Did the Missouri AG approve the fiscal note for Sara Baker's referendum on HB 126 (the 2019 'heartbeat' abortion law, file 20-R001)?
Plain-English summary
Petition 2020-R001 was Sara Baker's referendum petition seeking to put HB 126 (the 2019 Missouri "heartbeat" abortion law) before voters. The full background and bill provisions are described in the companion summary-statement opinion 168-2019.
Under § 116.175 RSMo, the State Auditor prepares a fiscal note explaining the petition's expected revenue and cost effects. The AG then reviews the fiscal note's "legal content and form" under § 116.175.4 RSMo. The AG approves form, not accuracy, of the auditor's numbers.
The fiscal note approved here projects substantial fiscal effects if the referendum succeeded (i.e., HB 126's restrictions remained in force after a voter approval). State revenues from federal sources tied to certain healthcare and Medicaid eligibility were projected to decrease by at least $4.9 million per year, and federal Medicaid revenues by an unknown amount up to $7.2 billion per year (the upper bound reflects the worst-case scenario of total federal Medicaid loss for noncompliance with federal requirements). The Public Defender's Office anticipated additional costs to defend "women's medical actions after conception" (i.e., new criminal cases against pregnant defendants under HB 126's expanded prohibitions). Local governments anticipated significant negative impact. AG Schmitt's letter approves the legal form of that fiscal note.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2019. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, and later AG opinions have substantially changed the abortion-law landscape, and HB 126's underlying provisions interacted with those changes. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
The exact fiscal-note summary the AG approved
Revenues from state sources may decrease by at least $4.9 million annually and federal Medicaid revenues may decrease by an unknown amount, up to $7.2 billion annually. The Public Defender's Office anticipates increased costs of an unknown amount to defend women's medical actions after conception. Local governmental entities anticipate a significant negative impact.
Common questions
Q: Why up to $7.2 billion?
A: That is the upper bound for federal Medicaid revenue Missouri receives. The auditor flagged that some HB 126 provisions could put Missouri out of compliance with federal Medicaid program requirements. If the federal government withdrew Missouri's program entirely, the state would lose the full federal share. The auditor identified the ceiling, not the expected loss.
Q: Why does the Public Defender's Office have increased costs?
A: HB 126 expanded the universe of conduct potentially subject to criminal prosecution. The fiscal note treats some of those new prosecutions as eligible for state-funded defense if defendants cannot afford counsel.
Q: Did the referendum reach the ballot?
A: No. Petitioners did not collect enough signatures within the constitutional 90-day window after the legislative session ended, so HB 126 took effect without a referendum.
Q: Why does the AG say the review does not examine "fairness or sufficiency"?
A: § 116.175.4 RSMo limits AG review to legal content and form. Whether the auditor's numbers are the right numbers is a separate question, litigable under § 116.190 RSMo.
Background and statutory framework
Chapter 116 RSMo lays out the initiative- and referendum-petition pipeline. This opinion sits at step 3:
- Proponent files the petition with the Secretary of State.
- AG reviews sufficiency as to form under § 116.332 RSMo.
- State Auditor prepares a fiscal note; AG reviews under § 116.175.4 RSMo (this opinion).
- Secretary of State drafts a summary statement; AG reviews under § 116.334 RSMo.
- Petition certified for circulation.
Citations and references
Statutes: § 116.175 RSMo (the operative provision); § 116.190 RSMo (judicial challenges); § 116.332 RSMo; § 116.334 RSMo; Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49, 52(a), 52(b) (referendum power).
Bill text: Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 126, 100th General Assembly (2019).
Companion opinion on the same petition (2020-R001): 168-2019 (summary statement review).
Source
- Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/137-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Original opinion text
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ERIC SCHMITT
July 22, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 137-2019
The Honorable Nicole Galloway
Missouri State Auditor
State Capitol, Room 121
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Dear Auditor Galloway:
This office received your letter of June 17, 2019, submitting a fiscal note and fiscal note summary prepared under § 116.175, RSMo, for an initiative petition submitted by Sara Baker (20-R001). The fiscal note summary that you submitted is as follows:
Revenues from state sources may decrease by at least $4.9 million
annually and federal Medicaid revenues may decrease by an
unknown amount, up to $7.2 billion annually. The Public
Defender's Office anticipates increased costs of an unknown
amount to defend women's medical actions after conception. Local
governmental entities anticipate a significant negative impact.
Under § 116.175.4, RSMo, we approve the legal content and form of the fiscal note summary. Because our review of the fiscal note summary is mandated by statute, no action that we take with respect to such review should be construed as an endorsement of the initiative petition or as the expression of any view regarding the objectives of its proponents. Furthermore, our review under § 116.175.4 does not examine the fairness or sufficiency of the estimated fiscal impact.
Very truly yours,
ERIC S. SCHMITT
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building
207 W. High Street
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: (573) 751-3321
Fax: (573) 751-0774
www.ago.mo.gov
OP-2019-0130