I recently learned that the issues page at Rick Santorum’s Website tells us that one of his top priorities is “enforcing laws against illegal pornography,” while:

…the word “tax” appears only 4 times on the issue page and “job” only 5 times – the same number as “abortion” and fewer than “pornography,” which appears 8 times

What’s this got to do with the Missouri legislature now convened in Jefferson City? Only this: Today the House is debating HCR41 and in the Senate a bill with a similar goal, SB749, was debated yesterday. Both pieces of legislation are “me-too” bills, efforts to get in on the GOP efforts to make hay out of a group of conservative Catholic Bishops’ staged efforts to thwart an Obama administration rule. The bills, like Santorum’s Website, are, of course, designed to pander to the sexually repressive legislative preferences of most right-wingers.*  

The Bishops object to contraception – despite the fact that most Catholic women have no pangs of conscience about using it – and want it excluded from the preventive care mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Consequently, they claim it violates their institutional conscience to be associated, however indirectly, with such coverage when it is mandated in church-affiliated, secular organizations like colleges, charities and hospitals – institutions, I should add, that take federal taxpayer dollars that are ponied up by non-believers like me. The GOP has, predictably, jumped to endorse the Bishops’ view that their institutional goals trump individual rights of conscience as well as individual public welfare.

The folks in Jefferson city who are running to jump on this already foundering bandwagon are the same folks who don’t seem to be able to address jobs, decaying infrastructure, tax reform or the host of other problems facing Missouri. Although they are confident that they can adjudicate rights of conscience, they can’t even address the issue of their own institutional ethics, so worried are they that they will miss out on lobbyist largess.

Nevertheless, they want us to believe that weakening the ACA’s provisions for preventive health care is of paramount importance because it involves issues of religious freedom. However, as Catholic historian Gary Wills shows, in an excellent debunking of the Bishops’ conscience and religious freedom claims, “what we are seeing is not a defense of undying principle but a stampede toward a temporarily exploitable lunacy.”

So, once more, Missouri’s real needs languish while the righteous legislative deacons of the wannabe state religion cavort in Jefferson City. If you look at HCR41, you will notice consistent themes. That particular legislation references 2010’s wasteful exercise, the anti-ACA Proposition C that has, in turn, been used as an excuse to avoid the hard work of planning for the ACA mandated insurance exchanges, exchanges that would benefit thousands of Missourians.

If nothing else, it provides an excellent  preview of what the GOP might inflict on the nation in the person of Rick Santorum – although there are signs that maybe even the Godfathers of the Grand Old Party are a little too squeamish for that particular outcome. If you’re feeling equally squeamish about the fun-and-games in Jefferson City, call your State Rep. and your Senator and let them know how you feel about their twin follies, HCR41 and SB749.

*Sentence edited slightly for clarity.  

I don’t know if anyone has posted the link to the Voter Protection Alliance page yet. Look at the list of endorsers.  This should be an “interesting” project.  I worked with libertarians and property rights people a year ago in Franklin County to thwart a charter rule effort that would have handed all decision making over to developers.  I found the folks on the opposite end of the political spectrum from me very cooperative, hard working and loyal to the cause.  As long as we didn’t talk about anything other than charter rule !

Rep. Scott Sifton of Affton (St. Louis County) deserves huge credit for leading the effort to push back against the overreaching Missouri legislators who think the Capitol is their private club.

We will be gathering signatures this year and voting next year on a constitutional amendment to require 3/4 vote of both houses to override a law passed by citizen initiative petition.  It’s about time.  

The description of the Missouri legislature from a friend of mine describes it best:

This legislature is a goat rodeo run by circus clowns. What a joke.

SB 113 Modifies the Animal Care Facilities Act and the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act

Sponsor: Parson Co-Sponsor(s)

LR Number: 0178S.11T Fiscal Note: 0178-11P.ORG

Committee: Agriculture, Food Production and Outdoor Resources

Last Action: 4/27/2011 – Signed by Governor Journal Page:  

Title: SS SCS SBs 113 & 95 Calendar Position:

Effective Date: August 28, 2011

House Handler: Loehner

Full Bill Text | All Actions | Available Summaries | Senate Home Page | List of 2011 Senate Bills

Current Bill Summary  

SS/SCS/SBs 113 & 95 – This act modifies provisions of the Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA) and the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.

Currently under the ACFA, the maximum fee for obtaining a license to operate certain dog facilities is $500 per year. The act increases this maximum to $2,500 per year. The act additionally requires a licensee to pay a $25 fee each year to be used by the Department of Agriculture for Operation Bark Alert.

The act changes the name of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act to the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act and modifies many of the act’s definitions. Anyone subject to the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act must retain all veterinary and sales records for the most recent previous 2 years and make the records available upon request.

Current law prohibits anyone from having more than 50 dogs when the purpose is to breed them and sell the resulting puppies. The act removes this prohibition.

The act removes the current criminal penalty provision under the the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act and adds new penalty and enforcement provisions to the ACFA and the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act. Where the state veterinarian or an animal welfare official finds that past violations of the ACFA or Canine Cruelty Prevention Act have not been corrected, the director of the Department of Agriculture may refer such cases to the Attorney General or a local prosecutor who may bring an action seeking a restraining order, injunction, or a remedial order to correct the violations. The court may assess a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. Additionally, the act creates the crime of canine cruelty, a Class C misdemeanor, which occurs when someone repeatedly violates the ACFA or Canine Cruelty Prevention Act in such a manner that poses a substantial risk to the health and welfare of animals in the person’s custody or when someone violates an agreed-to remedial order involving the safety and welfare of the animals. A second or subsequent offense is a Class A misdemeanor.

The act makes it a Class A misdemeanor for anyone required to have a license under the ACFA to keep his or her animals in stacked cages where there is no impervious layer between the cages, except if cleaning the cages.

The act contains an emergency clause.

That last part rubs salt in the wound. An emergency clause means the bill will take effect immediately which will prevent groups who favor the more stringent restrictions called for in Proposition B from using the public referendum power we have in the Missouri Constitution.

The “compromise bill” is a sham AND a shame.  Shame on our elected officials for thumbing their nose at us.

So this is a double blow to our democratic process and puts us right up there with states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and New Jersy which have Republican governors.  

Nixon needs to be a one term governor.  Whoever challenges him in the August 2012 primary will have all the dog lovers and all the voters in the 88 state rep districts that voted YES on Prop B for support.

In case you weren’t aware some members of the Missouri House are so interested in an existential threat to our personal freedoms wasting everyone’s time on symbolic bills that they’ve introduced a constitutional amendment to enshrine our personal right to hunt and fish.

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES POLLOCK (Sponsor), SCHOELLER, WELLS, DENISON, THOMSON, SMITH (150), KORMAN, HOUGHTON, BURLISON, BLACK, ENTLICHER, DUGGER, COOKSON, KLIPPENSTEIN, SCHATZ, DAVIS, McCAHERTY, FITZWATER, HINSON, KELLEY (126), HARRIS, FRANKLIN, BRATTIN, WYATT, WHITE, BROWN (116), RICHARDSON, HOUGH, RIDDLE, WRIGHT, LICHTENEGGER, LOEHNER, WETER, KEENEY, TILLEY, ALLEN, NASHEED, McGHEE, DIECKHAUS, SCHAD, RUZICKA, LAIR, FISHER, PHILLIPS, HIGDON, JONES (117), JONES (89), REDMON, CRAWFORD, ELMER, LANT, REIBOLDT, COX, GUERNSEY, HOSKINS, CIERPIOT, SCHIEFFER, SHUMAKE, CURLS AND ZERR (Co-sponsors).

0597L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment to article I of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section relating to the personal right to hunt and fish.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:

           That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2012, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

           Section A. Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding one new section, to be known as section 35, to read as follows:

           Section 35. That the citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions as provided by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state’s power to regulate commercial activity. Traditional manners and means may be used to take nonthreatened species.

[emphasis in original]

Does this mean, because hunting will be constitutionally “subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions”, that we’ll have to get a license to add to our Lepidoptera collection? When butterfly nets are outlawed, only outlaws will have butterfly nets.

Since corporate personhood is now a given, will we have to fight for elbow room with a multinational on opening day? Just asking. That commerce clause reference makes one pause, eh?

Is anyone in Jefferson City interested in spending time addressing job creation and unemployment? Anyone?

Enough is enough.  The anti-women contingent in this state keep pushing us back into the hole we crawled out of in the 1960’s. I remember when I needed summer jobs during college and looked at the “Help Wanted – Female” column in the newspaper.  I remember thinking that a neighbor’s daughter who went to pharmacy school was a disgrace to the neighborhood.  What kind of girl would want a “man’s job”?  There was a time when I wouldn’t dream of going to a female doctor.    That kind of thinking doesn’t change easily.  It’s taken some of us 40 years to really believe that women are intelligent enough to make good decisions.  Now I choose women as my primary care physicians and support women running for political office.

My letter on this subject will be in the Post Dispatch tomorrow.  I’m really fed up with playing defense on women’s reproductive rights.

How in the world did we get to the point where a handful of radicals can

dictate to the citizens of Missouri what kind of birth control they can use?

These are the same people who don’t want the government interfering with their

health care decisions and scream “socialism” when we try to help our uninsured

neighbors. These are the same people who cut funding for mental health

services, early childhood education, and who kick severely disabled people out

of the only “home” they’ve ever known.

It’s not enough that they’ve made it almost impossible for a woman carrying a

fetus that dies in the last trimester to get an abortion. It’s not enough

that they scream “sinner” at young girls impregnated by rapists who hate the

thing the rapists left growing in their belly.

I doubt that most Missourians realize what nonsense passes for legislative

action in Jefferson City. They will find out when they need emergency

contraception and can’t buy it. One of the bills passed by the Missouri House

and now being rammed through the Senate would make it impossible for rural

women to buy the morning after pill because pharmacists can decide for

themselves which drugs they “believe” will cause an abortion. That could

apply to any prescription from a woman’s doctor.

We shouldn’t even have to be discussing this. Couples should be able to make

their reproductive decisions in private. Period.

When citizens cede their decision-making power to extremists, their rights

disappear one by one. We’d better celebrate the 50th anniversary of “the

pill” now because it may not be around much longer. And we’ll have no one to

blame but ourselves.

The vested and powerful interests in Jeff City could very well invalidate the 190,027 signatures gathered by volunteers for Missourians to Protect Dogs.  This is the puppy mill petition that would force the Dept. of Ag to do what it’s supposed to do – regulate those god-awful puppy mills.  We would rather see them eliminated altogether, but we know that’s impossible right now.  HJR 86 is on the “informal calendar” and can be voted on at any moment.  We have to let these bastards know they can’t just make our right of initiative petition disappear.  Call, fax, email and keep it up until 6 p.m. Friday.   Here is the suggested message, but you might have your own choice words for these creeps.

As your constituent, I urge you to oppose H.J.R. 86 and legislation with similar wording, which attempt to interfere with Missouri citizens’ right to petition the government on abusive practices, such as the puppy mill ballot initiative now circulating. These bills are unfair and undemocratic, and are so broad they could even protect animal abusers.  

There are efforts underway now to amend H.J.R. 86 and one of the measures in the House to require a super-majority vote on ballot measures relating to animal protection.  Please do not fall for this last minute change, which does not improve the fundamentally bad public policy that these bills represent.

This legislation is a cynical and underhanded attempt to take away the rights of Missouri citizens. Voters overwhelmingly banned cockfighting in 1998, and are now circulating a petition to prevent cruelty at large-scale puppy mills. The right of citizens to petition for new laws is guaranteed by the Missouri Constitution, and lawmakers should not try to interfere with a ballot measure already in progress.

H.J.R. 86, H.B. 1747, S.B. 848, and S.B. 795 would also invest more power in the courts and subject the state to expensive lawsuits from animal abusers who want to overturn anti-cruelty laws. We shouldn’t waste our tax dollars and take away the rights of Missouri voters just to protect puppy mills and animal abusers.

Please oppose these bills and any other bill with similar language.