[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6335416,"mediaKeyId","2289467-5b8584dbf995f93f76ce44fbb8978acd","parentId",2289467,"title","House adopts Religious Freedom Protection Act after committee consideration","audioSeconds",2286,"startMs",6416070,"endMs",8702810,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2289467-5b8584dbf995f93f76ce44fbb8978acd&start=6416&end=8702","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2289467-5b8584dbf995f93f76ce44fbb8978acd/thumbnail_6416070.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6335416/Missouri/House-adopts-Religious-Freedom-Protection-Act-after-committee-consideration","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6335416-6e4ea0ea91621df04ded79ac62d35fe5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197312&Signature=KFUBvVOoRgeZuTfe3Xdxvmq6PRBR3lgiwxXxyKalRKyfowEXb74MqFIkXnKMHnh06PwDZHIhFzeefYlM7KvsPnW-gQ~gMFIQVB4nZRKDQIE7eapvshRGap8kF5~AbCodfO-Tm7Sm6U2Fwsbbj4TGayVe9uNFaBxaEFu4BbUwNyiEmaNnyZLAj22ZV2vVqofReZZluO1o2fhn~T-V2CCYEIWLOM2jRLGIk6qXhel8sC2KVOfN36sjDhjovmGyAnLpy8PZMy0Ip9wY9vP5bzcYcHTxZhjrDOgYQgVYf-vHAsi08-axO0s56w5V031AIB1zP~mqRiQ-094eKj5wv3NwJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Missouri State Legislature","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","Representative (Jasper County) introduced House Bill 75, the Missouri Religious Freedom Protection Act, saying the measure \"solidifies the constitutional guarantee of the religious freedom, ensuring that no future emergency can be used as a justification to infringe upon these fundamental rights.\" She told the House the intent was to prevent government officials from singling out religious gatherings during emergencies.

Supporters argued the bill protects constitutionally guaranteed worship rights and cited mental-health and community-support benefits churches provide during crises. Representative (Saint Louis County, District 23) and others spoke in favor of the measure as a defense of the free exercise clause.

Opponents and some members—including representatives who participated in committee review—said the state and federal constitutions already provide the protection cited and that redundant statutes risk implying that rights exist only when reaffirmed by the legislature. Representative (Genevieve County) urged that courts and constitutional remedies already protect religious liberty and suggested alternative measures such as penalties for officials who overreach or a constitutional amendment.

Floor questions focused on whether the sponsor's final draft contained explicit emergency exceptions (for instance, evacuation or imminent physical danger) and how the bill would interact with zoning, fire codes and other health-and-safety rules. The sponsor said the committee process intentionally narrowed some enumerated exceptions to avoid ambiguity and stated the bill includes language excluding conduct \"to knowingly commit or plan to commit acts of violence or harm.\"

The House adopted the committee substitute, and the sponsor said she would accept questions and conversations about implementation. The bill will move to the Senate; members on both sides signaled interest in monitoring how the language interacts with local emergency powers and public-safety rules.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025 Legislative Session - Day Twenty - Tuesday, February 11 (Chamber)","oneSentenceSummary","The House adopted a committee substitute for House Bill 75, described by supporters as a statutory reaffirmation of First Amendment protections for religious exercise during emergencies; debate centered on local control, emergency exceptions and constitutional redundancy.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MO, Missouri","taxId",77693,"location","Missouri","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6335421,"House adopts bill to bar cities from forcing landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers",1773,4599710,6373070,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2289467-5b8584dbf995f93f76ce44fbb8978acd&start=4599&end=6373","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2289467-5b8584dbf995f93f76ce44fbb8978acd/thumbnail_4599710.jpg","/articles/6335421/Missouri/House-adopts-bill-to-bar-cities-from-forcing-landlords-to-accept-Section-8-vouchers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6335421-47a768da1e8faa38e3a1021c0ac9236e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197312&Signature=nKAmsfwnnKGXW0-4X~TLN9EfY~4VKdHNYkFE1nkIBTF665IU~5i8lp8Pu6As664Odn9-iBnWEV6YcgL8YHjTXEO7PpedG-ogz1oo8TybDZEoR9EnoqapF2MmKfRwMIkQhDKXd8PgZ3oCXf1vSQZ7uJ3iUNn~RGPTgAEy60PWNnXi5UdpV6BUbFm5z~vmOihbg2cfhvanAGi86Xkd7Bo8WDXADyLICoOyTBUMiP38oVsifgynCmUHpzgiHJQco3SflN8Y6GcA1d5jNGJ43WQ2M3fcqw4kLImRLOX0FdHKmYDw8Cd~9eYHUHWCDejVmpnJJp0hA6mVpfpxYKUdlLa2~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative (Clay County) presented House Bill 595 and said it would prohibit municipal governments from creating or enforcing ordinances that force landlords to accept federal housing assistance (commonly called Section 8) or that restrict landlords' ability to screen tenants. \"I submit this is a pure property rights issue,\" the sponsor said, noting municipal ordinances that attempt to compel participation in voucher programs can impose additional administrative costs and inspections.

Supporters warned that mandates would drive landlords out of the market, reduce the supply of rental housing and discourage investment. Representative (Buchanan County) who questioned the sponsor said the ordinance would increase costs and could result in properties being removed from the rental pool. The sponsor and backers also emphasized the administrative burden of Section 8 participation and the uncertainties around local ordinances.

Opponents, including Representatives from Kansas City and Jackson County who testified in committee and spoke on the floor, urged deference to local decision-making. Representative (Saint Louis City) and others said the Kansas City ordinance was a pilot program designed to protect veterans, victims of domestic violence and low-income renters and that the city established a $1 million fund intended to help landlords who experience damage or payment delays. Several Kansas City delegates who spoke on the floor said the local ordinance was revised after initial concerns and that it sought to prevent discrimination solely on source-of-income grounds while preserving tenant screening in practice.

Representative (Clay County) said the bill was intended to prevent a spread of municipal mandates and to preserve landlords' rights. The House adopted the committee substitute and ordered the bills perfected and printed by voice vote.

The debate flagged unresolved practical issues: how municipal programs would handle inspections, documentation and compensation for damage; whether municipal actions amount to improper appropriation of private property; and the balance between encouraging voucher use and preserving property-owner discretion.","Lawmakers passed a committee substitute for House Bill 595 (and related 343), preempting municipal ordinances that would require landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers or limit tenant screening; proponents cited property rights and investor exit risks, opponents urged local solutions and cited protections and a landlord fund in Kansas City.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6335426,"Missouri House advances bill to eliminate state capital gains tax",2079,2452900,4532720,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2289467-5b8584dbf995f93f76ce44fbb8978acd&start=2452&end=4532","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2289467-5b8584dbf995f93f76ce44fbb8978acd/thumbnail_2452900.jpg","/articles/6335426/Missouri/Missouri-House-advances-bill-to-eliminate-state-capital-gains-tax","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6335426-45efda25dab406d158aee39faf00cb07/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197312&Signature=TCffw0SE6cF2RsTozMw~~5iUdwkwOg0Rdq4oznKmVl9gjNp9CilXL1pLAzxH41bYB6Gnkjb0Y76PsEDxQcf6shtbnCvECeNJLF3sVUn76B7lp0quB~XD7TcKAlvnyBwxacwoyQaJa99U3MKuNnwXUAJ8esZvXZ2ajLWjREdw394O3cRuOBuIADHahMISF-rPD82-5EMvozu8XNxIvv9bhGd9IRqgXQvNdpjG6dyUecXx5DZOvHd98FTgaMvVU6Chsdc7XBO8hCwrjCSMSTUsHpeU2mmVrQy2RniqSmZFN7br6DwEOgVFg7ROi8w9Mt8Xh0NYVSnESG1aCfqbqwVxjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative (Pike County), the bill sponsor, described the House committee substitute for House Bills 5 94 and 5 08 as \"an elimination of capital gains taxes,\" saying supporters included agriculture, real estate and business groups and noting broad committee support. \"This bill is all about stimulating growth of Missouri's economy to generate high paying jobs,\" a proponent said on the floor.

Supporters argued eliminating the capital gains tax would unlock otherwise \"locked up\" capital, encourage reinvestment, and make Missouri more competitive with neighboring states. Representative (Saint Louis County) cited historical examples and several states with zero capital gains rates as supporting the approach. Sponsor and supporters also argued that capital gains burdens small business owners, farmers and employee-owned firms.

Opponents expressed concerns about the fiscal impact on state general revenue and the difficulty of reversing a large tax cut under Missouri's Hancock Amendment. During colloquy the sponsor cited the fiscal note range over three years of roughly $230 million to $300 million in foregone revenue. Representative (Saint Louis City) said the measure would primarily benefit wealthier taxpayers and venture capitalists, and urged caution about reductions that could stress funding for schools, roads and public services. Other speakers noted impacts on working-class taxpayers who may have capital gains due to home sales and the application to retirees and Medicare IRMAA calculations.

After extended debate the House adopted the committee substitute by voice vote and ordered the bill perfected and printed.

The committee substitute moves to the Senate; the floor debate recorded concerns about how the lost revenue would be replaced and flagged potential downstream effects on education, infrastructure and public-sector pay.","Lawmakers adopted a committee substitute for House Bill 594 (and related bill 508) that would eliminate Missouri's state capital gains tax; sponsors argued it would spur investment and growth while opponents warned of large revenue losses to general revenue and impacts on services.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6335431,"Missouri House advances bill to preserve pension dollars for foster children",1329,1112020,2441820,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2289467-5b8584dbf995f93f76ce44fbb8978acd&start=1112&end=2441","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2289467-5b8584dbf995f93f76ce44fbb8978acd/thumbnail_1112020.jpg","/articles/6335431/Missouri/Missouri-House-advances-bill-to-preserve-pension-dollars-for-foster-children","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6335431-c978bcd8228bd24a25069c470c2eda19/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197312&Signature=YhmB2TTScyWD~XEWSMUcsTCmx2HGDTlfZ2OpTK0kvFj~4CVYhWY0IpDMV8b0J9w64uis43P-pmUNUpyMcl~FoFPednwqdxxCeP0ucuAocgLUyyhxraX9B-QxF-lTtqSKbbdl-sWf9qjllwXi1aXH33UduluO-nRS5w7QPiFTYChD8DDhUWJgbw8Pk7ZrfciY4Mk-vLvEJavA7~xyF315dTxzXudwanRh3Ks6AgYibDkxXQZ68Q4DTdt3~mP6pv48v0P9j9r5HH3iykyFMixjWnec2bzd0zKj6D9aNm9gyCZU8mXxRtUOvIgpHT-3VlMuNA3sO0OqntDAZG3vRsBHcg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative (Laclede County), the bill sponsor, presented House Bill 737 and said the legislation would preserve pension and survivor benefit dollars intended for children who enter foster care. \"We have a responsibility to be their voice,\" the sponsor said, describing the change as a move to keep funds for children when they age out of care.

The bill’s principal goal is to stop the state practice of applying certain survivor and pension payments to immediate care costs rather than holding them for a child’s later use. The sponsor said the issue affects about 1,200 Missouri children per year and that the state receives roughly $8,000,000 annually in the relevant pension dollars.

Debate on the floor focused on two groups of provisions that had been part of earlier versions: language clarifying parental supervision of children (often characterized as protecting normal childhood activities such as playing in a yard) and language encouraging placement of children with \"like-minded faith families.\" Representative (Clay County) urged the House not to strip those provisions, saying they had passed the House previously and had been vetted by the Senate. \"We're seeing across the country, people that are being reported for abuse or neglect just because they're letting their kids play in the neighborhood by themselves,\" he said in support of retaining the clarified supervision language.

After discussion the sponsor withdrew an initial amendment that would have removed those items and instead offered a second amendment (ending in 0.03 H) described on the floor as \"cleaning up the language\" and better aligning House and Senate versions while preserving placement and supervision language. Representative (Saint Louis County, District 73), who served on the Committee on Children and Families, spoke in favor of the amended package and urged passage.

The House adopted the committee substitute and the sponsor's amendment package by voice vote. The chair ordered House Bill 7 37 perfected and printed.

The bill as advanced will go to the Senate for consideration. The sponsor and several members said they intend to pursue related measures separately if needed; no additional fiscal notes or effective dates were provided on the floor.","The Missouri House adopted a committee substitute for House Bill 737 to preserve certain veteran, Social Security and railroad survivor benefits for children in foster care and to clarify placement and age definitions after a floor amendment process.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House adopts Religious Freedom Protection Act after committee consideration

House adopts bill to bar cities from forcing landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers

Missouri House advances bill to eliminate state capital gains tax

Missouri House advances bill to preserve pension dollars for foster children