• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Category Archives: Missouri Senate

Campaign Finance: Instant campaign!

11 Wednesday Dec 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in campaign finance, Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House, Missouri Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

155th Legislative District, 33rd Senate District, campaign finance, Karla Eslinger, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission

Yesterday at the Missouri Ethics Commission for the 33rd Senate District campaign by current one-term Representative Karla Eslinger (r):

C180037 12/10/2019 KarlaEslingerForSenate.com Karla Eslinger 24602 State Hwy 95 5651 county road 830 Wasola MI [sic] 65773 State of Missouri Represenative [sic] 12/9/2019 $150,000.00

[emphasis added]

Must be nice.

Campaign Finance: “Insta-campaign!”

29 Tuesday Oct 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in campaign finance, Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

3rd Senate District, campaign finance, General Assembly, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission, for the 2020 open seat in the 3rd Senate District:

C190962 10/29/2019 Scism For Senate William Scism PO Box 434 PO Box 434 Park Hills MO 63601 Self Auto Sales 10/29/2019 $100,000.00

[emphasis added]

Huh, a modest start. [/sarcasm]

Any guesses?

Campaign Finance: line ’em up

25 Friday Oct 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in campaign finance, Missouri Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign finance, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission, Missouri State Senate, republicans

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission, for the republicans in the Missouri Senate:

C071094 10/25/2019 MISSOURI SENATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Cigna 900 Cottage Grove Road Bloomfield CT 06002 10/24/2019 $10,000.00

C071094 10/25/2019 MISSOURI SENATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Cheyenne International LLC 701 South Battleground Ave Grover NC 28073 10/24/2019 $10,000.00

C071094 10/25/2019 MISSOURI SENATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE AGC of MO PAC 6330 Knox Industrial Dr St Louis MO 63139 10/24/2019 $10,000.00

C071094 10/25/2019 MISSOURI SENATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Grow Missouri 308 E High St Suite 301 Jefferson City MO 65101 10/24/2019 $10,000.00

C071094 10/25/2019 MISSOURI SENATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE HCA Missouri Good Government Fund PO Box 305 Jefferson City MO 65102 10/24/2019 $10,000.00

C071094 10/25/2019 MISSOURI SENATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Anheuser Busch Companies One Busch Place St Louis MO 63118 10/24/2019 $25,000.00

C071094 10/25/2019 MISSOURI SENATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE AT&T One AT&T Center St Louis MO 63101 10/24/2019 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

$100,000.00 right there. Isn’t that special?

Judy Baker (D) – 19th Senate District

10 Thursday Oct 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

19th Senate District, Caleb Rowden, Judy Baker, missouri

Judy Baker (D) [2017 file photo].

Judy Baker (D) announced today that she’s running for the 19th Senate District seat currently held by Caleb Rowden (r):

Good Afternoon! I have some big news! After much consideration and reaching out to friends, voters, and leaders in my community, I have decided to run for our State Senate seat here in mid-Missouri.

Our community needs representation that reflects its values. Our politicians in Jefferson City, MO keep voting against us. Sometimes they flat out try to overturn the will of people who have voted on ballot initiatives or sometimes they just go too far and pass an abortion ban that has no exceptions for rape and incest. Sometimes, they ignore sensible firearm legislation that would save lives. They don’t value local control and they aren’t interested in the stewardship of our planet. And then there’s the matter of kicking kids off Healthcare coverage!

I am going to stand up. I hope you will stand with me!
[….]

Excellent.

Caleb Rowden (r) [2016 file photo].

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): uninformed and selective outrage

18 Wednesday Sep 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri Senate, social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

21st Senate District, Denny Hoskins, missouri, Pledge of Allegiance, social media, Twitter

“…the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings…”

Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].

This morning, via Twitter:

Senator Denny Hoskins, CPA @DLHoskins
Yes, it’s ridiculous that high school cheerleaders are disciplined for supporting the President of the United States. What’s next, banning our National Anthem before HS sporting events? Banning the Pledge of Allegiance at school?
[….]
9:50 AM · Sep 18, 2019

Apparently some moron showed up with a large Trump campaign banner at a public high school football game and prevailed upon some high school cheerleaders who were in uniform in front of the stands at the game to hold up the banner. The high school activities association admonished the school’s cheerleaders that this type of political activity did not conform with the standards of the association.

The cheerleaders were in uniform, representing their school.

Meanwhile, right wingnuttia has had a cow.

“…Banning the Pledge of Allegiance at school?”

Res judicata. Actually, stare decisis, in 1943:

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. BARNETTE ET AL., 319 U.S. 624

[….]

….To sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual’s right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind.

Whether the First Amendment to the Constitution will permit officials to order observance of ritual of this nature does not depend upon whether as a voluntary exercise we would think it to be good, bad or merely innocuous. Any credo of nationalism is likely to include what some disapprove or to omit what others think essential, and to give off different overtones as it takes on different accents or interpretations. If official power exists to coerce acceptance of any patriotic creed, what it shall contain cannot be decided by courts, but must be largely discretionary with the ordaining authority, whose power to prescribe would no doubt include power to amend. Hence validity of the asserted power to force an American citizen publicly to profess any statement of belief or to engage in any ceremony of assent to one presents questions of power that must be considered independently of any idea we may have as to the utility of the ceremony in question….

[….]

….Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. [319 U.S. 624, 641] As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism [319 U.S. 624, 642] and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us….

[….]

That was about compulsory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools. Since 1943, in the United States, no individual can be compelled by the government to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In any setting.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist minister, in the late 19th century for a children’s magazine with the intent that it was to be used by children in ceremonies celebrating the Columbian Exposition. The original text: “I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Subsequent additions were made by others in the 1920s during the red scare (so immigrant children would know which flag they were saluting?) and during the Eisenhower Administration (because of fears of godless communism).

The U.S. Flag Code people keep citing as a point of law? It has the same force as Congressional resolutions commemorating motherhood, apple pie, and National Groundhog Day. By the way, that same flag code states that the image of the flag not be used as clothing or on disposable paper products (like napkins and plates) or on advertising. Good luck with that one, huh.

“…What’s next, banning our National Anthem before HS sporting events…?”

The Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court have long ago decided the primacy of the First Amendment.

So, why have the national anthem sung or performed at sporting events? As if there’s originalist intent expressed in the Constitution? Join in or not, it’s up to you. No one else. If you want to take knee, it’s up to you.

So, some questions of Senator Hoskins (r) and his uninformed and selective outrage.

Does this mean you support the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Tinker v Des Moines 393 U.S. 503 (1969)?:

…It is also relevant that the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance. The record shows that students in some of the schools wore buttons relating to national political campaigns, and some even wore the Iron Cross, traditionally a symbol of Nazism. The order prohibiting the wearing of armbands did not extend to these. Instead, a particular symbol — black armbands worn to exhibit opposition to this Nation’s involvement in Vietnam — was singled out for prohibition. Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline, is not constitutionally permissible…

…In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school, as well as out of school, are “persons” under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views…

…The principle of these cases is not confined to the supervised and ordained discussion which takes place in the classroom. The principal use to which the schools are dedicated is to accommodate students during prescribed hours for the purpose of certain types of activities. Among those activities is personal intercommunication among the students. This is not only an inevitable part of the process of attending school; it is also an important part of the educational process. A student’s rights, therefore, do not embrace merely the classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without “materially and substantially interfer[ing] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” and without colliding with the rights of others. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749. But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason — whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior — materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech…

…As we have discussed, the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred. These petitioners merely went about their ordained rounds in school. Their deviation consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth, not more than two inches wide. They wore it to exhibit their disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them. They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder. In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny their form of expression.

Note that the students were acting as individuals, not as representatives of the school.

Does this mean that you disagree with the court in Bong Hits 4 Jesus?:

…We need not resolve this debate to decide this case. For present purposes, it is enough to distill from Fraser two basic principles. First, Fraser’s holding demonstrates that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” Id., at 682. Had Fraser delivered the same speech in a public forum outside the school context, it would have been protected. See Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15 (1971) ; Fraser, supra, at 682–683. In school, however, Fraser’s First Amendment rights were circumscribed “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.” Tinker, supra, at 506. Second, Fraser established that the mode of analysis set forth in Tinker is not absolute. Whatever approach Fraser employed, it certainly did not conduct the “substantial disruption” analysis prescribed by Tinker, supra, at 514. See Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S., at 271, n. 4 (disagreeing with the proposition that there is “no difference between the First Amendment analysis applied in Tinker and that applied in Fraser,” and noting that the holding in Fraser was not based on any showing of substantial disruption).

Our most recent student speech case, Kuhlmeier, concerned “expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school.” 484 U. S., at 271. Staff members of a high school newspaper sued their school when it chose not to publish two of their articles. The Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Tinker, ruling in favor of the students because it found no evidence of material disruption to classwork or school discipline. 795 F. 2d 1368, 1375 (CA8 1986). This Court reversed, holding that “educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” Kuhlmeier, supra, at 273.

Kuhlmeier does not control this case because no one would reasonably believe that Frederick’s banner bore the school’s imprimatur. The case is nevertheless instructive because it confirms both principles cited above. Kuhlmeier acknowledged that schools may regulate some speech “even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.” Id., at 266. And, like Fraser, it confirms that the rule of Tinker is not the only basis for restricting student speech…

So, if you skip school and hold up a banner at a school event, you can be suspended. What do you think about cheerleaders in uniform, representing their school, holding up a partisan political banner?

Finally, let’s test the selective outrage. If the cheerleaders had been approached in similar circumstances and held up a sign promoting the candidacy of one of Donald Trump’s (r) Democratic Party opponents, do you think that Senator Hoskins (r) would hold the same opinion? Most probably not.

Next time, do some homework.

Republican outrage is funny that way.

Obama’s tan suit. I rest my case.

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): regulated land use is evil, until it isn’t

12 Monday Aug 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

21st Senate District, CAFO, Denny Hoskins, Hypocrisy, Johnson County, missouri, planning and zoning, Valley Oaks, Warrensburg, Warrensburg City Council

Right.

Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].

In March:

Senate bill aims to prohibit county restrictions on agricultural enterprises
By Sue Sterling sue.sterling@dsjnow.com Mar 18, 2019
[….]
Hoskins said he believes the bill has a chance to pass in the Senate.

He said he voted for the bill because he is “frustrated with the constant attacks on agriculture,” not just in Missouri but nationally, such as the Green New Deal proposed by some congressional Democrats.

“I’m definitely a supporter of agriculture,” he said.

Some counties, Hoskins said, have passed such restrictive regulations that “you can’t farm.”

While the regulations do not affect existing farms, he said, they could limit expansion of those farms.
[….]
He noted that voters in Johnson County have consistently voted against planning and zoning.

Industrialized agriculture is needed, he said, because small farmers cannot afford the cost of land and equipment and feed.
[….]

And now? The expansion of a pre-existing convenience store on to two adjacent residential lots (which would need to be rezoned) (if approved, with, as it was explained to me this morning, a thirty foot planted buffer between the business and the remaining residential lots) is being challenged by some neighboring Warrensburg residents. The city planning and zoning commission has already approved the rezoning, 5-1. The Warrensburg City Council will vote on approval at a meeting this month.

One letter in opposition to the rezoning:

July 28,2019

Dear Warrensburg Planning and Zoning Commission:

We are writing to you today concerning the proposed change in zoning of the property at 310 East Gay Street and 309 East Market Street from residential to general business. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the Planning and Zoning meeting, but will be in attendance for the City Council meeting on August 12.

We live at 314 East Gay Street and also own the house next door at 312 East Gay Street. When we purchased our property almost 3 years ago, we knew the lot at 310 East Gay Street was zoned residential R-2. We felt comfort knowing that a residential home could be built on the lot at 310 East Gay, but a commercial building could not be built on the lot.

We have no concerns with keeping the properties zoned residential R-2. However, our realtor as well as another realtor on City Council have expressed their concern to us our home property value will decrease if the request for a change in zoning from residential to general business is approved by planning and zoning and the city council. If the change in zoning is approved, a commercial building could be a mere 30 feet away from our property versus the 96 feet distance under the current zoning requirements.

We have put a lot of time, sweat and tears in remodeling our home which was built in 1905. It would be beyond frustrating to see all of our hard-work and money spent updating and improving our home disappear due to a change in zoning from residential to general business.

We humbly ask that you consider the negative effect on our homes property value if the change in zoning is approved and ask you for your vote against the zoning change.

Sincerely,
s/
Senator Denny and Michelle Hoskins

Capital letter “L” libertarianism at the statewide level meets “but my quality of life and property values” at the local level. It is a very rare thing to witness karma and the closure of a circle of hypocrisy wrapped up in such a neat little package, all within such a short amount of time.

Our nation turns its eyes to Missouri

01 Saturday Jun 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Governor, Missouri House, Missouri Senate, Resist

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

abortion, anti-choice, governor, Mike Parson, missouri, Planned Parenthood, Resist

For all the wrong reasons.

Pre 1973 2019 medical equipment.

Yesterday, from Planned Parenthood Advocates in Missouri:

ABORTION CARE WILL CONTINUE IN MISSOURI — FOR NOW
For Immediate Release: May 31, 2019

Court Blocks State’s Egregious Actions that would have Left Missouri as the First State Since 1974 Without a Health Center that Provides Abortion
Court Allows Health Center to Continue Services for Now — Sets Another Court Date

St. Louis – Today, the Circuit Court of St. Louis stepped in to protect the last remaining health center in Missouri that provides abortion — for now. The judge today issued a Temporary Restraining Order against the state of Missouri, allowing Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region (RHS) — the last remaining health center in Missouri that provides abortion — to continue to provide abortion for the time being. The ruling means that abortion services will continue in the state for now. The judge also set another hearing on Tuesday, June 4.

Statement of Dr. Leana Wen, President & CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America:
“Today is a victory for women across Missouri, but this fight is far from over. We have seen just how vulnerable access to abortion care is here—and in the rest of the country. We are glad that the governor has been prevented from putting women’s health and lives in danger—for now—and call on him to stop this egregious politicalization of public health in an attempt to ban all safe, legal abortion care in the state.

“We want our patients to know that we will never abandon the women of Missouri. We will keep fighting these attempts to end access to health care, to ensure all people can get the care that they need—no matter what.”

Statement of Dr. Colleen McNicholas, OB-GYN, Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region:
“This is a huge sigh of relief for the many patients who need access to safe, legal abortion in Missouri. The fight goes on. While temporary, we celebrate today, and tomorrow we go back to work to ensure access to abortion does not go dark at the last health center that provides abortion in Missouri. Planned Parenthood has served Missouri for more than 87 years and we aren’t going anywhere. While Governor Parson abandoned our patients, we will not. Our doors are open today, our doors will be open tomorrow, and we will fight to make sure all patients continue to receive the care they need and deserve.”

On Tuesday, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and RHS announced they expected the state health department to block services at the state’s last remaining health center that provides abortion by refusing to renew its license to provide abortion services — a move that would have left 1.1 million women of reproductive age in Missouri without a health center in their state that provided abortion.

RHS filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis on Tuesday asking for a Temporary Restraining Order against the state’s egregious actions. Today’s ruling means that abortion services in Missouri are protected — for now.

It is not new for politicians in Missouri or elsewhere to use a combination of state laws and regulatory harassment to target abortion providers — in fact, Missouri already used similar targeting to block the only other health center in the state that provided abortions from continuing to do so in 2018. Last week, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signed one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bills, which bans abortion at nearly every stage of pregnancy and also adds more medically unnecessary abortion restrictions. Missouri’s long list of medically unnecessary restrictions are no longer just targeting clinics they are directly impacting patients and their right to evidence based healthcare free from harassment. Missouri’s demand that doctors perform invasive and medically unnecessary pelvic exams on patients is a clear indication that they have no regard for the wellbeing of their citizens. The medical literature is clear: restrictions including a 72-hour mandatory delay for patients accessing abortion that requires patients to make two trips to the health center, and demanding that abortion providers hold local hospital admitting privileges have no basis in science.

Already, 1 in 3 women of reproductive age lives in a state where abortion could be outlawed if Roe is overturned. That’s over 25 million people. While abortion bans impact everyone who can become pregnant, they hit people of color and those who are struggling to make ends meet the hardest — the people who already face barriers to accessing good health care. While those with wealth may be able to find a way around abortion bans, far too many people — especially those who already face racism, homophobia, and transphobia — will be left with no options at all.

###

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s leading provider and advocate of high-quality, affordable health care for women, men, and young people, as well as the nation’s largest provider of sex education. With more than 600 health centers across the country, Planned Parenthood organizations serve all patients with care and compassion, with respect and without judgment. Through health centers, programs in schools and communities, and online resources, Planned Parenthood is a trusted source of reliable health information that allows people to make informed health decisions. We do all this because we care passionately about helping people lead healthier lives.

Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region provides options counseling, pregnancy testing, abortion care and other reproductive services for thousands of people in Missouri, Illinois and across the region each year. Our highly-trained physicians and medical staff provide expert care in a supportive setting, no matter what. [….]

Governor Mike Parson (r) [2018 file photo].

From Governor Mike Parson (r):

Statement On Court Ruling Regarding Planned Parenthood’s St. Louis Facility
May 31, 2019

Jefferson City — Today, Governor Mike Parson issued the following statement after the 22nd Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri, issued a temporary restraining order:

“Following today’s ruling, the State will soon have the opportunity for a prompt legal review of our state health regulators’ serious health and safety concerns regarding Planned Parenthood’s abortion facility in St. Louis. We are committed to and take seriously our duty to ensure that all health facilities in Missouri follow the law, abide by regulations, and protect the safety of patients.”

Well, that was lame. “Shut it down” didn’t work, eh? Yet.

“Serious health and safety concerns”? Really. Okay. What are they? Why aren’t those concerns listed in this press release?

#resist

Previously:

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

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126 (May 28, 2019)

Women’s Health Care in Missouri – 1, Gov. Mike Parson (r) – 0 (May 31, 2019)

Women’s Health Care in Missouri – 1, Gov. Mike Parson (r) – 0

31 Friday May 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Governor, Missouri House, Missouri Senate

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

abortion, anti-choice, Mike Parson, missouri, Planned Parenthood

This afternoon:

Planned Parenthood Action @PPact
BREAKING: A state court just issued temporary relief to block Missouri from eliminating abortion access in the state. This ruling means that abortion services will continue in the state — for now.
[….]
1:24 PM – 31 May 2019

For now.

Previously:

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

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126 (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126

28 Tuesday May 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Governor, Missouri House, Missouri Senate, Resist

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

abortion, ACLU, anti-choice, HB 126, missouri, referendum

Pre 1973 2019 medical equipment.

Today:

ACLU-MO files Referendum Petition to stop MO’s anti-abortion law
May 28, 2019 – 12:45pm

Jefferson City – The ACLU of Missouri submitted a referendum petition to the Missouri Secretary of State to be approved for circulation.

This is the first step to bring Missouri’s anti-abortion law before the voters. The referendum will need to be certified for circulation and then over 100,000 signatures will need to be gathered to place the issue on the ballot. Once the signatures are submitted, the law cannot go into effect until a statewide vote has been made. A simple majority vote will veto the law.

Missourians oppose ending legal abortion. The Missouri General Assembly, trying to outdo the misguided and extreme examples of anti-abortion politicians in Alabama, Ohio, Georgia, and Kentucky, has made its intention clear: it wants to ban all abortion. Preventing Missourians from accessing abortion after eight weeks, before some even know they are pregnant, is unconstitutional and dangerous.

Abortion access is healthcare. HB 126, the law that will be put before Missouri voters, would criminalize doctors who perform abortions and force pregnant individuals to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, including in cases of rape and incest and even if the pregnancy is not viable or is risky for the woman.

“Failing to protect the right to an abortion violates the individual freedom of Missourians. HB 126 runs counter to our shared belief in autonomy and it has devastating health consequences for Missourians who become pregnant,” said Sara Baker, legislative and policy director with the ACLU of Missouri.

Passing an eight week abortion ban is an example of government overreach and disregard for the constitutional rights of Missourians. The ACLU of Missouri will continue to explore all options to stopping HB 126.
“The Constitution gives pregnant individuals the right to make the decision whether to end a pregnancy,” said Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri. “We will make sure that abortion remains legal in Missouri.”

HB 126 can be submitted to the voters for disapproval. In the Missouri Constitution:

Article III
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 49

Reservation of power to enact and reject laws.

Section 49. The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly, and also reserve power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided.

Article III
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 52a

Referendum–exceptions–procedure.

Section 52(a). A referendum may be ordered (except as to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, and laws making appropriations for the current expenses of the state government, for the maintenance of state institutions and for the support of public schools) either by petitions signed by five percent of the legal voters in each of two-thirds of the congressional districts in the state, or by the general assembly, as other bills are enacted. Referendum petitions shall be filed with the secretary of state not more than ninety days after the final adjournment of the session of the general assembly which passed the bill on which the referendum is demanded.

Article III
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 52b

Veto power–elections–effective date.

Section 52(b). The veto power of the governor shall not extend to measures referred to the people. All elections on measures referred to the people shall be had at the general state elections, except when the general assembly shall order a special election. Any measure referred to the people shall take effect when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, and not otherwise. This section shall not be construed to deprive any member of the general assembly of the right to introduce any measure.

And in RSMo §116.

Previously:

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

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio”

25 Saturday May 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Governor, Missouri House, Missouri Senate, social media

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

abortion, anti-choice, fictional character, General Assembly, HB 126, missouri, Nick Schroer, social media, Twitter

Pre 1973 2019 medical equipment.

The sponsor of the anti-choice HB 126 took to social media last night, responding to a movie actor:

Nicholas B. Schroer @NickBSchroer
It’s called there’s an actual #CaptainAmerica for the unborn here in MO. Not just some on screen character. Missouri has a crew of #ProLife legislators speaking for our most vulnerable from womb to tomb. Our unborn deserve saving too, not just your on-screen characters #moleg
[….]
10:24 PM – 24 May 2019 from Lake St Louis, MO

Some of the responses:

So, you support expanding Medicaid? After all, babies who are born, as well as their mothers, need healthcare. And how about proper education? Are you going to ensure everyone has access to quality education?

Let’s talk about housing. After all, babies need a roof.

Or are you really only concerned about a political agenda, enforcing your views, as well as reducing women’s rights?

We’re gonna go with the second one.

“speaking for our most vulnerable from womb to tomb”
only when one enters the tomb immediately after birth.
Failure to support adequate policy otherwise. #moleg
The from-womb-to-tomb supporters are @MOLegDems.

We noticed that, too.

If that’s the case, then I expect our legislators to expand Medicaid, food stamps, etc. I also expect them to fund schools and raise the minimum wage. See, you really don’t mean “to tomb”. GTFO of my personal decisions and my body, Nicholas.

Narrator: “It was not the case. It never was.”

Cute, but we are an army of Captain Marvels, Nick. Bet.

We see what you did there.

Again, the term is #ForcedBirth.

a professional joker or “fool” at a medieval court, typically wearing a cap with bells on it and carrying a mock scepter. — @NickBSchroer this is the definition of jester.

Just stop with the “womb to tomb” thing. It’s clear that you don’t and it just sounds douchey. You haven’t stopped abortion; only safe abortions.

This makes no sense.

It never has.

To tomb? Have you seen Missouri statistics on maternal and infant mortality? These so called prolife legislators refuse to expand Medicaid or other services to care for those outside the womb.

He was trolling people with what he thought would be a clever little rhyme.

He has. He doesn’t care. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That, too

I’m here for the ratio

Tomb?

I think you mean womb only there bro. Lets not pretend your policies do much for anyone but rich folks after that.

Bet you are against so-called “entitlement” programs, for the death penalty, support Trump… but yeah… all about this… FOH…

Are you going to increase the budgets for WIC, free/reduced school lunch programs, SNAP, etc. for all these children? I will wait right here…

Don’t hold your breath.

Like the tomb they will be placed in after they die in war bcuz they didnt get healthcare or an education w.o signing up as canon fodder bcuz their family couldnt plan their birth?

Iran.

“Our unborn” #rightwinghyperbole

Every conservative that talks about abortion sounds like a sociopath trying to say things to fit in [….]

Womb, sure. After that, they don’t seem to give a shit about anyone.

Who speaks for the woman?

At this point, not the woman.

Oh, sure. That’s why our infant/maternal mortality rates are so high. That’s why deaths of despair are rising. Sure, #moleg is full of super heroes..that’s why opioid addiction is so high. Yeppers, our reps think they are fabulous while the state craters.

It’s pretty ridiculous, isn’t it? They just care about forced pregnancy but don’t care about maternal or infant mortality.

Jeezus you’re desperate for attention.

Not not too much attention though. They passed the bill to strip women of their rights in the middle of the night. The governor signed the bill in a private ceremony. And he doesn’t even reply to Chris Evans—he quote tweets him.

They proved with their consensual rape and women lie nonsense that if they talk too much it’s bad for them. Now they’ll waste millions of our tax dollars paying lawyers to do their talking for them while the law gets shot down in courts.

Hey Nicholas, how about addressing the increasing maternal mortality rates in Missouri first…unless dead women is your thing?

Oh word? What are you doing for children after birth? Expanding Medicaid? Providing for family leave? Ensuring equality of education? Or…none of that? So maybe shut the hell about “womb to tomb”; you don’t care about children once they take a breath.

God, this is idiotic.

You sir, are a tool.

Womb to tomb? How’s that Medicaid expansion going? Universal pre-k? Paid family leave? Education funding? Are you addressing maternal mortality rates at all? What about the 400,000 foster kids? What exactly are you doing to protect the lives of the living?

Really Nic??? Are you will to start paying child support, insurance, and anything else it needs from the womb?? Yeah didnt think so asshat. Until you grow a uterus, zip it little man

Previously:

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

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Democratic Party News
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Josh Hawley
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 285,913 hits

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel