WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 3244

Modifies provisions relating to assisted reproductive technology

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Mark Boyko

Missouri HB 3244 aims to clarify and regulate ART procedures, including embryo handling, donor/surrogacy rules, parental rights, and clinic oversight.

Referred: Emerging Issues(H)
#healthcare #insurance-health
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 3244

Overview

HB 3244 (Missouri, 2026) Modifies provisions relating to assisted reproductive technology (ART). The bill appears to address rules, responsibilities, and potential regulatory adjustments surrounding ART procedures, embryos, and related activities. It has been introduced and referred to committee, with a co-sponsor listed as Mark Boyko.

Main purpose and intent

  • Update and potentially tighten or clarify Missouri law governing assisted reproductive technology.
  • Establish or modify framework for how ART procedures, embryo handling, and related activities are regulated, funded, or governed by state policy.
  • Provide guidance that could affect clinics, patients, donors, surrogates, and other parties involved in ART.

Key provisions and changes (as indicated by title and typical ART-related bills)

Note: The specific statutory text is not provided here, but based on the bill’s title and context, the following areas are commonly addressed in Missouri ART-related legislation. Readers should consult the bill’s actual language for precise sections and amendments.

  • Definition and scope of assisted reproductive technology
    • Clarification of what constitutes ART within Missouri law (e.g., in vitro fertilization, embryo storage, donor gametes, embryo creation and manipulation).
  • Embryo and gamete handling
    • Rules governing creation, storage, transfer, and disposition of embryos and gametes.
    • Provisions related to ownership, consent, and parental rights in various ART scenarios.
  • Donor and surrogacy provisions
    • Standards for donor recruitment, compensation, consent, and confidentiality.
    • Legal framework for surrogacy arrangements, including enforceability and parental rights.
  • Insurance, funding, or financial considerations
    • Any changes to what is covered by state programs or insurance mandates related to ART (e.g., coverage for infertility treatment or embryo storage).
  • Compliance and regulatory oversight
    • Roles for state agencies in licensing, inspection, or reporting requirements for ART clinics and laboratories.
    • Reporting obligations to the state and potential penalties for noncompliance.
  • Domestic relations and parental rights
    • Clarifications on legal parenthood in ART contexts, including pre-birth or post-birth determinations.
  • Data privacy and recordkeeping
    • Requirements for record retention, privacy protections for donors, patients, and offspring, and data reporting to state authorities.

Who would be affected

  • ART clinics, fertility clinics, and reproductive laboratories operating in Missouri
  • Patients undergoing ART procedures (individuals or couples)
  • Gamete and embryo donors
  • Surrogate mothers and intended parents in surrogacy arrangements
  • State agencies responsible for health, licensing, and family law
  • Legal professionals and judges handling cases involving ART and parental rights
  • Insurance providers or public funding programs that cover ART services (if applicable)

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduced: February 9, 2026
  • Read Second Time: February 10, 2026
  • Referred to Committee: Emerging Issues (H) on May 15, 2026
  • Next steps likely include committee consideration, potential amendments, and votes in the House before moving to the Senate (if applicable).

Practical considerations and potential impact

  • Clarity and consistency: The bill may reduce ambiguity in ART-related legal and regulatory matters, improving predictability for patients and providers.
  • Legal risk and parental rights: Changes could affect how parentage is established before, during, or after birth in ART contexts.
  • Compliance burden: Clinics may face new licensing, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements, with associated costs and administrative work.
  • Accessibility and affordability: If the bill addresses funding or insurance coverage, it could influence the affordability and availability of ART services in Missouri.

For a complete and precise understanding, readers should review the bill’s full text and any fiscal notes or amendments as it progresses through the legislative process.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.