Bipartisan set of bills would extend post-pregnancy healthcare

      A bipartisan group of House lawmakers is sponsoring legislation that they hope will save the lives of women and infants in Missouri, and in doing so, move the state farther from the bottom in the nation in infant and maternal mortality.

Majority Floor Leader Jon Patterson (R) (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Their proposals would extend MO HealthNet or Show-Me Healthy Babies coverage for low-income pregnant women to a full year after the end of their pregnancy.  Currently that coverage stops after 60 days. 

      Six representatives have filed that proposal, including Majority Floor Leader Jonathan Patterson (R-Lees Summit).     

      “The wellbeing of the child is based upon the wellbeing of the mother, so that’s why we’re really worried about, and we really want to focus on, healthcare for the mother, because it affects the child,” said Patterson. 

      He says there are about 5,000 women in Missouri who don’t have insurance coverage either through the state, personal coverage, or an employer.

“The data are very clear that it’s critically important.  You’re talking about the physical development of the child, development of the brain, that they have support, and one of those things is having a mother that can be there.  For example if your mother is in the hospital for a mental crisis or high blood pressure they can’t be there for the child so that’s what we’re trying to avoid.”

Representative LaKeySha Bosley (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Governor Mike Parson (R) in his State of the State Address earlier this month said, “we are heartbroken to be failing,” in the area of infant mortality, with Missouri ranking 44th in the nation for its “abnormally high” rate.

      Kansas City Democrat Patty Lewis calls the situation, “abysmal.”  She said in a Department of Health and Senior Services report covering 2017 to 2019, “Something that was pretty astounding to me based on their findings is 75-percent of the deaths are preventable.  As [someone with a] background in nursing, if we can prevent something that’s what I want to do,” said Lewis.

      She said in the years covered by the report an average of 61 women died while pregnant or within one year of pregnancy, with 68 in 2018. 

      “If we can just save one that would be great, but saving 60 women I think would be very important to me.”

      Freshman representative Melanie Stinnett (R-Springfield) said maternal healthcare was an issue that voters talked to her about leading up to her election in November.

Representative Patty Lewis (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “I work in the realm of healthcare and I work with a lot of families with children with disabilities, specifically, but also work really closely with organizations like The Doula Foundation and midwife groups in Springfield so it’s certainly something that’s come up in Springfield and a topic that has been something that I’ve talked about in our community,” said Stinnett.

      Representative Brad Pollitt (R-Sedalia) said the data about how many of those deaths could have been prevented weighs heavily on him. 

He said the proposal, “is just giving a little extra healthcare to get them off on the right foot and to help the mother who may be having issues and I just think it’s the right thing to do.”

      “It’s not the state’s job, it’s not the taxpayer’s job to financially take care of every individual from birth to death.  That’s not what this is doing.  This is giving someone an opportunity to start off on a better life and if we can do that then I just think it’s the right thing to do and I think it shows that we do care as a party about life after the baby’s born, and about the mother’s life.”

The Republican sponsors of the bill acknowledge that it also relates to their party’s identity regarding its pro-life stance.  Bishop Davidson (R-Republic) said his party is often criticized as only supporting life before birth, but this bill is one thing that demonstrates otherwise. 

Representative Melanie Stinnett (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“We carried it before that Dobbs case.  We’re going to carry it after that Dobbs case.  We’re interested in lives, and lives being fulfilled from conception to death, and so I see this piece of legislation as a part of a holistic agenda that is pro-life.” 

      Representative LaKeySha Bosley (D-St. Louis), who is for the fourth time sponsoring this proposal, says that it is “imperative” after Dobbs, “as we did pass the abortion ban, and [even] before we passed House Bill 126, the heartbeat bill, women who were in rural or underserved communities were dying [in] childbirth.”

      Patterson agrees with his fellow Republicans, “We’re a pro-life state.  I’m very proud to be pro-life, but that also means taking care of these children that are born.  This is a measure that would ensure that the mother has healthcare for a year after they’re born, which is critically important to the wellbeing of the newborn baby.”

Representative Brad Pollitt (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Bosley notes that while maternal mortality rates are an issue statewide, they hit some in Missouri harder than others. 

“As an African American woman, as a minority in the State of Missouri … women who look like me are dying at a higher number and at a higher rate than our white counterparts.”

      Bosley is glad that this proposal has gained more sponsors and a lot of media attention and she hopes it will lead to more. 

“I’m happy that it’s a hot topic.  Let’s go further than just the 12th months.  Let’s talk about doulas.  Let’s go into the holistic conversation about how we can provide some assistance to doulas and have them be reimbursed,” adding, “Extending the coverage from the three months to the twelve months is just one of the small things that we can do, and it may seem small but it’s going to mean so much to a lot more people across the state.”

Representative Bishop Davidson (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Patterson observes that the broad appeal of this plan isn’t limited to the House but extends to the Senate, where two versions have been filed and have already received a hearing.  He and the other sponsors share great optimism that this will pass this year.

      “It’s just a common sense measure that we can do to ensure the health of the babies.”

      None of the House versions of this bill have been referred to a committee.

The bills that have been filed are: House Bill 91 (Patterson), House Bill 254 (Pollitt), House Bill 286 (Lewis), House Bill 328 (Bosley), House Bill 354 (Davidson), and House Bill 965 (Stinnett).

Proposal would add 17 year-olds to legal definition of ‘missing child’

      The definition of a “missing child” in Missouri law would include 17 year-olds under a proposal heard by a House committee this week.

Representative Bishop Davidson (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Republic representative Bishop Davidson (R) said he heard from a constituent about a 17 year-old who ran away from home and police could not act to retrieve her.  He said her family felt she was in an unsafe and abusive situation, and noted that they still have responsibility for her care until she turns 18.

      “It’s really a question about at what point are you considered a child and at what point are you considered an adult.  I think if we want to allow for a 9 year-old or a 10 year-old or an 11 year-old, at some point in time that line has to be drawn.  In all of the law we draw that line at 18.  Here we draw it, curiously, at 17,” said Davidson.  “In terms of whether or not a child is considered a child or an adult, I think that there should be consistency across the law.”

      Davidson presented the proposal to the House Committee on Children and Families, the members of which raised some concerns. 

      “If you’re 17 and living in a bad environment at your home … if you leave this would actually give law enforcement people the authority to retrieve you and force you to go back home?” asked Republican Randy Pietzman (Troy)“I’m just thinking of scenarios growing up, people I know that have left home at 16.  They dropped out of school, they left home because it was a bad environment, and 90 percent of those people are pretty well off and doing very well, and I’m just thinking if they’d have been forced to stay there for another year they might not be doing as well as they are.”

      Davidson said it would, but noted there are other systems in place to help a young person in such a situation.

      “Now would I want an officer or someone close to the family, I mean if the child is running away at 17 could that be a pause for concern?  Could that stir up some questions that go, ‘Hey, did they run away for any particular reason that maybe we should look into?’  Sure, that’s a whole other conversation,” said Davidson, who added that he appreciated Pietzman’s reservation. 

      Several committee members thanked Davidson for opening the discussion.  Shrewsbury Democrat Sarah Unsicker recently read about a 17 year-old who was dropped from the foster care system but was not emancipated, so among other things she could not enter into a contract such as a lease to find housing.   

      “The report I got from the government says law enforcement refused to file a missing persons report or issue a pickup order due to the child’s age … so I think it’s really important that law enforcement know that they need to look for missing kids when they’re 17 years old,” said Unsicker. 

      Representative Marlene Terry (D-St. Louis) asked Davidson about expanding his bill to specify that law enforcement search for such individuals, and what must be done in that search.

Representative Marlene Terry asks Rep. Bishop Davidson about his bill, as Representatives Hannah Kelly (light blazer) and Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Chair of the House Committee on Children and Families, listen. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “What I’m finding is that there are not procedures in place that make it manadatory to actually search for individuals that are missing.  A lot of times they’ll put up pictures and it’s a blank picture and not a photo.  All those things are important.  Even with the age, makes a difference, there’s other things that make a difference that might be helpful to make the search more valuable,” said Terry.

      “I come to this with a very open mind,” Davidson told Terry.  “This is not an issue that I have been most closely involved in and so I’m excited to see where the conversations go.”

      Mountain Grove Republican Hannah Kelly said in her experience, much frustration for caseworkers comes from directives being handed down without understanding of what would be necessary for them to be met. 

      “I would just ask to be able to have a continuing part in that conversation with you about what the ultimate structure looks like … what does it take to go do this,” said Kelly. 

      “I hope that this piece of legislation won’t leave this committee just in the form that it’s in now,” said Davidson.   

      His bill, House Bill 1559, is scheduled for a second hearing by the committee on Wednesday, and it could be voted on and/or amended at that time.