HB 1701 would revise Missouri law governing school instruction in human sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases, and it would add a new requirement for instruction in “human growth and development” beginning no later than grade 3. The bill keeps the existing framework requiring sexuality instruction to be medically and factually accurate, but it expands and reorganizes the required topics to include abstinence, STI prevention, contraception information, emotional and psychological consequences of adolescent sexual activity, adoption, conflict management, sexual predators and internet safety, inappropriate texting, and instruction on sexual harassment, sexual violence, and consent. It also specifies definitions for consent, sexual harassment, and sexual violence.
A major new component is the requirement that, starting in the 2026-27 school year, districts and charter schools include a human growth and development discussion using a high-definition ultrasound video and the “Meet Baby Olivia” video, or a successor video, showing fetal development and fertilization through birth. The bill also gives local school boards authority over contraception referral and parental notification policies, allows gender-separated instruction, requires parent notification and access to curriculum materials, and prohibits schools from providing or allowing human sexuality instruction from abortion service providers. It further authorizes the Missouri attorney general to enforce the section and sue for damages or injunctive relief.
The bill would affect school districts, charter schools, school boards, parents, and students by imposing more detailed instructional content requirements and by limiting who may provide related instruction. It would also create new enforcement authority for the attorney general and define “abortion services” broadly for purposes of restricting outside providers from participating in sexuality instruction. In practical terms, it would amend section 170.015 and create new section 170.313 in Missouri law, making human growth and development instruction a statewide mandate beginning in elementary grades.
The overall sentiment in the available record appears neutral to supportive in the sense that the bill was introduced and referred to the House Emerging Issues Committee, but there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes showing debate or opposition in the provided materials. The bill’s structure suggests a strong policy preference for abstinence-centered and fetal-development-focused instruction, which may appeal to supporters of pro-life or abstinence education approaches. At the same time, the inclusion of abortion-provider restrictions, mandatory video content, and attorney general enforcement are likely to be the most contentious features for critics who favor local control, broader sex education, or fewer state mandates.
Notable points of contention include whether the state should require a specific fetal-development video in classrooms, whether the attorney general should have standing to enforce the law on behalf of residents, and whether schools should be barred from using abortion service providers in any sexuality instruction. Another likely area of dispute is the balance between state-mandated content and local school board discretion, especially because the bill both prescribes specific topics and preserves some local control over curriculum, referrals, and parental notification.
HB 1701 would repeal and replace Missouri’s current school sexuality-instruction statute by expanding required instructional topics and adding a separate mandate for human growth and development instruction beginning in grade 3. It would amend section 170.015 and create new section 170.313, affecting public school districts and charter schools statewide. The bill also adds parent-notice requirements, public inspection of curriculum materials, local control over some contraception policies, and a prohibition on using abortion service providers for sexuality instruction. It further authorizes the Missouri attorney general to enforce the law through lawsuits for damages or injunctive relief.
No votes or committee testimony are included in the provided record, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a school health and development instruction bill with a strong abstinence and fetal-development emphasis, suggesting support from proponents of pro-life and abstinence-based education. The absence of recorded opposition or amendment activity in the provided materials means the public or legislative reaction cannot be measured directly from the record provided.
The most likely points of contention are the mandatory use of the “Meet Baby Olivia” video and ultrasound content, the prohibition on instruction from abortion service providers, and the grant of enforcement authority to the attorney general. Critics may view these provisions as ideological or as limiting local control over curriculum, while supporters may see them as medically informative and protective of students. The bill also raises potential disputes over the scope of required sex education, the definition of consent and sexual violence, and the extent to which parents and school boards should control access to sexuality instruction.