‘Save MO Babies’ bill would create state division to coordinate services and an adoption registry; sponsors and witnesses face privacy and fiscal questions

Representative Amato presented House Bill 807, labeled the 'Save MO Babies Act,' proposing a new Division of Maternal and Child Resources to coordinate services for expectant parents and to facilitate adoptions through a voluntary registry.

Sponsor Rep. Amato said he asked adoption attorneys to draft a plan to make adoption faster and less costly and that the proposal would coordinate resources for expectant mothers who wish to place children for adoption and help match those mothers with vetted prospective adoptive parents.

Gerard Harms, an attorney who helped draft the bill, testified in favor and described the registry as voluntary and intended to match mothers who choose adoption with screened prospective adoptive parents. Harms said the division would be required to comply with state and federal privacy laws, including HIPAA, and compared part of the idea to the existing Missouri Heart Gallery (the state’s photo listing of children in foster care). He told the committee the proposal is not meant to replace private adoption agencies but to reduce time and cost; he also said the program would refer mothers to existing services (Medicaid/MoHealthNet, housing, child support and other supports) and that some startup costs would be offset by avoiding foster‑care placements.

Committee members pressed the sponsor and Harms on several topics:

• Privacy and consent. Multiple members raised concerns about a central registry that could include sensitive medical and identifying information. Harms said the proposed substitute language would make the registry opt‑in and that the registry would not include medical test results or other protected health information beyond a pregnancy status and expected delivery date; committee members pressed for explicit opt‑out and data‑destruction procedures and for an informed‑consent framework explaining who may access shared data.

• Scope, duplication and state involvement. Members asked why the state should create a new division rather than improve existing state adoption processes or use private providers. Harms said existing services would be used and that the division's role would be coordination and matching; others suggested exploring improvements within the Department of Social Services or other state offices.

• Fiscal note and staffing. The sponsor and witness acknowledged startup costs and cited an initial figure in testimony of roughly $1 million–$1.5 million for the division; members said that estimate likely understates staffing, legal and IT costs and noted the state already contracts with hundreds of providers (hospitals, pregnancy resource centers, juvenile offices and adoption agencies) that would be involved. Representative Prouty and others urged the sponsor to consult with Department of Social Services staff and the Division of Legal Services about implementation and budgeting.

• Protections for fathers and kinship placements. Members asked how fathers or other relatives would be considered by the registry and whether the bill’s placement procedures would preserve existing parental‑rights protections; Harms said the bill would not change statutory parental‑rights rules and that home studies and background checks used for foster/adoption placements would apply.

Opposition testimony included concerns that the state’s track record on program and IT implementation (MoHealthNet, SNAP) and privacy handling is imperfect and that a new statewide registry creates risks. Yvonne Reeves Chong (vice chair, Missouri Democratic Party) testified she supports adoption assistance but said state law and policy currently contain barriers (employment protections, childcare access) that also need to be addressed.

The committee asked the sponsor and proponents to provide additional details after the hearing: a draft substitute clarifying the registry as voluntary, explicit consent/opt‑out procedures, tighter limits on what data may be stored and shared, and clearer cost estimates and implementation plans, including conversations with the Department of Social Services and the Division of Legal Services.

The hearing concluded with the committee requesting follow-up materials and the sponsor indicating he will offer a committee substitute and provide more detail to the committee.