That’s an extra special level of right wingnuttery. The Wingularity just might be attainable in Missouri.

A bill, filed today:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 436

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES FUNDERBURK (Sponsor), JONES (110), BURLISON, HICKS, RHOADS, ROSS, MILLER, PARKINSON, REMOLE, ANDERSON, HURST, BAHR, BROWN, SMITH (120), KOENIG, CURTMAN, DUGGER, MORRIS, SOMMER, LEARA, GATSCHENBERGER, BRATTIN, SCHIEFFER AND KORMAN (Co-sponsors).

1204L.01I     D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 1, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the Second Amendment preservation act, with a penalty provision.

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

           Section A. Chapter 1, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 1.320, to read as follows:

           1.320. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Second Amendment Preservation Act”.

           2. The general assembly finds and declares that:

           (1) The general assembly of the state of Missouri is firmly resolved to support and defend the United States Constitution against every aggression, either foreign or domestic, and the general assembly is duty-bound to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the basis of the Union of the States, because only a faithful observance of those principles can secure the nation’s existence and the public happiness;

           (2) Acting through the United States Constitution, the people of the several states created the federal government to be their agent in the exercise of a few defined powers, while reserving to the state governments the power to legislate on matters which concern the lives, liberties, and properties of citizens in the ordinary course of affairs;

           (3) The limitation of the federal government’s power is affirmed under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves;

           (4) Whenever the federal government assumes powers that the people did not grant it in the Constitution, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force;

           (5) The several states of the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their federal government. The government created by the compact among the states is not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers granted to it by the Constitution, because that would have made the federal government’s discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of those powers. To the contrary, as in all other cases of compacts among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. Although the several states have granted supremacy to laws and treaties made pursuant to the powers granted in the Constitution, such supremacy does not apply to various federal statutes, orders, rules, regulations, or other actions which restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the borders of Missouri; such statues, orders, rules, regulations, and other actions exceed the powers granted to the federal government except to the extent they are necessary and proper for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces of the United States or for the organizing, arming, and disciplining militia forces actively employed in the service of the United States Armed Forces;

           (6) The people of the several states have given Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”, but “regulating commerce” does not include the power to limit citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in defense of their families, neighbors, persons, or property, or to dictate to what sort of arms and accessories law-abiding mentally competent Missourians may buy, sell, exchange, or otherwise possess within the borders of this state;

           (7) The people of the several states have also given Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof”. These constitutional provisions merely identify the means by which the federal government may execute its limited powers and ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers because to do so would be to destroy the balance of power between the federal government and the state governments. We deny any claim that the taxing and spending powers of Congress can be used to diminish in any way the people’s right to keep and bear arms;

           (8) The people of Missouri have vested the general assembly with the authority to regulate the manufacture, possession, exchange, and use of firearms within this state’s borders, subject only to the limits imposed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution.

           3. (1) All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

           (2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:

           (a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934;

           (b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968;

           (c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

           (d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

           (e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

           (f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;

           (g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

           4. It shall be the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies of this state to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms within the boarder of this state from the infringements in subsection 3 of this section.

           5. No public officer or employee of this state shall have any authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section.

           6. Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

           7. Any Missouri citizen who has been subject to an effort to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section shall have a private cause of action for declaratory judgment and for damages against any person or entity attempting such enforcement.

[emphasis in original]

Tentherism and nullification all wrapped up in guns. What’s not to like?

“…Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens…”

Apparently any such law or regulation with a salubrious effect would be just fine. Think of the other possibilities.

“…Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor…”

Yeah, you and what Air Force?

“…All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state. (2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to: (a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934…”

Is that the entire act? Just asking.

There’s this, via the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives:

National Firearms Act (NFA)

….Firearms subject to the 1934 Act included shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as “any other weapons,” machineguns, and firearm mufflers and silencers….

Sawed off shotguns, silencers, and machine guns. Trebuchets appear to be off the radar, though.

Yet another right wingnut gun bill, introduced yesterday:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 420

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES CURTMAN (Sponsor), BURLISON, LICHTENEGGER, KOENIG AND BROWN (Co-sponsors).

1178L.01I    D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 21.750, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to legislative preemption of firearm regulation by political subdivisions.

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

           Section A. Section 21.750, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 21.750, to read as follows:

           21.750. 1. The general assembly hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state. Any existing or future orders, ordinances or regulations in this field are hereby and shall be null and void except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.

            2. No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.

           3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243.

           (2) In any jurisdiction in which open carry of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, open carry of a firearm shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:

           (a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement from this state or a permit from another state permit which is recognized by this state in his or her possession at all times;

           (b) The open carrying of a firearm shall be limited to a firearm sixteen inches or less in overall length;

           (c) Any person open carrying a firearm in such jurisdiction shall display his or her concealed carry endorsement upon demand of a law enforcement officer;

           (d) In the absence of any reasonable and articular suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed handgun shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest; and

           (e) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be subject to the penalty provided in section 571.121.

           4. The lawful design, marketing, manufacture, distribution, or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public is not an abnormally dangerous activity and does not constitute a public or private nuisance.

           5. No county, city, town, village or any other political subdivision nor the state shall bring suit or have any right to recover against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association or dealer for damages, abatement or injunctive relief resulting from or relating to the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public. This subsection shall apply to any suit pending as of October 12, 2003, as well as any suit which may be brought in the future. Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall restrict the rights of individual citizens to recover for injury or death caused by the negligent or defective design or manufacture of firearms or ammunition.

           6. Nothing in this section shall prevent the state, a county, city, town, village or any other political subdivision from bringing an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or warranty as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the state or such political subdivision.

[emphasis in original]

Hmmm. Any local ordinance forbidding open carry would be overridden for anyone openly carrying with a conceal carry permit from any state.

“….In the absence of any reasonable and articular suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed handgun shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest….”

Think of the possibilities.

And law enforcement will probably have to be issued sixteen inch rulers. For firearms.

In popular culture:

Buford “Mad Dog” Tannen: Then let’s finish it, right now!

Buford’s Gang Member #1: Uh, not now, Buford. Uh, Marshal’s got our guns.

Buford “Mad Dog” Tannen: Like I said, we’ll finish this tomorrow.

Another right wingnut bill, introduced yesterday:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 421

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES CURTMAN (Sponsor), SMITH (120), BURLISON, LICHTENEGGER, KOENIG AND SWAN (Co-sponsors).

0958H.02I   D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal sections 143.111 and 408.010, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to legal tender.

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

           Section A. Sections 143.111 and 408.010, RSMo, are repealed and two new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 143.111 and 408.010, to read as follows:

           143.111. The Missouri taxable income of a resident shall be such resident’s Missouri adjusted gross income less:

           (1) Either the Missouri standard deduction or the Missouri itemized deduction;

           (2) The Missouri deduction for personal exemptions;

           (3) The Missouri deduction for dependency exemptions;

           (4) The deduction for federal income taxes provided in section 143.171; [and]

           (5) The deduction for a self-employed individual’s health insurance costs provided in section 143.113; and

           (6) The deduction for any capital gains income included in Missouri adjusted gross income from the exchange of gold or silver under subsection 3 of section 408.010.

           408.010. [The silver coins of the United States are hereby declared a legal tender, at their par value, fixed by the laws of the United States, and shall be receivable in payment of all debts, public or private, hereafter contracted in the state of Missouri; provided, however, that no person shall have the right to pay, upon any one debt, dimes and half dimes to an amount exceeding ten dollars, or of twenty and twenty-five cent pieces exceeding twenty dollars.]

           1. For purposes of this section, the term “nonbank depository” shall mean a private storage firm used for the safekeeping and depositing of gold and silver issued by the federal government.

           2. In furtherance of the inherent rights of privacy and private property, the extent and composition of a person’s monetary holdings, including those on deposit with any nonbank depository, shall not be subject to disclosure, search, or seizure except upon strict adherence to due process safeguards, including but not limited to:

           (a) Issuance of a lawful warrant or writ by a judicial officer sitting in the county within which such holdings exist;

           (b) Under an adequate showing of probable cause with respect to the particular person or entity in question; and

           (c) Such warrant or writ being executed only under the authority of the duly elected sheriff of such county.

           3. Any nonbank depository operating under the provisions of this section shall be subject to such rules and regulations as the secretary of state requires.

           4. A nonbank depository must have written authority from the depositors for all transactions.

           5. A method of establishing the value of gold and silver to be accepted by the state shall be based on the London PM fix for that day’s transaction.

           6. Any rule or portion of a rule, as that term is defined in section 536.010, that is created under the authority delegated in this section shall become effective only if it complies with and is subject to all of the provisions of chapter 536 and, if applicable, section 536.028. This section and chapter 536 are nonseverable and if any of the powers vested with the general assembly under chapter 536 to review, to delay the effective date, or to disapprove and annul a rules are subsequently held unconstitutional, then the grant of rulemaking authority and any rule proposed or adopted after August 28, 2013, shall be invalid and void.

[bold emphasis in original, strikethrough emphasis added]

You get a tax break for speculating in the gold and silver market?

Heh. Pay your tax bills with silver coin, based on the afternoon price fix rather than the face value? Think of the possibilities.

“…A method of establishing the value of gold and silver to be accepted by the state shall be based on the London PM fix for that day’s transaction….”

Why London? Why not an American commodities market, eh? Just asking.

What is this, a precious metals market manipulator protection act?

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.

Benjamin: Yes, sir.

Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?

Benjamin: Yes, I am.

Mr. McGuire: Plastics.

Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean?

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C121485 02/04/2013 STAND UP MISSOURI National Installment Lenders Association P.O. Box 65615 Washington DC 20035 2/4/2013 $45,000.00

C121485 02/04/2013 STAND UP MISSOURI American Financial Services Association 919 18th Street, N.W. Suite 300 Washington DC 20006 2/4/2013 $45,000.00

[emphasis added]

And in the past few weeks:

C121485 01/22/2013 STAND UP MISSOURI World Acceptance Corporation P.O. Box 6429 Greenville SC 29606 1/22/2013 $9,600.00

C121485 01/28/2013 STAND UP MISSOURI Security Group Inc P.O. Drawer 811 Spartanburg SC 29304 1/28/2013 $5,875.00

[emphasis added]

And their thing is:

C121485: Stand Up Missouri

308 East High St Ste 301 Committee Type: Political Action

Jefferson City Mo 65101

(573) 634-2500 Established Date: 12/14/2012

[emphasis added]

…a continuation of high interest payday loans?

An excellent editorial in the St. Louis Post Dispatch discusses the disastrous effects of the GOP no-tax religion that some GOP state legislators, many lavishly funded by mega-rich, income-tax averse, retired investor Rex Sinquefield, are proposing to push even harder here in Missouri. As the Post-Dispatch implies, the already low state tax rates, far from promoting growth, have managed to reduce the state to a backwater that is near last in significant measures of quality of life – a factor likely to discourage all but sweat-shop industry.

A recent report from the institute on Taxation and Economic Policy underlines the fact that low, regressive tax rates are not exactly the panacea that Rex Sinquefield and his pet “think tank,” the Show-Me Institute (which the Post-Dispatch calls a “believe tank”), say it is. The report offers figures to support the fact that the tax burden in Missouri, along with the rest of the states, has been systematically shifted to those in the middle and at the bottom of the economic ladder. As the report’s authors note, “States praised as “low tax” are often high tax states for low and middle income families.”

The chart below details the situation in Missouri – and bear in mind that it describes the status quo, before the GOP tax masterminds in Jefferson City impose their particular brand of reform:

This situation will only get worse if those tax proposals described in the Post-Dispatch editorial are enacted. How do you think that income tax reductions, elimination of corporate taxes, and imposition of still more sales taxes to pay for necessary services (most recently proposed as the way to pay for long-overdue transportation needs), will effect the growing inequality between the wealthy and the rest of us?

And for all the folks who want to eliminate income taxes outright, take a look at this chart:

See Texas up there? Remember that Texas had a 27 billion dollar deficit last year. You know what that means: cuts to education and other services that help contribute to middle and working class prosperity. Just think about that when you hear some of the GOP tax gurus pontificating. And, of course, as the Post-Dispatch suggests, keep a watch on Kansas as it slashes taxes and hits the skids in deficit city.

As CNNMoney commented when reporting on the 7% decline in middle class income over the last 10 years, “The first decade of the 21st century will go down in the history books as a step back for the American middle class.” The same article also notes that the wealthiest Americans got wealthier during the same period, a trend that will only accelerate if we permit the state level GOP to continue to carry water for their rich friends and campaign contributors and destroy what remains of progressive state-level taxation.

James Moody, one-time budget director for former – highly conservative – Republican Governor John Ashcroft, observed that the Sinquefield cabal’s efforts last year to abolish the state income tax in favor of a sales tax indicated that “they don’t know what they’re doing.” And it’s not just ignorance that animates our GOP brethren in this instance, but willful ignorance. These are the folks who, to borrow Hillary Clinton’s phrase, have refused the invitation to inhabit the “evidence-based world” where their victims have no choice but to reside.  

*Charts from ITEP, Who pays: A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States, ITEP, February 2013.

Is anyone surprised?

Previously:

HB 400: apparently wire coat hangers aren’t considered a chemical (February 2, 2013)

Another anti-choice bill, introduced on January 30, 2013:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 386

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES MCCAHERTY (Sponsor), JONES (110), WIELAND, HIGDON, SMITH (120), HURST, KORMAN, WALKER, PIKE, KOENIG, WOOD, BROWN, MCGAUGH, LAUER, HAMPTON, LEARA, CROSS, HOUGHTON, CRAWFORD, BERNSKOETTER, CIERPIOT, TORPEY, WILSON, LOVE, BURLISON, DUGGER, HOSKINS, LANT, SHUMAKE, LICHTENEGGER, THOMSON, GOSEN, ROWLAND, ELMER, BAHR, ENGLER, CONWAY (104), SCHATZ, FITZWATER, BARNES, FREDERICK AND HINSON (Co-sponsors).

1187H.01I         D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 188, RSMo, by adding thereto nine new sections relating to a ban on abortions for sex selection and genetic abnormalities, with penalty provisions.

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

           Section A. Chapter 188, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto nine new sections, to be known as sections 188.275, 188.278, 188.281, 188.284, 188.287, 188.290, 188.293, 188.296, and 188.299, to read as follows:

           188.275. Sections 188.275 to 188.299 shall be known and may be cited as the “Abortion Ban for Sex Selection and Genetic Abnormalities Act of 2013”.

           188.278. As used in sections 188.275 to 188.299 only, the following terms shall mean:

           (1) “Down syndrome” refers to a chromosome disorder associated either with an extra chromosome 21, in whole or in part, or an effective trisomy for chromosome 21. Down syndrome is sometimes referred to as trisomy 21 syndrome;

           (2) “Genetic abnormality”, any defect, disease, or disorder that is inherited genetically. Genetic abnormality includes, but is not limited to, any physical disability, any mental disability or retardation, any physical disfigurement, scoliosis, dwarfism, Down syndrome, albinism, Amelia, or any other type of physical or mental abnormality or disease;

           (3) “Incompetent”, any person who has been adjudged a disabled person and has had a guardian appointed for him or her under chapters 471 to 475;

           (4) “Minor”, any person under the age of eighteen who is not and has not been married and has not been legally emancipated;

           (5) “Physician”, any person licensed to practice medicine in this state. Physician includes medical doctors and doctors of osteopathy;

           (6) “Pregnant woman”, any female, including those who have not reached the age of eighteen, who is in the reproductive condition of having an unborn child in the woman’s uterus;

           (7) “Sex-selective abortion”, an abortion performed solely on account of the sex of the unborn child;

           (8) “Unborn child”, the offspring of human beings from conception until birth.

           188.281. 1. No person shall intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion with the knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely on account of the sex of the unborn child.

           2. If this section is held invalid as applied to the period of pregnancy prior to viability, it shall remain applicable to the period of pregnancy subsequent to viability.

           188.284. 1. No person shall intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion with knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the unborn child has been diagnosed with either Down syndrome or a potential for Down syndrome.

           2. If this section is held invalid as applied to the period of pregnancy prior to viability, it shall remain applicable to the period of pregnancy subsequent to viability.

           188.287. 1. No person shall intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion with knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the unborn child has been diagnosed with either a genetic abnormality or a potential for a genetic abnormality.

           2. If this section is held invalid as applied to the period of pregnancy prior to viability, it shall remain applicable to the period of pregnancy subsequent to viability.

           188.290. Any physician or other person who intentionally or knowingly performs or attempts to perform an abortion prohibited by sections 188.275 to 188.299 is guilty of a class A misdemeanor unless the person has previously pled guilty to or been convicted of a violation of sections 188.275 to 188.299 in which case the person is guilty of a class D felony.

           188.293. 1. Any physician or person who intentionally or knowingly violates sections 188.275 to 188.299 shall be liable for damages and shall, if applicable, have his or her medical license suspended or revoked. He or she may also be enjoined from such acts as provided in this section.

           2. A pregnant woman upon whom an abortion has been performed in violation of sections 188.275 to 188.299, the parent or legal guardian of the woman if she is an unemancipated minor, or the legal guardian or conservator of the woman if she has been adjudged incompetent under chapter 475 may commence a civil action for any knowing or reckless violation of sections 188.275 to 188.299 and may seek both actual and punitive damages. Such damages shall include, but are not limited to:

           (1) Money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by a violation of sections 188.275 to 188.299; and

           (2) Statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the abortion performed in violation of sections 188.275 to 188.299.

           3. Any physician who performs an abortion in violation of sections 188.275 to 188.299 shall be considered to have engaged in unprofessional conduct for which his or her license to practice in this state shall be suspended or revoked by the state board of the healing arts.

           4. A cause of action for injunctive relief against any physician or other person who had knowingly violated sections 188.275 to 188.299 may be maintained by the woman upon whom the abortion was performed or attempted to be performed in violation of sections 188.275 to 188.299; any person who is the spouse, parent, guardian, conservator, or a current or former licensed health care provider of the woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted to be performed in violation of sections 188.275 to 188.299; by the Missouri attorney general’s office; or by a prosecuting attorney with appropriate jurisdiction. The injunction shall prevent the physician or person from performing further abortions in violation of sections 188.275 to 188.299.

           5. Any physician or other person who knowingly violates the terms of an injunction issued in accordance with sections 188.275 to 188.299 shall be subject to civil contempt and shall be fined not less than one thousand dollars.

           188.296. 1. Any woman upon whom an abortion in violation of sections 188.275 to 188.299 is performed or attempted shall not be prosecuted under sections 188.275 to 188.299 for a conspiracy to violate sections 188.275 to 188.299 or otherwise held criminally or civilly liable for any violation.

           2. In any criminal proceeding or action brought under sections 188.275 to 188.299, any woman upon whom an abortion in violation of sections 188.275 to 188.299 is performed or attempted is entitled to all rights, protections, and notifications afforded to crime victims under state law.

           3. In every civil proceeding or action brought under sections 188.275 to 188.299, the anonymity of any woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted shall be preserved from public disclosure unless she gives her consent to such disclosure. A court of competent jurisdiction, upon motion or sua sponte, shall issue orders to the parties, witnesses, and counsel, and shall direct the sealing of the record and exclusion of individuals from courtrooms or hearing rooms, to the extent necessary to safeguard her identity from public disclosure. In the absence of written consent of the woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted, anyone who initiates a proceeding or action under subsection 2 or 4 of section 188.293 shall do so under a pseudonym.

           188.299. 1. Nothing in sections 188.275 to 188.299 shall be construed as creating or recognizing a right to abortion.

           2. It is not the intention of sections 188.275 to 188.299 to make lawful an abortion that is currently unlawful.

[emphasis in original]

Well, their intent is quite clear here.

“….’Unborn child’, the offspring of human beings from conception until birth….”

Uh.

“….If this section is held invalid as applied to the period of pregnancy prior to viability, it shall remain applicable to the period of pregnancy subsequent to viability….”

Uh, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this:

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (91-744), 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

….No change in Roe’s factual underpinning has left its central holding obsolete, and none supports an argument for its overruling. Although subsequent maternal health care advances allow for later abortions safe to the pregnant woman, and post-Roe neonatal care developments have advanced viability to a point somewhat earlier, these facts go only to the scheme of time limits on the realization of competing interests. Thus, any later divergences from the factual premises of Roe have no bearing on the validity of its central holding, that viability marks the earliest point at which the State’s interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions. The soundness or unsoundness of that constitutional judgment in no sense turns on when viability occurs. Whenever it may occur, its attainment will continue to serve as the critical fact….

[emphasis added]

“….Nothing in sections 188.275 to 188.299 shall be construed as creating or recognizing a right to abortion….”

The U.S. Supreme Court made this invalid a long time ago:

A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court

ANALYSIS January 16, 2013

….In Roe, the more significant of the two decisions, the court concluded that constitutional rights to privacy and liberty protected a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy….

….By ultimately affirming Roe [in Casey], however, the court solidified the decision’s status as legal precedent, thus affording Roe greater protection from future challenges. ….

“….It is not the intention of sections 188.275 to 188.299 to make lawful an abortion that is currently unlawful….”

Yeah, with the way right wingnut single issue anti-choice zealots contort legislative language which ends up producing unintended consequence this was probably a necessary clause for them.  

Today, on vehicles in western Jackson County, Missouri:

Oh, we get it. Not really.

I dunno, the battle flag of the Army of Tennessee/second Confederate Navy jack is bigger than the American flag? What kind of message is that? And the pro-labor sticker? It’s not like President Obama’s political opposition ever supports organized labor.

Slightly less strident, with no cognitive dissonance in evidence.

There doesn’t appear to be the will on the part of the right wingnut dominated

General Assembly to regulate home medical devices from the dark ages.

Another anti-choice bill introduced on Thursday:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 400

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES RIDDLE (Sponsor), MILLER, WOOD, HURST, FITZWATER, SPENCER, HARRIS, CORNEJO, KOLKMEYER, REIBOLDT, DIEHL, NEELY, LICHTENEGGER, LANT, BROWN, MESSENGER, JOHNSON, ROWLAND, WALKER, ENTLICHER, ANDERSON, FITZPATRICK, WILSON, CRAWFORD, KORMAN, WHITE, HANSEN, CROSS, SHUMAKE, ENGLISH, COX, LYNCH, MCCAHERTY, HAEFNER, REHDER, MCGAUGH, HICKS, SCHIEFFER, HOUGHTON, CONWAY (104), LAUER, KELLEY (127), ELMER, PARKINSON, SWAN, RICHARDSON, PFAUTSCH, ROWDEN, JONES (50), BARNES, FRAKER, BAHR, GUERNSEY, ZERR, SCHIEBER, ROSS, FLANIGAN, KOENIG, POGUE, PIKE, REMOLE, SMITH (120), WIELAND, REDMON, HIGDON, DOHRMAN, CIERPIOT, TORPEY, SOLON, THOMSON, LEARA, COOKSON, GANNON, DUGGER, SCHARNHORST, MORRIS, MUNTZEL, BRATTIN, AUSTIN, GATSCHENBERGER, BLACK, GRISAMORE, CURTMAN, BERNSKOETTER, KEENEY, STREAM, JONES (110), DAVIS, ENGLER, ALLEN, SOMMER, FRANKLIN, PHILLIPS, JUSTUS, RHOADS, SCHATZ, FREDERICK, BURLISON, HAMPTON, HAAHR, LOVE, HINSON, GOSEN, FOWLER, FUNDERBURK AND HODGES (Co-sponsors).

0839L.01I   D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 188, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to administration of abortion-inducing drugs.

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

           Section A. Chapter 188, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 188.021, to read as follows:

           188.021. When RU-486 (mifepristone) or any drug or chemical is used for the purpose of inducing an abortion, the drug or chemical shall be administered in the same room and in the physical presence of the physician who prescribed, dispensed, or otherwise provided the drug or chemical to the patient. The physician inducing the abortion, or a person acting on such physician’s behalf, shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the patient returns twelve to eighteen days after the administration or use of RU-486 or any drug or chemical for a follow-up visit so the physician is able to confirm that the pregnancy has been terminated and assess the patient’s medical condition. At a minimum, the physician inducing the abortion shall include in the patient’s medical records the date, time, and identification by name of the person making such reasonable efforts to ensure the patient returns for a follow-up visit in accordance with this section.

[emphasis in original]

When wire coat hangers are outlawed, only outlaws will have wire coat hangers.

Everybody hates taxes, right? At least until they think about what we actually buy with them. Who wants to pay tolls on every road she drives, or to pay private school tuition for every child she can afford to educate? Think of the large numbers of the sick and helpless members of our community that private charity would be unable to assist – and as for things like Obamacare, no taxes means we wouldn’t even have the government backing up that emergency room care conservatives like to put forward as an antidote to the uninsured status of so many Americans – despite its inefficiency and expense. It’s our taxes that pay for the regulatory agencies that make sure that our foods and medicines are safe. As long as taxes provide a relatively efficient way for us to buy these and other services we collectively consume while permitting us to retain enough income to meet our needs, reasonable people understand that paying our fair share is the right thing to do.

Which must mean Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-3) and Sam Graves (R-6) have to be exempted from the company of reasonable people. Luetkemeyer and Graves have signed on to a bill, the the Tax Code Termination Act, which was put forward by demonstrably boneheaded Republican, Bob Goodlatte:

Last week, House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced the Tax Code Termination Act, which would abolish the entire federal tax code in 2018, with exceptions for Social Security and Medicare taxes – and replace it with, well, nothing. Goodlatte’s bill does offer some vague principles that should guide Congress in enacting a replacement tax system, but it does nothing to actually replace the massive amount of federal revenues it will eliminate.

In addition to cutting off about 60 percent of federal revenues, the bill includes an unconstitutional provision providing that the end of the tax code cannot be delayed except by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. The Constitution does not permit a past Congress to tie the hands of a future Congress, so this provision making it functionally impossible for future congresses to delay the end of most federal revenue is unconstitutional.

Actually, Luektemeyer and Graves aren’t all by their lonesome among members of the Missouri delegation in their support of this bit of pandering – Billy Long (R-7) signed on to the legislation when it was first introduced in 2011. As an aside, I can’t resist noting the frequency with which so many of those far-right constitutional warriors (Goodlatte, for instance, thinks Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are unconstitutional) run afoul of the constitution.

When Goodlatte introduced the bill for the first time in 2011, he described his motivation as an effort to force action on tax reform: “Congress won’t reach a consensus on such a contentious issue unless it is forced to do so.” I’ve got a few words for anyone who endorses governing by virtue of a figurative gun to the head and the words “fiscal cliff” and “sequester” figure among them. Giving the GOP one more hostage to their absurd ideology ought to scare anyone who thinks it’s a good idea to force quick action on complicated issues. As TPMDC Brian Beutler asks, “So what happens if there’s no consensus on tax reform by the end of 2015 [i.e., the cut-off date proposed by the original 2011 bill]?”

I would shudder to think of the consequences if I weren’t sure that nobody would permit such idiocy to advance. Except for a few of the worst loons in the House of Representatives, nobody who is sane cuts off their nose to spite their face. Right? … Right? Of course, for Missourians the real (and embarrassing) question is why three of the worst loons in the House were sent there from Missouri?  

Introduced yesterday:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 383

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES BAHR (Sponsor) AND CURTMAN (Co-sponsor).

0918L.01I    D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

Relating to motor vehicle mileage taxes.

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

           Section 1. No global positioning system or other technology that identifies and records a person’s location at all times shall be used to monitor mileage traveled by any motor vehicle on any road, highway, or street in this state for the purpose of imposing any tax on the mileage traveled by such motor vehicle.

[emphasis in original]

The next thing you know all licensed drivers are gonna have to wear tinfoil helmets on the road.

Previously:

We’re from Missouri (July 6, 2012)

HB 1141: the ultimate in teabagger automotive accessories (January 6, 2012)