This month, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C071378: Citizens For Guernsey

Po Box 401 Committee Type: Candidate

Bethany Mo 64424 Party Affiliation: Republican

[….] Established Date: 12/17/2007

  Termination Date:

Information Reported On: 2014 – January Quarterly Report

Beginning Money on Hand $108,692.46

Monetary Receipts + $10,800.00

Monetary Expenditures – $9,610.40

Contributions Made – $0.00

Other Disbursements – $0.00

Subtotal     $1,189.60

Ending Money On Hand   $109,882.06

[emphasis added]

Guernsey decides not to seek re-election, Senate seat

Posted: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:00 pm | Updated: 1:43 pm, Fri Jan 31, 2014.

By Ray Scherer St. Joseph News-Press |

State Rep. Casey Guernsey announced Friday morning that he has decided not to pursue the Missouri Senate 12th District seat in this year’s election. Not will he seek re-election for his House seat.

The 33-year-old Mr. Guernsey – a Bethany Republican serving a third term representing the Missouri House Second District — told the News-Press that he reached the decision this week….

And he just paid for a new license plate.

Previously:

M – I – Z, boo… (November 2, 2013)

M – I – Z, boo… part 2 (November 5, 2013)

This could explain why they keep voting for the same tenther bills every session (December 14, 2013)

Previously: Campaign Finance: continuing… (January 19, 2014)

Yesterday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C031159 01/29/2014 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER CHIPP Political Account 1401 Hampton Avenue 3rd Floor Saint Louis MO 63139 1/27/2014 $10,000.00

C031159 01/29/2014 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Gregory Wendt 1 Market Street San Francisco CA 94105 Capital Group Finance 1/27/2014 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

Again, you were expecting otherwise?

From the Southern Poverty Law Center (March 14, 2012):

….In the world of far-right extremists, Agenda 21 is demonized as a sort of Trojan horse, part of a larger scheme to shatter Americans’ liberties and institute a totalitarian, one-world government known typically as the “New World Order…”

…to the John Birch Society (JBS), one of the main groups promoting the conspiracy theory about Agenda 21, it represents the end of America as we know it. This is the same group, of course, that claimed President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a secret communist….

The ultimate in head wear, with accessory, for the right wingnut controlled Missouri General Assembly.

A bill on a favorite subject of the paranoid wingnut right, introduced today by Representative Mike Moon (r):  

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1647

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES MOON (Sponsor), CURTMAN, POGUE, ANDERSON, REMOLE, FITZPATRICK, RHOADS, WILSON, MUNTZEL, HURST, MESSENGER, ROWLAND, BRATTIN, PARKINSON, MORRIS, KOENIG, MCGAUGH, HOUGHTON AND BAHR (Co-sponsors).

5691H.01I      D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 1, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to prohibitions on certain policies that infringe on private property rights.

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 1.370, to read as follows:

           1.370. 1. As used in this section, “political subdivision” means any state, county, incorporated city, unincorporated city, public local entity, public-private partnership, and any other public entity of the state, a county, or city.

           2. Neither the state of Missouri nor any political subdivision shall adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to Agenda 21, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Missouri Constitution.

           3. Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the state of Missouri and all political subdivisions are prohibited from entering into any agreement with, expending any sum of money for, receiving funds from, contracting services from, or giving financial aid to those nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.

[emphasis added]

Agenda 21. Heh.

Previously: SB 265: tinfoil hats – there’s no such thing as a moderate republican (May 11, 2013)

Two bills, introduced in close proximity today:

HB 1655 Burlison, Eric

Exempts motorcyclists age 21 and older from wearing a helmet when operating a motorcycle or motortricycle (LR# 5478L.01I)

HB 1656 Neely, Jim

Specifies that if an anatomical gift is medically unsuitable for transplantation or therapy, the gift may be used for research, education, or pass to an appropriate procurement organization(LR# 5752H.01I)

Probably.

A bill, introduced today by Representative Caleb Jones (r):

HB 1665

Requires a person publishing an arrest booking photograph on his or her internet website to remove such photograph upon the request of the individual whose photograph was published

Sponsor: Jones, Caleb (050)

Co-Sponsor: Barnes, Jay (060) … et al.

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2014

LR Number: 5563L.01I

Last Action: 01/29/2014 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

Bill String: HB 1665

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

What if they’re members of the General Assembly? Just asking.

Yesterday Missouri’s Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill went after Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky who, on Sunday’s Meet the Press, voiced his opinion that Bill Clinton’s philandering with Monica Lewinsky, if not the equivalent to the GOP legislative “war” on women’s rights – which he states has been “concocted by Democrats” – is still just the way to silence Democrats who’ve noticed the Republican battle maneuvres in said war. McCaskill, to her lasting credit, took Paul down in short order:

“I think I can speak for most women to say what I found what he said infuriating,” McCaskill said “I think most women understand that they should not be held accountable for the behaviors of their husbands. And you know, frankly, it was a long time ago, and our country did very well under the leadership of Bill Clinton.”

[…]

“I think Rand Paul is grasping, trying to show he can be tough and win the presidential nomination,” McCaskill said. “It was a political posturing and, frankly, what Rand Paul doesn’t get is that women want birth control. What Rand Paul doesn’t get is that women don’t want to be marginalized in the workplace. … The more the Republicans keep talking about how somehow they’ve got it all figured out about women, the more trouble they get in.”

Indeed. For good measure, as TPM reports, McCaskill also got in a salvo at Mike Huckabee’s recent, über-creepy “Uncle Sugar” gaffe, in which he seemed to conflate mandatory contraception insurance coverage with imaginary government subsidies for uncontrollable female libido:

McCaskill also responded to Mike Huckabee’s recent comment on the female libido by reiterating that most women view access to birth control as a basic right. “I don’t understand why these guys don’t get that,” McCaskill told Mitchell.

I can tell McCaskill why most Republians don’t get it – they’re essentially confused about the terms of combat, to return to the war metaphor that functions so well to describe GOP anti-women fervor. They think it’s all about free sex and free-loading. Their world view just doesn’t accommodate the idea that the “war on women” doesn’t involve those concepts per se, any more than it involves the private, sexual behavior of Bill Clinton – or Louisiana GOP Senator David Vitter’s penchant for prostitutes, if it comes to that. That’s why they think they can mitigate the perception of their policies by putting a saccharine female face on them, the strategy adopted last night when Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA) gave a carefully scripted response to the SOTU that was heavy on sentimental cliches and light on policy specifics, a speech that, incidentally, often implicitly belied her own legislative actions and priorities, a fact that GOP leaders seem to think women are too dumb to figure out.

McCaskill did a good job with just the right sound bites, but it’s too bad that when Paul accused Democrats of concocting a war on women, the media constraints meant that no one would ask him specifically which party fillibustered the Paycheck Fairness Act and consistently  fought against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. In which party do the members preclude any discussion of female and family friendly policies such as paid parental leave, and paid personal and family sick leave? Which party has enacted or attempted to enact cuts to child-care subsidies for working women, head-start funding and numerous other programs that act as a safety net for women and their families?  Which party seeks to shut-off unemployment benefits, or chop food stamps, thereby hurting the families of so many poor working or unemployed mothers? The list of Republican policy positions that negatively impact the lives of women directly or indirectly is almost endless.

And yes, Senator McCaskill’s right, the Republican war on women involves restricting abortion rights and access to contraception.  According to the Guttemacher Institute, various states enacted 205 provisions restricting abortion and access to contraceptives over the past three years (2011-2013). The first order of business for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2014 was to pass HR7, the “rape-audit” bill that would use the IRS to discriminate against women who have had an abortion. It was Missouri Republican Senator Blunt who, based on a contrived “religious liberty” argument, sponsored a bill that attempted to deny women right to have health care insurance that covered essential aspects of reproductive health. Just about every Republican in GOP-land has tried to restrict funding to Planned Parenthood – which would undercut support for routine medical procedures such as mammograms as well as the more obviously targeted abortion and contraceptive services. All of which suggests a Republican party that is obsessed with controlling female sexuality.

Nor does the Republican obsession with sexual behavior end with denying women the right to control their fertility. GOPers continue to try to redefine rape more narrowly and to make the victims of rape pay the price for what was done to them. A Republican even suggested that rape kits, used in emergency rooms to collect evidence, are used to give abortions!

Does any of this suggest a party that respects women? Or even a party that respects basic human rights and freedoms, much less even understands what those terms mean? We can at least be grateful that Senator McCaskill, Republican-lite on so many issues, well and truly “gets” the issues involved in the GOP war on women and is willing to stand up along with most of her Democratic colleagues and fight.

Probably.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C131023 01/29/2014 MISSOURIANS FOR EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY Missourians for Responsible Government P O Box 45571 Kansas City MO 64171 1/28/2014 $395,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s not much when compared to the business stakes.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: loan me your ear (December 17, 2013)

Campaign Finance: still at it (April 30, 2013)

Campaign Finance: I want to be a loan (November 26, 2012)

Campaign Finance: their thing (February 4, 2013)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) took to Twitter last night to comment on President Obama’s State of the Union address. Hilarity ensued:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Getting ready for the President’s State of the Union address. Hope he extends hand to Congress rather than threatening more executive action 5:08 PM – 28 Jan 2014

One of the responses:

Matt Hendon ‏@MMHen22

@RepHartzler it might be time for the House to start doing something besides obstruction 5:36 PM – 28 Jan 2014

And then:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Will the President inspire Americans to be all they can be or engage in ‘shame and blame’ pitting one group against another? Hope the first.5:24 PM – 28 Jan 2014

That one gathered the usual Benghazi truther spam. Some of the other responses:

Scott Charton ‏@ScottCharton

@RepHartzler Nice negative frame before The President utters a word. Shameful. 5:35 PM – 28 Jan 2014

Fake Ed Emery ‏@Ed_Emrey

@RepHartzler thankfully you have never pitted on side against this other. That’s why you are dabes. 6:16 PM – 28 Jan 2014

And then:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Agreed with the Pres. that we believe in opportunity for all & you can get ahead if work hard & take responsibility. Govn.’s not the answer. 8:11 PM – 28 Jan 2014

Two responses:

Nurse Ratched ‏@veggie64_leslie

@RepHartzler Then why do you accept farm subsidies from the Government? 9:21 PM – 28 Jan 2014

Bob Yates ‏@OldDrum

@RepHartzler So, if government is not the answer will you propose defunding PUBLIC education and no more farm subsidies? 4:59 AM – 29 Jan 2014

Maybe the first, probably not the second.

“…. (b) At least seventy-two hours prior to the abortion, the abortion provider has provided the woman in writing and, where applicable, orally….

…. c. A description of the development of the child’s nerve endings and the child’s ability to feel pain at each stage of development….”

Wednesday, Aug 7, 2013 06:45 AM CDT

Fetal pain is a lie: How phony science took over the abortion debate

New laws banning abortion after 20 weeks are based on pseudoscience — and real research proves it conclusively

Since Nebraska first jump-started the trend back in 2010, close to a dozen state legislatures across the country have passed laws banning abortion at 20 weeks. Most of these restrictions are given grave-sounding titles like the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” or some near-identical riff on the words “fetal,” “pain” and “protection.” All of them, no matter what they’re called, rest on the stated premise that a fetus can experience pain at 20 weeks, and that this is a sufficient justification to ban all abortions after this gestational stage.

But “fetal pain” in the popular discourse is a nebulous concept, one that lawmakers like Jodie Laubenberg, Trent Franks and others haven’t much bothered to define or help ground in available medical evidence.

Probably because there really isn’t any. The limited research used to support such claims has been refuted as pseudoscience by the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Center for Cosmetic & Reconstructive Gynecology and the British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (Not to mention smaller studies from researchers at Harvard University, University College London and elsewhere.)….

[….]

….Because the neural structures necessary to feel pain have not yet developed, any observable responses to stimuli at this gestational stage – like the fetal “flinching” during an amniocentesis – are reflexive, not experiential. Which is to say, the fetus at 20 weeks can’t actually feel anything at all. Which is to say, the fundamental justification for these laws is a really big, really popular lie….

[….]

A bill, introduced yesterday by Representative Chuck Gatschenberger (r):

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1613

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GATSCHENBERGER (Sponsor), HICKS AND SWAN (Co-sponsors).

5407H.02I    D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 188, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the ultrasound informed consent act, 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 one new section, to be known as section 188.090, to read as follows:

188.090. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Ultrasound Informed Consent Act”.

2. For purposes of this section the following terms shall mean:

(1) “Abortion”, the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman with knowledge or reason to believe that the termination by those means will cause the death of the unborn child. Such use, prescription, or means is not an abortion if done with the intent to:

(a) Save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;

(b) Remove a dead unborn child who did not die as a result of an intentional, knowing, or reckless action to terminate a pregnancy; or

(c) Remove an ectopic pregnancy;

(2) “Abortion provider”, a person performing or inducing an abortion or the facility at which the abortion is to be performed or induced;

(3) “Conflict of interest disclaimer”, a written or oral statement divulging the abortion provider’s gross income from the previous fiscal year, as well as the percentage of that income which was obtained as fees for the performance of abortions, together with a statement concerning the monetary loss to the abortion provider which would result from the woman’s decision to carry the pregnancy to term;

(4) “Medical emergency”, a condition which so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman that the death of the woman would result from the failure to immediately terminate the pregnancy.

3. (1) No abortion shall be performed or induced without the voluntary and informed consent of the woman upon whom the abortion is performed or induced. Except in the case of a medical emergency, consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed only if:

(a) At least seventy-two hours before the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion has informed the woman orally and in writing of the following:

a. The name of the physician who will perform the abortion;

b. A thorough and accurate description of the proposed method for performing the abortion, including information on the probable gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed and the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of an unborn child at that age;

c. A description of immediate and long-term physical and psychological risks involved in the abortion procedure including, but not limited to, the risks of infection, hemorrhage, cervical or uterine perforation, risks to subsequent pregnancies, infertility, and increased risk of breast cancer;

d. A description of alternatives to abortion, including the availability of adoption alternatives and the availability of financial help from adoptive parents and other sources for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care expenses;

e. A description of medical assistance benefits that may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care together with the names and contact information for individuals and organizations that may be willing to assist with the costs involved in carrying the pregnancy to term and information on the liability of the father for child support and other expenses;

f. A conflict of interest disclaimer; and

g. Any other medical or other information that a reasonable patient would consider material to the decision of whether to have an abortion;

(b) At least seventy-two hours prior to the abortion, the abortion provider has provided the woman in writing and, where applicable, orally:

a. A current sonogram of the unborn child portraying the entire body of the unborn child, including:

(i) A verbal description of all relevant features of the sonogram with audible heartbeat if present;

(ii) Upon request and without additional charge, a photograph or print of the sonogram of a quality consistent with the current standard medical practice;

(iii) In order to provide the possibility of a second opinion, a list of all known sonogram providers within a ten-mile radius of the abortion provider or if there are no such sonogram providers within a ten-mile radius of the abortion provider, a list of all known sonogram providers within a fifty-mile radius of the abortion provider; and

(iv) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the pregnant woman from not listening to the sounds detected by the fetal heart monitor or from not viewing the images displayed on the ultrasound screen;

b. The probable gestational age of the unborn child, including provision of color photographs of fetal development within a four-week increment of the age of the unborn child and during each succeeding four-week increment during the pregnancy;

c. A description of the development of the child’s nerve endings and the child’s ability to feel pain at each stage of development;

d. Relevant information on the potential survival of the child at his or her current stage of development;

e. A statement that the woman is free to withhold or withdraw her consent to the abortion at any time without affecting her right to care or treatment in the future and without the loss of any state or federal benefits to which she might otherwise be entitled; and

f. Any other medical or other information that a reasonable patient would consider material to the decision of whether to have an abortion;

(2) The information provided in subdivision (1) of this subsection shall be provided individually in a private room and the woman shall be provided with an adequate opportunity to ask questions and receive answers she can understand;

(3) If the woman is unable to read the written materials provided to her under the provisions of subdivision (1) of this subsection, they shall be read to her and, if necessary, shall be explained in a way understandable to her. If the woman is unable to understand the sonogram, it shall be explained to her;

(4) The woman shall sign separate statements that the abortion provider has complied with each of the provisions of subdivision (1) of this subsection. The abortion provider shall, under oath and penalty of perjury, sign separate statements that he or she has complied with each of the provisions of subdivision (1) of this subsection;

(5) No abortion provider may accept payment, nor may the abortion provider legally or otherwise bind a woman to make payment for the performance or inducement of an abortion prior to the expiration of seventy-two hours from the abortion provider’s fulfillment of all of the provisions of paragraph (a) of subdivision (1) of this subsection;

(6) Whoever intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates any provision of this section or who performs an abortion with reason to believe such an abortion is a violation of this section shall be imprisoned for up to ten years, fined not more than one million dollars for each violation, or both;

(7) Any person or entity which has been convicted under the provisions of this section shall be referred to the professional disciplinary authority in this state.

4. Whoever is aggrieved by a violation of this section by an abortion provider may bring a cause of action against the abortion provider for damages, punitive damages, treble damages, and such equitable remedies as the court may deem appropriate.

5. (1) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to preempt or supersede any provision of law or any provision of law which is more restrictive than the provisions of this section or create or recognize any right to an abortion or to sanction, approve of, or expand in any way the legality of abortion;

(2) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or word, phrase, or application thereof is found to be invalid, that invalidity shall not affect the validity of the provisions or applications of the section not found to be invalid.

[emphasis in original]

“….(4) The woman shall sign separate statements that the abortion provider has complied with each of the provisions of subdivision (1) of this subsection. The abortion provider shall, under oath and penalty of perjury, sign separate statements that he or she has complied with each of the provisions of subdivision (1) of this subsection….”

Shall sign separate statements for each of the provisions? Who knew that Representative Gatschenberger (r) was an enthusiastic patron of useless paperwork and bureaucracy?

The usurper in the White House tenther temper tantrums continue in the republican controlled Missouri General Assembly. A bill, introduced today by Representative Tim Remole (r):

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1620

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES REMOLE (Sponsor), CURTMAN, BAHR, MESSENGER, MOON, RICHARDSON, FRAKER, PIKE, MUNTZEL, POGUE, MILLER, HURST, RHOADS, SPENCER, BERRY, KELLEY (127), HICKS, FRANKLIN, LYNCH, LANT, REIBOLDT, FITZWATER, HOSKINS, DOHRMAN, LOVE, SHULL, WALKER, STREAM, SCHIEBER, HOUGHTON AND WILSON (Co-sponsors).

5223H.02I     D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 1, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to regulations resulting from presidential executive orders.



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 1.345, to read as follows:

           1.345. 1. Any federal regulation or rule promulgated as a result of an executive order of the President of the United States repugnant of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Missouri shall be declared invalid in the state of Missouri. Such regulations and rules shall be considered null and void and of no effect.

           2. It shall be the duty of the general assembly to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of regulations and rules issued by a presidential executive order.

[emphasis in original]

….Rep. Remole is….a lifetime member of the NRA and a proud supporter of Missouri Farm Bureau, Eagle Forum, and Americans for Prosperity….

That actually explains a lot.

Uh, so were were these people when Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush were president? Just asking.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the United States Supreme Court has the final say on the constitutionality concerning federal issues, not the republican tenther caucus in the Missouri General Assembly.