25-03-2025
Missouri's revamped ‘eHarmony for babies' bill criticized as government overreach
State Rep. Phil Amato, a Republican from Arnold, originally filed legislation that would have required that the state 'maintain a central registry of each expectant mother who is at risk for seeking an abortion of her unborn child" (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).
The revamp of widely-criticized legislation that sought to create a registry of pregnant girls and women 'at risk' of abortion raised bipartisan concerns of government overreach during a House committee hearing Tuesday morning.
The initial bill, filed by state Rep. Phil Amato, a Republican from Arnold, would have required that the state 'maintain a central registry of each expectant mother who is at risk for seeking an abortion of her unborn child.'
Amato has said this registry would have been voluntary, though it was unclear who would have collected that information.
His initial bill was highlighted in a smattering of national and international headlines raising concerns about data privacy in one of the most anti-abortion states in the country. Dozens of people filed testimony in opposition.
The bill was set aside, and Amato filed a new version.
'The verbiage was a little clumsy,' Amato admitted Tuesday before his colleagues on the House Committee on Children and Families as he presented his new legislation.
Amato said he first approached an adoption attorney about drafting this bill after he learned how costly and difficult adoption can be. He said he hoped the legislation would help more easily get resources to expectant parents, make adoption easier and use modern technology to match pregnant individuals with potential adoptive parents.
He previously referred to the idea on several occasions as 'eHarmony for babies.'
'Lifeline for women': Missouri bill removes obstacles for pregnant women seeking divorce
This new bill would still create a Division of Maternal and Child Resources within the Department of Social Services that would be designed to help anyone who doesn't want to keep their baby connect with families hoping to adopt.
Amato removed all references to a registry, but the bill still refers to people 'at risk' of abortion.
'The system shall coordinate community resources and provide assistance or services to expectant mothers identified to be at risk for seeking abortion services,' the bill reads. 'And to prevent abortion through the adoption of children by fit and proper persons seeking to adopt.'
While some concerns about the 'at risk' language were again raised, most of Tuesday's debate centered around hesitations from both Democrats and Republicans about how much government control this would create in the adoption space — and at what price.
The fiscal note cites a potential cost of more than $40 million in state revenue for the program in 2026. Much of this goes to staff salaries, including the cost of five legal counsel who would help with referral processes from school districts, non-profits, homeless shelters and faith-based organizations 'that could refer up to 3,700 expectant mothers' a year.
Sam Lee, a longtime anti-abortion lobbyist, raised concerns that the legislation would require agencies that fall within the Alternatives to Abortion program, like maternity homes and pregnancy resources centers, 'to start looking at eyeballing these women and seeing if they're candidates to place their child for adoption.'
'I don't think that's something we want to have the government doing,' he said.
The fiscal note goes on to estimate that there were 3,653 abortions in 2021 and 3,012 abortions in 2022 in Missouri. However, data previously provided to The Independent by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services show that data refers to the numbers of Missourians who received abortions anywhere in the country during those years.
In 2021, only 150 abortions were performed in the state, according to the health department. In 2022, the year the procedure became illegal, it dropped to 88.
State Rep. Jamie Gragg, an Ozark Republican, said his main concern was the creation of a department that would put the government in direct competition with the private sector since adoption agencies already exist.
'The most dangerous words ever spoken are 'Hello, I'm from the government. I'm here to help,'' said Gragg. ' … I appreciate the intent, but I would like to see how we can make the existing things work cheaper, instead of the government basically coming and taking over and really screwing it up.'
The committee took no action on the legislation Tuesday.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
