HB 1017: Anything else?

Tags

, , , ,

Pre 1973 medical instruments.

A bill, criminalizing abortion in Missouri, introduced yesterday by Representative Adam Schnelting (r):

HB 1017
Makes the performance or inducement of an abortion, except in a medical emergency, a criminal offense
Sponsor: Schnelting, Adam (104)
Proposed Effective Date: Varies
LR Number: 2157H.01I
Last Action: 02/21/2019 – Read Second Time (H)
Bill String: HB 1017
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The bill summary [pdf]:

HB 1017 — ABORTION
SPONSOR: Schnelting

This bill declares its intention that the state and its political subdivisions shall be a “sanctuary of life” to protect pregnant women and their unborn children. Additionally, this bill establishes the “Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act.” This bill specifies that an abortion performed or induced on a woman, unless a medical emergency, shall be a class B felony and shall subject the person performing or inducing the abortion to suspension or revocation of his or her professional license.

This bill has a contingent effective date.

This bill is similar to SB 345 (2019).

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

HB 964 and HB 971: the “Gish Gallop” of legislation (February 20, 2019)

HCR 45: when Donald Trump’s (r) willful incompetence distracts you from the important things in life

Tags

, , , , , ,

So much worry.

Or, it could have been an inadvertent oversight.

Filed today by Representative Jeff Pogue (r):

HCR 45
Urges Congress refrain from adopting the USMCA.
Sponsor: Pogue, Jeff (143)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 1762H.01I
Last Action: 02/20/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HCR 45
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS FOR SECOND READING

The text:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION
House Concurrent Resolution No. 45 [pdf]
100TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE POGUE. 1762H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk

WHEREAS, the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA) may be implemented by Congress under federal law; and

WHEREAS, articles 23.9 and 23.1 of USMCA require legislation by member states to prevent workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; and

WHEREAS, numerous members of Congress signed a letter to President Trump arguing that trade agreements are not the proper format to conduct experiments in domestic social policy; and

WHEREAS, the final version of the treaty contains a footnote stipulating that the United States is in full compliance with USMCA under the current interpretation of our federal laws; and

WHEREAS, ratification of USMCA by the Senate of the United States with the language involving gender identity and sexual orientation could be confusing given that USMCA, by its own terms, does not require any change to current federal law to conform to such language:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the House of Representatives of the One Hundredth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby recommends that the United States Senate refrain from ratification of USMCA or, in the alternative, that the Congress of the United States refrain from implementation of USMCA in any manner contrary to current federal law; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare a properly inscribed copy of this resolution for the President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, and the members of the Missouri congressional delegation.

Evidently someone has been losing sleep with all that worry.

It’s a terrible thing when you know somewhere out there someone else might believe other human beings should have the same rights as everyone else.

Previously:

HB 1136: legislative interior design (March 9, 2015)

HB 1338: the water closet caucus (March 13, 2015)

HB 1341: Is a home defense trebuchet covered in the act? (March 15, 2016)

Modern Times (March 23, 2015)

HB 2196: blah, blah, guns, tenther drivel, blah, recycle, blah, stir… (January 13, 2016)

HJR 110: res judicata (March 15, 2016)

HB 201: writing (December 13, 2016)

HB 203: Suffer little children… (December 14, 2016)

HB 1177: the Republic of Gilead (March 2, 2017)

HB 786: tenther drivel…again (February 1, 2019)

HB 775: if you’ve ever wondered what you would have done in the 1930s, you’re doing it now (February 2, 2019)

HB 797: Most people don’t really care, as long as you wash your hands after using it. (February 6, 2019)

HCR 30: impeccable logic (February 7, 2019)

HB 964 and HB 971: the “Gish Gallop” of legislation

Tags

, , , , , ,

Pre 1973 medical instruments.

They keep throwing bills against the wall to see if anything sticks. Rinse. Repeat.

Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman (r) [2019 file photo].

A bill, introduced by Representative Mary Alice Coleman (r) on Monday:

HB 964
Requires the use of a fetal heartbeat detection test prior to an abortion and prohibits an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected
Sponsor: Coleman, Mary Elizabeth (097)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2116H.01I
Last Action: 02/19/2019 – Read Second Time (H)
Bill String: HB 964
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The bill summary [pdf]:

HB 964 — FETAL HEARTBEAT DETECTION
SPONSOR: Coleman (97)

This bill specifies that a physician shall not perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman without first performing a fetal heartbeat detection test. Except in cases of medical emergency, a physician shall not perform or induce an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected and shall inform the woman, in writing, that such abortion cannot be performed or induced. If a fetal heartbeat is not detected, an abortion may be performed or induced, in accordance with applicable law, so long as the abortion is performed or induced within 96 hours of the fetal heartbeat detection test. If more than 96 hours have passed since the fetal heartbeat detection test, the physician shall perform a new test prior to an abortion.

The physician shall record the estimated gestational age of the unborn child as well as the time, date, method, and results of the fetal heartbeat detection test in the woman’s medical record and in the abortion report submitted to the Department of Health and Senior Services.

Any physician who fails to perform a fetal heartbeat detection test prior to the performance or inducement of an abortion shall be subject to having his or her medical license rejected, revoked, or suspended for six months and shall pay a $1,000 fine. Any physician who performs or induces an abortion following the detection of a fetal heartbeat shall have his or her license revoked and any future license application denied. Any woman upon whom an abortion is performed or induced in violation of these provisions shall not be prosecuted for a conspiracy to violate these provisions.

This bill is the same as HB 126 (2019).

“…This bill is the same as HB 126 (2019).” Then what’s the point?

In Iowa:

Iowa ‘fetal heartbeat’ abortion restriction declared unconstitutional, struck down by Polk County judge
Tony Leys, Des Moines Register Published 4:23 p.m. CT Jan. 22, 2019 | Updated 7:13 p.m. CT Jan. 22, 2019

Iowa’s “fetal heartbeat” law — the most restrictive abortion limit in the country — violates Iowa Constitution and may not be enforced, a state judge ruled Tuesday.

In his decision striking down the abortion law, Polk County District Judge Michael Huppert cited the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling last year in a challenge to a different abortion-restriction law. The high court held that “a woman’s right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy is a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution” in that ruling.

[….]

The law would ban nearly all abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Critics of the law said that can occur about six weeks into a pregnancy and often before a woman realizes she’s pregnant.

[….]

And, a bill, introduced by Representative Doug Richey (r) on Monday:

HB 971
Establishes the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”
Sponsor: Richey, Doug (038)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2103H.01I
Last Action: 02/19/2019 – Read Second Time (H)
Bill String: HB 971
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

From the bill text [pdf]:

[….]
2. Whoever knowingly causes the death of a child who was born alive during or immediately after an attempted abortion shall be guilty of murder in the second degree under section 565.021.
3. Whoever recklessly causes the death of a child who was born alive during or immediately after an attempted abortion shall be guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree under section 565.024.
4. Whoever, with criminal negligence, causes the death of a child who was born alive during or immediately after an attempted abortion shall be guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the second degree under section 565.027.
[….]

Before 1973.

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

HB 960: doing something

Tags

, , , , , ,

Representative Tracy McCreery (D) [2019 file photo].

A bill, introduced on Valentines Day by Representative Tracy McCreery (D):

HB 960
Prohibits certain individuals from possessing a firearm due to domestic violence and requires police officers to remove firearms at the scene of a domestic violence call
Sponsor: McCreery, Tracy (088)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2032H.01I
Last Action: 02/18/2019 – Read Second Time (H)
Bill String: HB 960
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The bill summary [pdf]:

HB 960 — ORDERS OF PROTECTION
SPONSOR: McCreery

This bill requires courts that issue a full order of protection after a hearing to prohibit any respondent from possessing or purchasing firearms while the order is in effect, inform the respondent of the order either orally or in writing, and forward the order to the State Highway Patrol for enforcement as specified in the bill.

The bill also requires notification of the State Highway Patrol so that the National Instant Criminal Background Check system can be updated and the FBI notified when there is a conviction of stalking in the second degree. Unlawful possession of a firearm will include misdemeanor offenses of domestic violence under the law of any state or the United States and violations of the court order specified in the bill.

The bill has an emergency clause.

It makes complete sense. It will never again see the light of day in the right wingnut controlled Missouri General Assembly.

HCR 43: U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) is living rent free in right wingnut heads

Tags

, , , , ,

“Such pearl clutching…”

If you’re sponsoring “symbolic” legislation like this she’s already winning.

Introduced today by Representative Jeff Shawn (r):

HCR 43
Urges President Trump and Missouri’s congressional delegation to oppose the Green New Deal
Sponsor: Shawan, Jeff (153)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 1993H.01I
Last Action: 02/18/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HCR 43
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS FOR SECOND READING

A missed opportunity to throw mom and apple pie into the mix.

Heh.

Campaign Finance: “…and start all over again”

Tags

, , , , ,

Thursday at the Missouri Ethics Commission for CLEAN Missouri:

C161298 02/14/2019 CLEAN Missouri Action Now Initiative 1717 West Loop S Houston TX 77027 2/14/2019 $85,000.00

[emphasis added]

They’re going to need a lot more money.

It’s readily apparent that the right wingnut republican agenda is to overturn everything the voter approved CLEAN Missouri initiative (Amendment 1) does.

Previously:

Gov. Mike Parson (r): “Will of the voters”? What’s that? Never heard of it. (December 23, 2018)

Campaign Finance: they Gerrymandered fair and square (January 17, 2019)

HA 3, HB 445: it’s all in the (amended) details (February 5, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): “I so enjoy thumping The Constitution, it’s just that like Donald Trump (r) I’ve never actually bothered to read it.”

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9.

…No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time…

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) [2016 file photo].

Today, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler
(1/2) The president’s emergency declaration today is needed to protect our border from the flow of deadly drugs into our communities. His emergency powers give him the authority to redirect funding to protect the American people,
11:53 AM – 15 Feb 2019 from Washington, DC

Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler
(2/2) and I believe there are non-defense areas of the government where it is appropriate to do so. I stand by him on this issue, and I will continue to monitor this solution to ensure it champions national security as well as border security.
11:54 AM – 15 Feb 2019 from Washington, DC

Some of the comments:

It is appalling to know you support this dictatorial use of power. If you truly believe what you say, why can’t he declare a state of emergency to arrest those of us oppose his declaration to protect the American people?

Can’t BELIEVE you condone this fake emergency & the precedent it sets for future Presidents. This should be deamed unconstitutionally. Do you understand what could be done with $8 BILLION in education? In healthcare? In infrastructure? No. Because you hide from constituents.

Can’t wait to see how this ages when there’s a Democrat President. But then, you’re no longer concerned about the ballooning deficit either.

If there’s an election in 2020.

Most of them drugs come through legal ports of entry according to the DEA and CBP , but why bother about facts when you can be a cheerleader for @potus and his colossal ego-political game?

Shame. This is actually called cowardice and irresponsible.

Tell yourself that, Vicky! No one wants to hear your lies. If this is the hill you choose to end your career on, sobeit!

Where’s. The. Data. To. Support. Your. Claim.

The national emergency is that we have an inept, narcissistic, lying nincompoop for a President. He denies and dismisses facts and makes shit up and I have zero respect for any member of Congress who encourages, supports or endorses that.
#TrumpFakeEmergency

When you look in the mirror tonight, sound of silence will begin playing in your head

You are violating your oath of office. Resign.

This is fabricated BS, there is no national emergency .. everybody knows that. You are disgrace to the people of #MO4

You are a hypocrite of the highest order.

You’re corrupt and a disgrace.

You are on the wrong side of Constitutional Law and if you have half a brain you know it. You should be ashamed. You are violating your oath of office and we will come for you.

Show me whatever data you have to justify your position. Prove your statements.

you’re an embarrassment to the separation of powers and should be ashamed of yourself

Lies @RepHartzler , you are just regurgitating Trump’s lies. Disgusting

I’m not in favor of an imperial President, but if that is the direction the GOP chooses to go in, I look forward to a future president addressing climate change and gun violence with a sincere sense of morality.

It is not an emergency if Congress has time to act and chose not to. It is a policy disagreement. Your flawed reasoning would allow a president to enact single payer health care in response to a crisis such as 40 million Americans not having health insurance. This is terrible.

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

If it was an emergency it would have been an emergency long before now. Quit it already.

What a hill to fly your trite and tattered flag from. Missourians deserve better. #VoteThemOut

Shocking, I say…

God, you are just the worst.

Trump also said it was not an emergency in his whacked out press briefing. Do you endorse attacking the press and lying? Do you think @potus demonstrates the character and level of integrity
suitable for the office of the Presidency? #FAKENationalEmergency

Wow. The only emergency at our border is the one the president caused by separating families and locking up babies, and you damn well know it. Most drugs come in through legal points of entry, and you know that too. Shame on you.
Shame
On
You

Previously:

Donald Trump (r): “the Constitution is unconstitutional” (February 14, 2019)

Donald Trump (r): “the Constitution is unconstitutional”

Tags

, , ,

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

This evening:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
“Trying to use the 25th Amendment to try and circumvent the Election is a despicable act of unconstitutional power grabbing…which happens in third world countries. You have to obey the law. This is an attack on our system & Constitution.” Alan Dershowitz. @TuckerCarlson
9:16 PM – 14 Feb 2019

The 25th Amendment does exactly that. It’s one of the mechanism for removing a President. It’s in The Constitution.

Donald Trump is an idiot. But we already knew that.

A few of the responses:

If something is in the Constitution, can it be unconstitutional?

Asking for a friend.

whatever you say, President Crazypants

The admendments are part of the constitution, 1st, 2nd and 25th alike. So the exercise of the 25th amendment is the opposite of unconstitutional.

Says the person who is manufacturing a `National Emergency”

The 25th ammendment is in the constitution. God I miss having a president who was smart

At thus point I’d take one that could read at a 4th grade level

Last I checked, the 25th amendment is a part of the Constitution, meaning that actions pursuant to the amendment are by definition constitutional, but I’m not a TV lawyer.

Nice try Donald. There are only 10 amendments.

Heh. Everyone knows that there is the only one true Amendment.

Individual-1 clearly has never READ the 25th Amendment to the … CONSTITUTION.

The Constitution is unconstitutional!

Someone seems a bit scared.

So it’s unconstitutional to use the [squints] Constitution.

Just a heads up.
The 25th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

Incidentally, the 25th Amendment is not about preventing an election. It is in the Constitution that allows us to remove a President from office if they are declared unfit for duty. You should try reading, if you know how.

That awkward moment when you remember that the 25th Amendment is literally the definition of constitutional…

The 25th Amendment is part of the Constitution. It’s an Amendment to the Constitution. A Constitutional Amendment, ratified by 38 states. Are you getting it yet? A document one of you swore to uphold? Anyone, anyone at all, Bueller?

It’s literally constitutional.

Can we impeach him since he doesn’t actually understand or know the constitution?

Using the 25th Amendment is not unconstitutional because… [checks notes]… it is actually part of The Constitution.

So using the 25th amendment of the Constitution is unconstitutional? Sounds like doublespeak, a tactic of fascists.

Third world countries use the 25th Amendment? Huh?

Using the Constitution is unconstitutional?

I can’t believe this is real… using the constitution is unconstitutional? Ok…

You do understand that the 25th Amendment is part of the Constitution right?

Using the constitution is an attack on the constitution?

The 25th Amendment is in the Constitution, bro.

The 25th amendment is literally.. an amendment to the Constitution. Applying it couldn’t possibly be unconstitutional, because…

You know what, forget it.

It’s in the Constitution you jabronis

You seem tense. Also the 25th Amendment is in the Constitution. You should read it.

Yeah, except that it’s part of the Constitution so, like, it’s probably not all that unconstitutional

The 25th amendment to the Constitution is – by definition – constitutional.

So the constitution is unconstitutional in your view?

NARRATOR: Little did he know, using the 25th Amendment would NOT be unconstitutional…

…because it’s in the Constitution.

soooo the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Once you start talking about the 25th ammendment, it’s all pretty much downhill from there.

Are you trying to say that third world countries have a 25th Amendment, or are you saying that people are trying to use The Constitution to fight The Constitution? I can’t keep up anymore.

No one can keep up anymore.