Missouri hearing on 'born‑alive' bill exposes drafting split between civil care and criminal penalties

Representative Brian Sites presented House Bill 16‑67, the "Born Alive Survivors Protection Act," saying the purpose is to ensure infants who survive an abortion attempt receive care equal to that given to any other newborn at the same gestational age. "This legislation is not about abortion," Sites said, "but what should be done after a failed attempt to end the life in the womb." He cited survivor testimonials and stated a desire to codify care and reporting requirements that supporters say are not explicit in current state law.

Supporters — including survivors, pro‑life groups and Missouri Right to Life — urged the committee to clarify reporting and care standards so infants are not left without treatment. Timothy Faber told lawmakers "no other victim of attempted murder is allowed to die" and argued the state should require life‑preserving care and civil remedies for families.

Medical and legal witnesses and several committee members pushed back on drafting and enforcement concerns. Attorneys and obstetric representatives warned the bill blurs civil malpractice standards and criminal definitions: one committee member noted existing statutes covering endangering the welfare of a child, neglect and infanticide, and questioned whether the bill creates duplicative or inconsistent criminal liability. Representative Jamieson and other lawmakers pressed the sponsor to specify temporal limits, define "present" and clarify whether the statute would apply beyond the immediate post‑procedure window.

Witnesses also raised the need for reporting requirements: the sponsor said Missouri currently lacks a specific reporting mechanism for infants who survive abortion attempts and asked the committee to consider requiring that events be reported as other states do. Legal practitioners recommended focusing on civil remedies and attorney fees as an immediate step, and some urged narrowing any criminal penalties until definitions are tightened.

The committee held extended questioning but took no vote; members requested drafting changes and further consultation with medical and judicial stakeholders to avoid conflict with existing Supreme Court rules and professional standards.