In Missouri:

The frame says it’s all about abortion – not war, or the death penalty, or access to healthcare for all.

As if they’ll ever vote for a Democratic Party candidate.

Previously:

The elephant in the room (July 3, 2018)

Against abortion? Don’t have one. (July 6, 2018)

Getting played (July 8, 2018)

The Missouri Democratic Party state committee stepped in it on abortion. That’s the most charitable way to put it.

Oh, and it gets worse.

Pre 1973 medical instruments.

Democrats for Life of America Super PAC had one contribution over $200 in 2015:

ROBERT, JANET WAYZAA, MN 55391 SELF 06/04/15 $500

Interestingly, the President of Democrats for Life of America has the same name:

DFLA Board of Directors
on 14 June 2007Posted in DFLA General.
Janet Robert, President [….]

Also interestingly, in 2017 Democrats for Life of America issued a press release defending one of Donald Trump’s (r) radical nominees to a federal court of appeals:

Democratic Senators Use Religion to Discredit Pro-Life Judicial Nominee
September 8, 2017
STATEMENT OF KRISTEN DAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF DEMOCRATS FOR LIFE OF AMERICA
Democrats For Life of America (DFLA) expresses its disappointment with Democratic senators and interest groups who are attacking federal court of appeals nominee Amy Barrett for her personal religious views on the dignity of human life at all stages….

Amy Barrett, Amy Barrett, Amy Barrett…that name seems familiar. Oh, yeah:

Battle lines drawn over abortion ahead of Trump’s supreme court pick
In the increasingly acrimonious dispute the two political sides took to talk shows at the start of what promises to be an epic tussle over seat
[….]
…Of those, Barrett is considered to have the most hardline record opposing abortion rights…
[….]

Okay, where does this all lead? Democrats for Life of America have a post on their site from 2013:

Proposed Platform Language to Unites Democrats Around Historic Democratic Principles

“We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, such as abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues…”

Sound familiar?:

Missouri Democrats Vote to Welcome Pro-Life Members, Angering Others
Posted By Sarah Fenske on Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:29 AM

“…We respect the conscience of each Missourian and recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, such as abortion,” the amendment read. “We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength, and welcome into our ranks all Missourians who may hold differing positions on this issue…”

The Missouri Democratic Party State Committee voted to amend its platform using the exact language of a lunatic fringe anti-abortion group. The same anti-abortion group has gone on the record to defend the nomination of a radical anti-abortion judge to a federal appeals court by Donald Trump (r). The same individual who also happens to be under consideration by Trump for the current opening in the U.S. Supreme Court.

It took us less than thirty minutes to do the research to make the connections. You’d think the leadership and membership of the Missouri Democratic Party state committee could attempt to do a little bit of the same when they vote to amend the party platform.

That “…differing opinions…” language in the template was and is just so much bullshit. The anti-abortion right wants to and is going to ban abortion in the United States. So much for respecting differing opinions, eh?

The Missouri Democratic Party got played. If they are willing to accept the fact that they got played they can fix it. If.

Previously:

The elephant in the room (July 3, 2018)

Against abortion? Don’t have one. (July 6, 2018)

Pre 1973 medical instruments.

We received word via social media from Pamela Merritt, from Reproaction, on doings at the Missouri Democratic Party state committee meeting this past weekend:

I served on the MO Dem platform cmte for several months. We drafted a pretty good platform. It could have had more teeth, but it was way better than the Republican lite mess they had been working with.

Today, the party amended and voted on the platform.

I’m going to need someone from the Missouri Democratic Party to explain to me how a diversity of opinion on abortion rights is a strength, and how that positioning doesn’t make the party look like incoherent moderates in an age that demands articulate leadership.

Is diversity of opinion on voting rights a strength? Is diversity of opinion on immigrant rights a strength? Is diversity of opinion on civil rights a strength? Is diversity of opinion on LGBTQ non-discrimination laws a strength?

This is the very definition of bullshit.

But hey, message received.

I’ll have more to say about this in the next few days.

For now, I’ll just say that agreeing to disagree on core values is how we ended up with a battle to save Roe, families separated and children in cages, Muslim bans, a former Dem Governor and labor leadership organizing a fundraiser for racist police union spokesbigot Jeff Roorda, and a country where guns have more rights than women.

That’s not strength. Those are the predictable consequences of weakness and appeasement toward a core group who will never support you the way Black women did.

Past tense on purpose.

*spits*

Great. Someone(s) in the Missouri Democratic Party found a way to alienate the most loyal part of its base.

And, again, from Pamela Merritt:

…still disgusted with the MO Dem Party’s platform fail. Missouri needs more prolife Dems like we *need* another earthquake. We don’t. Dems who do not support access to abortion and the conservative voters they will allegedly attract are the shiny object that distracts from building a platform that appeals to the thousands of voters who stay home because Republicans are regressive bigoted fiends and Democrats are obsessed with appealing to moderately regressive bigoted anti-women fiends.

And I’ll ask again, how is diversity of opinion on abortion a strength but diversity of opinion on right to work an abomination. I’ll add that I am firmly opposed to right to work, I’d never ask any political party to welcome members or politicians who support it because it is horrible policy that will harm workers and damage communities.

See how easy that is? Didn’t hurt a bit.

*spits again*

I’ve always used the term “anti-choice” to describe those single issue voters and politicians.

I was born before Roe v Wade. I was a teenager when the then U.S. Supreme Court made the ruling. And before you ask me or criticize me, as a male, about anything in my past experience that would prompt me to or give me the right to comment on reproductive health and choice for women, know that my first response would be, “It’s none of your god damned business.”

It’s a personal medical decision. Period.

Against access to adequate health care for all? No way you’re “pro life”. Against Medicaid expansion in Missouri? No way you’re “pro life”. I can go on and on. There’s decades of this kind of right wingnut policy and behavior. I’ve always asked the anti-choicers (and believe me, I have), “Are you against the death penalty and war?” One memorable response, “Oh, no, it’s about the babies.” I have nothing but contempt for that kind of moral emptiness. It’s about nothing other than forcing their power over others. That’s it.

So, this past weekend, of all days, the Missouri Democratic Party state committee voted to alter the party platform on women’s reproductive health – which might allow for so called “pro life” candidates to feel better about themselves.

No.

Does that state party believe that there may be anti-choice voters and politicians who may feel like it’s finally time to abandon the republicans over putting little children in concentration camps because it’s just a tiny bridge too far for them and who also really reflect the values of the Democratic Party and the people that we’ve all been working on behalf of for decades? I’ve got news for you, you don’t abandon your base because you want to attract a few voters or politicians in the opposition party who suddenly become queasy over behavior that’s been going on in their party for decades.

You dance with them what brung you.

Against access to adequate health care for all? No way you’re “pro life”. Against Medicaid expansion in Missouri? No way you’re “pro life”. If you’re that kind of “pro life” you and everyone else like you can go to hell, you already have an oppressive party you can join.

And, if the state party is going down that road I’ve got the new state party logo for you right here.

And, by the way, there already is an inclusive stance on abortion. It’s called “pro choice.”

Or maybe it’s just the barn.

Do you think the realtor had a chat with their client about staging the property?

Just asking.

On a vehicle in west central Missouri:

An anti-choice window sticker

A single issue voter? Probably, because there were no other stickers on the vehicle. Nothing about war or poverty or education or access to health care. Now, those might be consistent with a pro-life label.

In case you were wondering, Representatives Todd Akin (r), Vicky Hartzler (r), Jo Ann Emerson (r), Sam Graves (r), Billy Long (r), and Blaine Luetkemeyer (r) are co-sponsors (along with 173 others) of HR 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”.

The bill contains a curious use of language:

…SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

     `The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion–

           `(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

           `(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself…

Pregnant female?

Kay at Balloon Juice:

…as a not-now-pregnant female who was included in anti-choice statutory language up until yesterday, I’d sure like to know why “pregnant females” have all of a sudden been carefully set apart from the larger category of “women”.

Any guesses? Is it meant to include the people formerly known as “girls” or is it some brand new poll-tested language intended to divide? The last time I recall using the phrase “pregnant female” I was talking about a hamster.

[emphasis added]

In Missouri, SB 95 [pdf], as introduced, line 8:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs [for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet] shall provide each covered dog…

Also, SB 113 [pdf], as introduced, line 8:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

Or HB 131, as introduced:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than [ten] one hundred female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

Or HB 281, as introduced:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

Or HB 94, as introduced:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

And HB 99, and HB 332.

Why is it that the sponsors of HR 3 in Congress didn’t see fit to use the term “woman” and/or “girl” in that passage of their bill?

But, pregnant female?

The Missouri General Assembly, even in the following example of anti-choice legislation (HB 213), doesn’t use that convention of language:

…the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or when continuation of the pregnancy will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman…

[emphasis added]

Or, in SB 65 [pdf], as introduced, line 13:

…a condition which, on the basis of a physician’s good faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman…

[emphasis added]

Curiouser and curiouser.