Parental bill of rights legislation voted down in the Missouri House

By Kennedy Voss and Anika Austvold

Columbia Missourian

The Missouri House voted down a bill Thursday that would have expanded the rights of parents in their child’s school or doctor’s office.

The bill faced robust debate Tuesday, which ended with the House signaling its approval with a vocal vote. However, the bill was unable to cross the threshold of votes needed Thursday for it to be passed along to the Missouri Senate.

The bill received a vote of 70-60, which falls short of the 82 votes needed to provide a constitutional majority.

Sponsored by state Rep. Ben Keathley, a Republican from Chesterfield, the bill was meant to give parents more control over decisions affecting their children’s health and education.

“We all know and agree that parents are the initial and ultimate people responsible for the upbringing and raising of their children,” Keathley said.

In the classroom, it would have allowed parents to approve reading materials or topics discussed. The language cited moral reasons and also had provisions about excusing their child from school for religious purposes.

For schools, it would have required more oversight by making a database that parents would have been allowed access to for tracking what the district spends its money on.

Opponents argued the added requirements could place additional burdens on school systems.

“Our schools know how to navigate the balance of the parents’ rights and the protection of children, as do our health care providers,” said Rep. Kathy Steinhoff, D-Columbia, who spoke against the bill. “This bill will add challenges to the work they are doing.”

The bill also would have required schools to let parents know if they suspected their child was being abused. Opponents raised concerns during debate Tuesday, warning that if a parent were the abuser, the requirement could put an abused child in further danger.

“This is not about the power of families,” Rep. Elizabeth Fuchs, D-St. Louis, said in opposition to the legislation. “It’s about fortifying a dangerous ideology that prioritizes absolute parental control over a child’s right to safety.”

Though the lack of support was surprising, the bill would have faced many hurdles to final passage.

If the vote had gone in Keathley’s favor, it would have needed to move quickly through the Senate as the legislative session ends in two weeks.