;
Rocky Miller;
Sarah Unsicker;
Modifies provisions relating to a child's right to counsel
All Americans are entitled to legal counsel when charged with a crime under the 6th Amendment. Lawyers protect their clients, fight for their interests and make sure clients are informed of their rights with going through the justice system. Under current law Missouri’s children and their legal rights are left vulnerable. Current law does not require children to meet with an attorney before they forfeit their legal right to counsel. This bill ensures that all children speak to an attorney before they are allowed to reject counsel and that they only waive counsel in open court, not behind closed doors. Further, this bill also requires the collection of data about the juvenile justice system. Legislation like this is important to disrupt the school to prison pipeline in Missouri. We support this legislation.
2020-01-16, House: Referred: Judiciary(H)Introduced
MO
2020
HB 1312
Shull, Noel J;
Allows individuals age 60 and over to vote absentee without providing a reason
Any voter should be allowed to vote absentee for any reason, and regardless of reason that voter should be able to cast that ballot either in-person or by mail. Missouri's voting laws are incredibly restrictive and push registered voters out of the process. Voting should be easy and accessible to allow the greatest number of registered voters to participate in the democratic process. This legislation would exempt many seniors from the requirement that they provide an excuse for not being able to make it to the polls on election day. It is a step in the right direction and we encourage the Missouri Legislature to consider additional reforms. We support this bill.
2020-01-09, House: Read Second Time (H)Introduced
MO
2020
SB 842
Emery;
Modifies provisions relating to child abuse or neglect
The ACLU of Missouri opposes.
2020-02-20, Senate: Second Read and Referred S Seniors, Families and Children CommitteeIntroduced
MO
2020
HB 1605
Hicks, Ron;
Creates the "Fourth Amendment Rights Protection Act"
Technological innovation has outpaced our privacy protections. As a result, our digital footprint can be tracked by the government and corporations in ways that were once unthinkable. This bill ensures that the state of Missouri will not share data or metadata with federal agencies except in narrow circumstances. This helps protect our right to privacy and upholds the intention of Missouri voters who passed Amendment Nine in 2014 to ensure 4th Amendment protections for electronic communications. We support this legislation.
2020-01-09, House: Read Second Time (H)Introduced
MO
2020
HB 2153
Stevens, Martha;
Greg Razer;
Judy Morgan;
Allows school districts to include instruction on LGBTQ contributions to society
The ACLU of Missouri supports this legislation.
2020-01-15, House: Read Second Time (H)Introduced
MO
2020
HB 1569
Mackey, Ian;
Keri Ingle;
Modifies provisions relating to seclusion and restraint policies in public schools
This legislation prohibits the use of seclusion or restraint for any purpose other than to promote the health and safety of students, teachers, and staff members. Restraint and seclusion are used disproportionately against students of color and students with disabilities. Its use can violate the rights of students and can occur without the knowledge or consent of their guardian. During the 2015-16 school year, Black students were more than twice as likely as their white classmates to be subjected to physical or mechanical restraint and nearly three times more likely to be subjected to seclusion. In the same year, students with disabilities were 10 times more likely to be subjected to restraint compared to their non-disabled peers and 27 times more likely to be subjected to seclusion. This legislation would help disrupt the school to prison pipeline in Missouri. To learn more about the school to prison pipeline, go to https://www.pipelineofinjustice.org/. We support this legislation.
2020-01-16, House: Referred: Elementary and Secondary Education(H)Introduced
MO
2020
HB 1568
Bailey, Dottie;
Ian Mackey;
Keri Ingle;
Ron Hicks;
Jeff Shawan;
Modifies provisions relating to seclusion and restraint policies in public schools
This legislation prohibits the use of seclusion or restraint for any purpose other than to promote the health and safety of students, teachers, and staff members. Restraint and seclusion are used disproportionately against students of color and students with disabilities. Its use can violate the rights of students and can occur without the knowledge or consent of their guardian. This legislation would help disrupt the school to prison pipeline in Missouri. To learn more about the school to prison pipeline, go to https://www.pipelineofinjustice.org/. We support this legislation and its counterparts.
2020-03-09, House: Third Read and Passed (H) - AYES: 149 NOES: 4 PRESENT: 0Perfected
MO
2020
SB 658
Arthur;
Prohibits mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with minors
This bill would protect LGBTQ youth in Missouri from the dangerous, harmful effects of conversion “therapy,” also known as “reparative therapy.” The American Psychological Association has opposed conversion therapy since 1998 and issued a 2009 statement that its only effects are “depression, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, shame, social withdrawal, and a distinct rise in suicidality.” The ACLU of Missouri supports ending conversion therapy.
2020-01-22, Senate: Second Read and Referred S Professional Registration CommitteeIntroduced
MO
2020
HB 1600
Simmons, John;
Modifies several provisions relating elections
2020-03-12, Senate: Second read and referred: Local Government and Elections(S)Perfected
MO
2020
HB 2173
Schnelting, Adam;
Mike Moon;
Tony Lovasco;
Changes the laws regarding marriage and replaces marriage licenses with contracts of domestic union
The ACLU of Missouri opposes. Civil marriage is a social and cultural institution that is understood as an expression of a couple’s love and commitment to each other. It is also a legal status that automatically confers over a thousand federal rights and benefits and hundreds of additional rights and benefits under state law. Many of these rights are intended to help families in times of crisis, such as an automatic right to visit a spouse in a hospital or to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse. Replacing the institution of civil marriage with “domestic unions” would impair the rights of all Missourians.
2020-03-05, House: Motion to Do Pass Failed (H)Committee
MO
2020
SB 696
Sifton;
Requires every individual who is 17 years or older and is arrested for a felony offense to provide a biological sample for DNA profiling. Creates a procedure for certain persons who have had their samples collected to request expungement
Under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution all Americans are afforded protects from “unreasonable search a seizure.” Mandatory DNA testing for individuals accused (who have not even been convicted of a crime) of felonies clearly violates our fundamental right to privacy and must not be taken lightly. We oppose this legislation.
2020-03-26, Senate: Formal Calendar S Bills for Perfection--SB 696-SiftonIntroduced
MO
2020
SB 647
Koenig;
Establishes the Fresh Start Act of 2020
If all arrested Americans were a nation, they would be the world’s 18th largest- larger than Canada, France and three times the size of Australia. Permanent consequences should not follow individuals who have served their time and righted their lives. This legislation requires that, “no person shall be disqualified from pursuing, practicing, or engaging in any occupation for which a license is required solely or in part because of a prior conviction of a crime, unless the crime for which an applicant was convicted directly relates to the duties and responsibilities for the licensed occupation.” This basic provision should foster reentry possibilities for individuals convicted of a crime. In Missouri, recidivism drives our incarceration. The biggest predictor of if an individual will recidivate is if they have a job. Employment laws that allow for discrimination against those who have a conviction, disproportionately harm communities of color and individuals who are poor. The EEOC and some courts have held that employers’ bans on hiring people with convictions or arrests can violate Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the absence of a “business necessity,” because such bans have a disproportionate impact on people of color. We support this legislation.
2020-03-26, Senate: Formal Calendar S Bills for Perfection--SB 647-Koenig, with SCSSenate Committee Substitute
MO
2020
HB 1691
Rehder, Holly;
Steven Roberts;
Doug Clemens;
Modifies provisions regarding unlawful actions by persons knowingly infected with communicable diseases
Missouri’s current law criminalizes HIV exposure, regardless of whether transmission occurs, whether condoms are used, and whether there is any intent at all to transmit. To stop new transmission of HIV, the number one priority must be to create an environment in which all people want and have access to HIV testing, treatment, and other prevention options. Current law punishes people who get tested and know their HIV status, and privileges those who remain unaware, it makes it harder to create that environment. This bill takes important steps, updating Missouri law to reflect our present scientific understanding of HIV and curtailing criminal penalties that push those living with HIV into the shadows. We support this legislation and its counterparts.
2020-03-11, House: Referred: Rules - Administrative Oversight(H)Introduced
MO
2020
HB 1692
McCreery, Tracy;
Judy Morgan;
Modifies provisions relating to actions by persons knowingly infected with communicable diseases
Missouri’s current law criminalizes HIV exposure, regardless of whether transmission occurs, whether condoms are used, and whether there is any intent at all to transmit. To stop new transmission of HIV, the number one priority must be to create an environment in which all people want and have access to HIV testing, treatment, and other prevention options. Current law punishes people who get tested and know their HIV status, and privileges those who remain unaware, making it harder to create that environment. This bill takes important steps, updating Missouri law to reflect our present scientific understanding of HIV and curtailing criminal penalties that push those living with HIV into the shadows. We support this legislation and its counterparts.
2020-01-09, House: Read Second Time (H)Introduced
MO
2020
HJR 82
Ross, Robert;
Warren Love;
Hardy Billington;
Ben Baker;
Jeff Pogue;
Proposes a constitutional amendment to protect the integrity of interscholastic athletic contests
This bill targets trans student athletes for discrimination. Trans students participate in sports for the same reasons other young people do: to challenge themselves, improve fitness, and be part of a team. Excluding trans students from participation deprives them of opportunities available to their peers and violates state and federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection. We oppose this bill.
2020-02-19, House: Public Hearing Completed (H)Introduced
MO
2020
SB 635
Wieland;
Repeals the death penalty
Capital punishment is an intolerable denial of civil liberties and is inconsistent with the fundamental values of our democratic system. The death penalty inherently violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantees of due process of law and of equal protection under the law. We support this legislation.
2020-01-16, Senate: Second Read and Referred S General Laws CommitteeIntroduced
MO
2020
SB 657
Arthur;
Establishes no-excuse absentee voting
This bill allows voters to vote absentee without providing a reason. We support this bill and its counterparts.
2020-01-22, Senate: Second Read and Referred S Local Government and Elections CommitteeIntroduced
MO
2020
HB 2044
Baker, Ben;
Sara Walsh;
Suzie Pollock;
Ken Wilson;
Establishes the "Parental Oversight of Public Libraries Act"
The ACLU of Missouri opposes.
2020-01-09, House: Read Second Time (H)Introduced
MO
2020
SB 761
Burlison;
Prohibits institutions of higher learning from discriminating against a religious student organization
In response to the Supreme Court decision Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, we’ve seen an uptick in legislative proposals that would require universities and colleges to recognize and provide taxpayer funds to student groups that discriminate against members based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez that a policy at the University of California, Hastings College of Law, which required all recognized student groups (i.e., those receiving university funds in addition to other privileges) to be open to all students was constitutional. The Christian Legal Society, a student group at Hasting College of Law, brought suit against the college given the group’s policy to deny membership to “unrepentant homosexuals” based on the group’s religious beliefs. In the majority opinion for the Court, Justice Ginsberg argued that the policy of Hasting College of Law to include all students was “a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization forum” and thus did not infer with the First Amendment rights of the Christian Legal Society. The Supreme Court consistently holds that efforts to institutionalize discrimination with public funds are unconstitutional. Public universities may not prohibit students from forming such groups or disseminating their messages; however, a group’s right to select its members does not include the right to government sponsorship or funding for such activities. We oppose this legislation.
2020-02-13, Senate: Second Read and Referred S Education CommitteeIntroduced
MO
2020
HB 1721
Schnelting, Adam;
Ben Baker;
Ken Wilson;
Prohibits medical providers from administering any medical or surgical treatment for the purpose of gender reassignment for anyone under the age of eighteen
The ACLU of Missouri opposes.
2020-03-03, House: Public Hearing Completed (H)Introduced
MO
2020
SB 642
Onder;
Prohibits public institutions of higher education from offering in-state tuition to any student unlawfully present in the United States
This legislation targets Dreamers, seemingly denying them the right to the same opportunities as their Missouri peers because of their vulnerable immigration status. This legislation is discriminatory and puts Missouri at an economic disadvantage as talented students seek their education and pursue their livelihoods away from Missouri. We oppose this legislation.
2020-02-18, Senate: Voted Do Pass S Education CommitteeIntroduced
MO
2020
SB 988
Emery;
Defines the term "sex" for purposes of the Missouri Human Rights Act
The ACLU of Missouri opposes this legislation.
2020-03-05, Senate: Second Read and Referred S Government Reform CommitteeIntroduced
MO
2020
HB 2210
Moon, Mike;
Jeff Pogue;
Ken Wilson;
Establishes provisions relating to gender reassignment
The ACLU of Missouri opposes.
2020-01-21, House: Read Second Time (H)Introduced
MO
2020
HB 1527
Razer, Greg;
Martha Stevens;
Kip Kendrick;
Judy Morgan;
Sarah Unsicker;
Modifies provisions relating to complaints filed with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights regarding discrimination based upon a person's sexual orientation or gender identity
Under the current Missouri Human Rights Act, “any unfair treatment based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age as it relates to employment, disability, or familial status as it relates to housing” is already prohibited. This legislation applies that same standard of equality on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. We support this legislation and its counterparts.
2020-01-09, House: Read Second Time (H)Introduced
MO
2020
SB 945
Williams;
Bars discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity
Under the current Missouri Human Rights Act, “any unfair treatment based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age as it relates to employment, disability, or familial status as it relates to housing” is already prohibited. This legislation applies that same standard of equality on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has recognized that employment discrimination as a result of sex stereotypes is a violation of Title VII. Numerous federal cases have held that discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause or Title VII. Our own Missouri Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that discrimination based on sex stereotypes is unconstitutional and can apply to lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and transgender Missourians. Despite this helpful interpretation of state law, Missouri still needs to modify the Human Rights Act so that all individuals and businesses are crystal clear in their understanding that discrimination in Missouri will not be tolerated. We support this legislation and its counterparts.
2020-02-27, Senate: Second Read and Referred S Small Business and Industry CommitteeIntroduced