SB 978 would revise Missouri’s human sexuality instruction law and create a new requirement for human growth and development instruction in public schools and charter schools. The bill keeps the existing framework for sexuality education, including medically and factually accurate instruction, abstinence emphasis, contraception information, adoption content, conflict-management and self-esteem instruction, and lessons on predators, texting, harassment, violence, and consent. It also adds a new requirement that, beginning in the 2026-27 school year, schools include a human growth and development discussion with specified videos and scientific content about fetal development.
The bill requires instruction in human growth and development beginning no later than grade three and specifies that the lesson may be oral, written, or digital. The required content includes a high-definition ultrasound video, a video showing fertilization and stages of development, and a list of scientific assertions about conception, fetal heartbeat, pain perception, brain development, and abortion methods. It also states that the instruction must be age-appropriate and that parents must be notified of the content and their right to remove their child from the instruction. The bill further exempts this new section from certain existing requirements and authorizes the attorney general to bring civil actions for violations.
In practical terms, SB 978 would amend section 170.015 and add section 170.313 to Missouri law, expanding state-mandated curriculum requirements for school districts and charter schools. It would also limit local discretion by prescribing specific instructional materials and topics, while preserving parental notification and opt-out rights. The bill additionally bars schools from using abortion-service providers for human sexuality instruction and defines abortion-related terms for enforcement purposes.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a school curriculum and fetal development education bill, with a strong emphasis on pro-life messaging and detailed scientific instruction. Because the bill was only prefiled and had not advanced further in the provided record, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from votes or testimony, but the content suggests it is likely to be politically and ideologically sensitive.
The main points of contention are likely to be the mandated fetal-development curriculum, the specific scientific and abortion-related statements required in instruction, and the restriction on using abortion-service providers as instructional sources. Supporters would likely view the bill as promoting parental notice, age-appropriate education, and fetal biology instruction, while critics may argue that it injects ideological content into public school curricula, limits local control, and could present contested medical or political claims as required instruction.
SB 978 would amend Missouri’s existing human sexuality education statute and create a new section requiring human growth and development instruction in public schools and charter schools beginning in the 2026-27 school year. It would impose state-level curriculum mandates, require parental notice and opt-out rights, authorize attorney general enforcement through civil action, and restrict schools from using abortion-service providers for sexuality instruction. The bill would affect school districts, charter schools, parents, and instructional providers by narrowing local discretion and prescribing specific content and materials.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure. From the bill text alone, the measure appears to be drafted in a strongly pro-life, pro-abstinence, and pro-parental-notification posture, suggesting likely support from social conservatives and opposition from those concerned about curriculum mandates, abortion-related messaging, or state intrusion into local school instruction. Because the bill is only prefiled in the provided record, its political reception cannot be determined from official action history.
The most notable likely disputes involve whether the required fetal-development videos and scientific assertions are appropriate for third grade and above, whether the bill’s abortion-related descriptions are medically neutral or ideologically framed, and whether schools should be prohibited from using abortion-service providers as educational partners. Another likely point of contention is the balance between state-mandated curriculum and local school board control, as well as whether the attorney general enforcement mechanism is appropriate. Supporters would likely emphasize parental rights, fetal biology education, and age-appropriate instruction, while opponents would likely focus on accuracy, neutrality, and local control.