Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C091145 02/09/2012 FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER St Louis Cardinals LLC 700 Clark St St Louis MO 63102 2/9/2012 $5,000.00

[emphasis added]

Evidently a tribute to Herman C. Long.

“….Common Core State Standards or any other statewide education standards shall not be adopted or implemented without the approval of the general assembly.”

In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made School Boards.

– Following the Equator; Pudd’nhead Wilson’s New Calendar

The usual suspects introduced HB 1708 today:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1708

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES BAHR (Sponsor), JONES (89), KOENIG, CURTMAN AND SOMMER (Co-sponsors).

4245L.01I                                                   D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 161, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the Common Core Standards Initiative.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 161, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 161.855, to read as follows:

           161.855. Notwithstanding any other law, the state board of education shall not adopt, and the department of elementary and secondary education shall not implement, the Common Core State Standards developed by the Common Core Standards Initiative. Any actions taken to adopt or implement the Common Core State Standards as of the effective date of this section are void. Common Core State Standards or any other statewide education standards shall not be adopted or implemented without the approval of the general assembly.

Gee, this must be an evil plot by some socialist globalists bent on destroying America as we know it.

So, what is this Common Core Standards Initiative, and who is behind it?:

….The standards are being developed by the following criteria:

 *  Aligned with expectations for college and career success

 *  Clear, so that educators and parents know what they need to do to help students learn

 *  Consistent across all states, so that students are not taught to a lower standard just because of where they live

 *  Include both content and the application of knowledge through high-order skills

 *  Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards and standards of top-performing nations

 *  Realistic, for effective use in the classroom

 *  Informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society

 *  Evidence and research-based criteria have been set by states, through their national organizations CCSSO and the NGA Center.

….The federal government has had no role in the development of the common core state standards and will not have a role in their implementation….

Yeah, that’s clearly enough to make paranoid right wingnuts act like paranoid right wingnuts.

The who?:

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The standards were developed in collaboration with teachers, school administrators, and experts, to provide a clear and consistent framework to prepare our children for college and the workforce.

Okay, so they’re not socialist globalists bent on destroying America as we know it. Go figure.

It’s good to be able to appreciate my Democratic Senator, Claire McCaskill, after feeling compelled to scold her in the past; it’s too bad, though, that her good qualities are being thrown into relief so sharply by comparison to the lame behavior of her GOP counterpart, Roy Blunt.

In my last post about McCasikill, I observed that, given her excellent response to the Komen brouhaha and her vote against an FAA authorization bill that contained anti-union provisions, she might be starting to act like a Democrat again after a long period spent wandering around on the right side of Centerville. No sooner said, than she comes through one more time. Here (from the Kansas City Star via the National Journal) is McCaskill’s response to the Obama administration’s new rule that widens access to contraception:

This is an emotional, difficult subject. It’s always one that’s difficult. But if you really believe that reducing abortions are important in this country, which I do, then it doesn’t work to keep putting up barriers to women getting birth control.”

“As someone who believes very much that we should be preventing abortions, I think we should try very hard to give women universal access to birth control without going into their pockets,” she also told reporters this week.

To be sure, the National Journal acknowledges the political expediency which is usually a given with most politicians:

Politically, McCaskill’s positioning makes sense. If she were to take a stand against the president on the issue, she would risk alienating her Democratic base, whom she needs to turn out in strong numbers come the fall.

And it’s absolutely true – Claire has done much to alienate her base and she can’t afford to waffle on progressive fundamentals now. But she’s also a Catholic and it takes guts to signal one’s intellectual independence when the hierarchy is not only up in arms, but is determined to go nuclear. It also, as the writer hints, takes guts to get the President’s back when he comes under sustained fire:

It’s also consistent with McCaskill’s overall strategy, which has been to not run away from the president at every single opportunity.

In Missouri, where Tea Partyesque vilification of Obama began almost as soon as he was elected (although his ratings are now improving), this is not trivial. In fact, the generally fearful strategy that characterizes so many centrist Democrats, would likely have dictated the opposite response.

And in case you think that I’m giving McCaskill too much credit, here’s what her GOP opposite number, Roy Blunt, had to say about requiring that legal contraception be included in women’s preventive healthcare:

The Obama administration’s recent decision is offensive to Americans’ religious rights and freedoms.

In an act of major self-indulgence prompted by my fury at this type of dishonest misdirection, I wrote a massive post yesterday outlining why I think it’s wrong to talk about “religious rights and freedoms” in this context, so I’ll say no more here. But I will note that Blunt’s remarks are no more than the insult that is often added to injury:

Blunt and others said they will try to overturn the regulation. Last year, Blunt introduced a measure that would allow any health insurance plan “to decline coverage of specific items and services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan, or the purchaser or beneficiary, without penalty.”

Blunt’s bill remains in committee, as does a companion bill in the House. U.S. Reps. Sam Graves and Vicky Hartzler of Missouri, and U.S. Rep Lynn Jenkins of Kansas – all Republicans – are co-sponsors of the bill.

So, when you’re thinking about how pure you want to be come election time, just remember there are folks out there, like Blunt, who want to restrict access to birth control, and there are others, like McCaskill, who have shown that they will stand up to them in order to make sure that we all have easy access to the full-range of preventive medicine.

Introduced yesterday:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1688

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GUERNSEY (Sponsor), CONWAY (14), HOUGHTON, REDMON, DUGGER AND KLIPPENSTEIN (Co-sponsors).

5239L.01I         D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 252.030, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to the financial responsibility for damage caused by reintroduced wildlife.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:



           Section A. Section 252.030, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 252.030, to read as follows:

           252.030. 1. The ownership of and title to all wildlife of and within the state, whether resident, migratory or imported, dead or alive, are hereby declared to be in the state of Missouri. Any person who fails to comply with or who violates this law or any such rules and regulations shall not acquire or enforce any title, ownership or possessory right in any such wildlife; and any person who pursues, takes, kills, possesses or disposes of any such wildlife or attempts to do so, shall be deemed to consent that the title of said wildlife shall be and remain in the state of Missouri, for the purpose of control, management, restoration, conservation and regulation thereof.

           2. Any organization or entity that reintroduces any species of animal into this state shall be financially responsible for any damage caused by such reintroduced species of animal within this state, including but not limited to:

           (1) The value of crops and pasture damaged or destroyed by the reintroduced species of animal;

           (2) Indemnification of losses suffered by livestock producers as a result of harassment or disease spread from the reintroduced species of animal;

           (3) The value of fencing and other public or private property damaged by reintroduced species of animal; and

           (4) Damages incurred to Missouri licensed motor vehicles when such vehicles are involved in a collision with reintroduced species of animal.

[emphasis in original]

A description of this session of the General Assembly?:

….Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that’s how it always starts. Then later there’s running and screaming….

Yep.

Via a pastoral letter, Archbishop Robert Carlson has formally added his name to the roster of American Catholic heavyweights who oppose the Obama administration’s new rule that would widen access to contraception. He claims he is doing so in the name of “rights of conscience.” The Missouri legislature is also jumping into the fray because “religious groups should not have to pay for birth control or abortions for their employees if that would violate their beliefs.” Specifically, GOP Senator Scott Rupp “introduced a measure Tuesday to amend the state’s constitution and forbid state laws or rules that force an individual, employer or health care provider to cover the costs of birth control or abortions.”

All this gum-flapping on the topic of “conscience” and “religious freedom” leaves me with few questions and observations:

— Does this rule force anyone to buy or use contraception?  

— Does this rule force any specifically religious organization staffed by members of the church in question to field health care plans that cover contraception?

— Does anything in the new rule, Senator Rupp, mention abortion or even drugs such as the morning after pill (RU486)?

— Are any insurance providers required to provide coverage for contraception?

The answer in all cases is emphatically no.

The new rule does, though, require that contraceptives be included in insurance plans offered by religiously-affiliated organizations with a non-religious mission that employ individuals who are not necessarily members of the affiliated churches. If such organizations do not comply, they stand to forfeit federal funds or tax credits. The argument offered by the Archbishop and by Senator Rupp is that, by offering such a health care plan, the church in question is being forced to indirectly subsidize (horror of horrors) contraception. That this reasoning is, at the very least, questionable is obvious when one considers a number of questions that it gives rise to:

— Don’t many of these religiously affiliated organizations derive income from public payments for services they render, or from the federal government? So why are the churches carrying on like they bear the brunt of paying for the health care these institutions provide their employees and, in the case of colleges and universities, students.

— The whole issue of indirect culpability is problematic. For instance, if a religiously affiliated hospital were to have saved the life of Hitler – knowing that he was was in the process of instituting the final solution – is the affiliated church indirectly responsible for Hitler’s crimes? If so, should the doctors have let Hitler die? Or, perhaps, even hasten his death? You can, doubtless come up with numerous parallel if less extreme examples. (I only mention Hitler because already some right-wing fools have predictably started comparing the new rule to the rise of the German Nazis. We can all play at rhetorical overkill.)

— How expansive should arguments about rights of conscience be? What about a religious businessman who thinks contraception is the devil’s tool and  wants his business to be granted the same religious exemption the churches are demanding in order to curtail his female employees’ access to birth control?

— To narrow the frame of reference of the question above, why are some religions and religious issues privileged over others? As Katha Politt puts it in regard to Catholic opposition:

Are Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other pacifists exempt from taxes that pay for war and weapons? Can Scientologists, who abhor psychiatry, deduct the costs of the National Institute of Mental Health?

— Should conscience rights take precedence over public welfare? Certainly, the courts don’t always think so. Consider, for instance, the Supreme Court decision that found polygamy illegal because it was successfully argued not to be in society’s interests.  

— What about the right of non-believing employees to be free from religiously motivated interference in their personal lives, “freedom from religion” if you will, which is arguably implicit in the construct “freedom of religion”?  Senator Rupp and the Archbishop would, presumably, answer that such individuals are free not to seek employment at religiously affiliated institutions. In a time of massive unemployment, most of us can readily see that this response is both callous and unrealistic, and, even from the point of view of the institutions in question, would lead to undesirable consequences.

Actually, to get an idea about why this argument fails, just turn the tables. If the issue is really one of conscience, aren’t religiously affiliated organizations free to give up the federal funds that are tied to their compliance with the rule? No fuss, no bother. One could even argue that it hardly behooves tax-exempt organizations like churches to take taxpayer dollars in the first place. Conscience does not operate in a vacuum.

— To take the question of rights one step further yet, what about the conscience rights of women to plan their families for the benefit of their children? Why should Archbishop Carlson’s Catholic conscience rights have more standing than that of an agnostic nurse in a Catholic hospital?

— If the issue is so pressing that the august leaders of the Catholic Church and GOP lawmakers have to leap in wearing their heavy stomping boots, why have religiously affiliated organizations, such as, for instance, Depaul University, Boston College and Caritas Christi Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts, been willing to offer their employees, without handwringing and undue melodrama, insurance plans that cover contraception? Several states, in fact, have enacted similar mandates:

Over half of Americans already live in the 28 states that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these states like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions. Some states like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all.

— Finally, could there be hidden agendas on the part of folks like the Archbishop and Senator Rupp?

In the context of the Archbishop’s righteouos indignation, I’ll point out that according to a recent poll, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, 58% of Catholics support requirements that Catholic affiliated colleges, hospitals and charities offer access to birth control in their insurance plans. It is well-known that many, if not most, Catholics use birth control – 98% according to the Guttmacher Institute. If Church leaders like Archbishop Carlson cannot control their wayward flocks, why should the U.S. government be subborned into doing so via state edict?

As for Senator Rupp, maybe he smells an opportunity to make trouble for the opposition while reaping some pander points. He can ga
rner credit with sex-obsessed zealots by opposing contraception, and he can do it by making ostensibly high-minded claims about “freedom of conscience.” He has to know that the claims are weak; why else would he evoke abortion – a non-issue in the new rules, but a guaranteed alarm bell to the aforesaid zealots?

No matter how you slice it, the  self-congratulatory, high-minded dudgeon of the anti-birth control crowd ignores the welfare of real people while limiting the right of all women, all individuals actually, to make their own health choices in private.  I wouldn’t want to ask my boss if I could use birth control and I don’t think you should have to do so either.  

Why not? It’ll just add to the clown show.

You’re just gonna have to loan your own campaign the big bucks. Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C051254 02/08/2012 MCGHEE FOR SENATE Mike McGhee loan 5538 Grubb Road Odessa MO 64076 Missouri House of Representatives Legislator 2/8/2012 $100,000.00

[emphasis added]

And we’re still not sure what district he’ll be running in.

Previously:

Rep. Mike McGhee (r) and the amazing perpetual motion machine (July 16, 2010)

Think about all that beer you’ve been drinking over the years and where the money you’ve spent on it goes.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C121046 02/08/2012 MISSOURIANS FOR ED MARTIN August Busch III 1 Mid Rivers Mall Drive Ste. 210 St Peters MO 63376 Retired 2/8/2012 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

….Maybe everyone should just use one tune for their campaign soundtrack:

Maybe.

The results from the Missouri Secretary of State:

Unofficial Election Returns

State of Missouri Presidential Preference Primary  – Presidential Preference Primary

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

U.S. President And Vice President

Precincts Reporting 3134 of 3134

  Obama, Barack DEM 64,405 88.3%

  Terry, Randall DEM 2,016 2.8%

  Richardson, Darcy G. DEM 892 1.2%

  Wolfe, John DEM 1,022 1.4%

  Uncommitted DEM 4,588 6.3%

  Johnson, Gary REP 547 .2%

  Cain, Herman REP 2,314 .9%

  Romney, Mitt REP 63,826 25.3%

  Meehan, Michael J. REP 364 .1%

  Perry, Rick REP 2,463 1.0%

  Drummond, Keith REP 162 .1%

  Huntsman, Jon REP 1,045 .4%

  Bachmann, Michele REP 1,690 .7%

  Santorum, Rick REP 138,957 55.2%

  Paul, Ron REP 30,641 12.2%

  Uncommitted REP 9,859 3.9%

  Ogle, III, James Orland LIB 508 52.7%

  Uncommitted LIB 456 47.3%

  Uncommitted CST 476 100.0%

Total Votes   326,231

Heh.

….is there a more pathetic figure in American politics right now than Tim Pawlenty?

That is all.