Senator Denny Hoskins, CPA @DLHoskins
MONDAY UPDATES: Boone County reports triple-digit case increases over weekend…..How is this possible since Columbia has a mandatory mask order?
[….] 12:36 PM · Dec 7, 2020
One of the cruelest characteristics of the coronavirus epidemic is that it strikes fear in the hearts and minds of many causing them to ask for comfort and protection from the God they believe in. And at the same time this virus has made a church service one of the most deadliest places to be in. The combination of singing in close quarters and decreased ventilation is nothing short of a petri dish (or cell plate) for viral growth.
Observed infection rates can be astronomical. In Washington State, a choir practice of 60 individuals who practiced social distancing resulted in 45 infections, 3 hospitalizations and 2 deaths….
Wear a damn mask. And while you’re at it, wear some damn gloves.
Stay Home. Wash your hands. Don’t touch your face. Good luck to us all.
“…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.
….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.
…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.
…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.
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:
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.
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.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
….As proven last week during a Congressional tour, the Border is clean, efficient & well run, just very crowded. Cumming District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place 4:14 AM · Jul 27, 2019
Well, look at that, openly racist. Not that anyone is surprised.
…Using data from the “Biggest US Cities” website, Nate Sliver…point[ed] out that Cummings’ district has “above-average college education rates and home prices, along with a pretty good mix of urban and suburban area (even some rural), and well-off, working-class and middle-class areas”
Silver also pointed out the district is the second-wealthiest majority-black district in the country, with a $58,000 median household income, trailing Maryland’s 4th Congressional District, which includes Prince George’s and Anne Arundel counties. Cummings’ district is also the second-most-well-educated majority-black district because 37% of the residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher, trailing Georgia’s 4th District, Silver added…
Senator Denny Hoskins (r) just couldn’t resist retweeting republican propaganda:
So, shall we compare?
Shall we take a photographic tour around Missouri’s 21st Senate District? Just asking.
Parades are a fixture of Missouri politics. In an election year college homecoming parades are a magnet for political parties and local candidates looking to engage a large number of voters (who may or may not be voters and who may or may not live in their district). This morning in Warrensburg at the University of Central Missouri Homecoming parade the political entries were placed by party at the end of the parade.
Johnson County Democrats.
While the Democratic Party vehicles were lining up in the parade staging area a smirking twenty something, driving a truck and towing a float, yelled out, “Trump!” as he drove past. This was on the back window of his truck:
The current (and long time) state of erudite public policy discourse in west central Missouri.
Back to the parade. Vehicles and floats representing the respective party presidential candidates and statewide candidates were also in the mix, though none of those candidates, as far as we can tell, attended the parade. The University of Missouri, ninety miles away, with bigger crowds also held their homecoming parade this morning. A number of statewide candidates reportedly walked in that parade.
Patty Johnson, chair of the Cass County Democratic Committee, walking in the parade.
Candidates in the 21st Senate District:
ElGene VerDught, the Democratic Party nominee in the 21st Senate District.
Denny Hoskins, the republican party nominee in the 21st Senate District.
Family and supporters of Kyle Garner, the Democratic Party nominee in the 52nd Legislative District (the candidate is in the background, working the crowd).
Robert Simmons, the Democratic Party nominee for Eastern Commissioner in Johnson County.
The Johnson County Democratic Committee held its annual Kirkpatrick Dinner in Warrensburg last night. A number of statewide candidates and office holders spoke, as did area legislative candidates. ElGene Ver Dught (D) is the Democratic party candidate in the 21st Senate District.
ElGene Ver Dught (D), candidate in the 21st Senate District, speaking at the Kirkpatrick Dinner in Warrensburg – April 2, 2016.
ElGene Ver Dught (D): …I’m very, very happy to be here with you all tonight. And I appreciate your support. You know, two thousand sixteen’s gonna be a very important year, uh, and I have sensed this for some time. The pendulum is swinging and, and the public is very much aware of this. The public is hungry for good candidates….
I’m also a mediator, an attorney trained mediator. Don’t hold that against me. [laughter] If I’m elected as your state senator it will be the first mediator in the Senate.
Mediation is a voluntary settlement process whereby people try to visit with each other and work out problems and be problem solvers. It’s the ultimate in self determination. And for those of you who are students who have never voted before, this is the essence of Democracy. And that’s what we teach constantly in mediation – because everyone should have the right to make their own determination as to how they want the outcome to be. Mediation also allows both sides to be winners. And that’s very, very important.
And I think in this election, uh, you need to hear the positive, constructive ideas moving Missouri forward. And I think we’re going to do that this year. The timing is right, the candidates are right, and I think the public is going to respond…
….I was also a history major and I just want to close with one thought that had come from Harry Truman in nineteen forty-eight. You know, that was the year that he wasn’t supposed to win the presidency. But he said, over and over, for people to forget about their political persuasion, whether they’re Republican or Democrat, and vote instead for themselves. And then he paused, and said, and you’ll usually vote Democratic. [laughter] That’s very, very true….
It’s very important for us to realize in drafting public policy that we have a lot of thought in to it and everybody participates and contributes to it. I’ll think we’ll make Missouri move forward in our public policy if we do that.
Thank you all very much, keep up the good fight. [applause]
ElGene Ver Dught 8290 BEAR GROVE RD HIGGINSVILLE MO 64037 817 2/23/2016 11:31 a.m.
Denny Hoskins PO BOX 118 WARRENSBURG MO 64093 580 2/23/2016 2:17 p.m. Mike McGhee 5538 GRUBB RD ODESSA MO 64076 3/28/2016 10:45 a.m.
William Truman (Bill) Wayne 431 SE COUNTY ROAD Y WARRENSBURG MO 64093 3/8/2016 11:51 a.m.
David Pearce (r) is term limited. Denny Hoskins (r) is term limited out of the House. Mike McGhee (r) spent a whole lot of other people’s money challenging David Pearce (r) in the primary four years ago. Maybe it’ll be a similar story this time – the money part we mean.
The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.
These rights include:
Your right to privacy – freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs….
….This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation….
Last Thursday morning there was a meeting in Warrensburg with Senator David Pearce (r), requested by some constituents, on the subject of HB 1307 and the upcoming override vote concerning the Governor’s veto of the imposition of seventy-two hour waiting period for an abortion. An individual in attendance provided us with audio from that meeting.
Senator David Pearce (r) [file photo].
About thirty-two minutes into the meeting there was this remarkable set of statements:
Senator David Pearce (r): ….Some of you have probably seen, um, the Internet, uh, campaign against me. Uh, maybe you’ve gotten the robocalls. And let me tell you who’s behind that. ACLU. And, uh, it’s not, there’s nothing that talks about pro life or abortion in that. It just says, uh, David Pearce should not, uh, be involved in your personal decisions. You want to talk to him? And then they, they automatically filter those phone calls to my office. Nothing [emphatic] about a seventy-two hour waiting period, nothing about babies being aborted. Nothing like that, so it’s a terribly misleading, um, uh [interrupted by a constituent question]….
Oh, the horror of having to explain yourself to constituents.
Apparently, just mentioning the ACLU is supposed to strike terror in the hearts of your constituents. Think about that for a moment – a politician in a room with a group of constituents that probably includes a significant number of ACLU members and sympathizers relates an anecdote that’s supposed to elicit, what, a negative opinion about the ACLU?
Really? As if anyone engaged in politics is required to use the language and memes of their opponents when they’re engaged in the rough and tumble struggle over issues?
The outrage could maybe be funny under other circumstances. In this case it’s just narcissism.
Uh, the ACLU is concerned about personal privacy. The issue of privacy and abortion was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court over forty years ago. Stare decisis.
Call yourself what you want, obscure and manipulate language, it still doesn’t change the reality of what you are.
Senator David Pearce (r) [file photo].
On the morning of Thursday, August 28th there was a meeting in Warrensburg with Senator David Pearce (r), requested by some constituents, on the subject of HB 1307 and the upcoming override vote concerning the Governor’s veto of the imposition of seventy-two hour waiting period for an abortion. An individual in attendance provided us with audio from that meeting:
Constituent: …Thank you Senator [David] Pearce [r] for joining us here today. We really appreciate it. We know you have a lot of things on your schedule. Uh, what we wanted to talk to you about is the House Bill 1307, increasing the wait time between counseling and an abortion from twenty-four to seventy-two hours…
[approximately twenty minutes later]
Male constituent: …I have three daughters….I know in the debate, uh, and I, I heard on the news, uh, one of the rep[resentative]s said, was asked, what the appropriate waiting period would be…and he said, nine months. How absurd. And, and, I, I cannot believe that…
Another male constituent: …I’ve been a Republican since voting for Nixon, Richard not Jay, so I, you know I’ve supported you. I’ve been proud to do it. I’ve thought you’ve always shared my values in amongst political things and, uh, I, I’ve painted a little broader stroke of this, boxed all my speech, kind of took some lines I was gonna use. But, the Republican Party has, over the years, I went back and the Reagan, Reagan years and all of those great years. I thought they really represented what I stood for. Leave people alone, let ’em live their lives, lets them do what they want to do. Okay, that’s always been the Republican way. And it seems like they’re drifting away from that, both federal and state level. Right now at the state level is a great concern and this issue of, of womens’ rights, it concerns me. I don’t like abortion. I think it’s personally disgusting. The next time I get pregnant I probably won’t have one. However, however, I really, really believe it’s that woman’s right to choose, nobody else’s. I don’t want you, or the Republicans, Democrats, Jews, I don’t want anyone to tell me what to do with my body. It isn’t right. It isn’t, it isn’t the way in America. I don’t think it is. And I support the veto in this matter, I really do…
Another constituent: …Can we count on you to vote to sustain the veto of House Bill 1307?
Senator David Pearce (r): Let me, uh, give some comments first. Um, this is a tough issue. I mean, uh, it is very emotional. It’s, uh, in many cases not a black and white issue and, and all of us have, uh, uh, strong feelings. It’s one of those core values, you know, that, that fundamentally you feel a certain way. And, um, those are things that, that, that don’t change. Uh, I’ve been a pro life candidate since the first time I ran in eighty-six and got defeated and, uh, when I ran in two thousand two, two thousand four, two thousand six, two thousand eight, and two thousand twelve. Um, very strong pro life candidate. Um, I’d just kind of like to talk about a few things I’ve heard and, and, and I appreciate and respect every one of you here, uh, for, for your thoughts. And I think it’s good we can get together and talk. Uh, although in the Senate it was a partisan issue. It was straight down party lines. Twenty-two to nine. In the House it wasn’t. So I don’t think that it’s something you can say it’s a Republican versus Democrat issue. Uh, there were probably at least twenty, uh, pro life Democrats that came to vote for the bill in the House. And so I think that, that would be, uh, somewhat, uh, misleading. Um, I sat right behind the bill sponsor, David Sater [r]. Uh, he handled the House bill and he was the Senate bill sponsor. And it was a protracted discussion we had on this bill. And, uh, David said that, and, and the reason I bring this up is that you had mentioned to my secretary that, that maybe next year there might be a compromise or maybe there would be a way to, to alter the bill. Um, at two particular times David went to the Democratic leadership in the Senate and offered to go down to thirty-six hours. That was rejected. Uh, went back and said, can we go forty-eight hours, that was rejected. And the reason why the Democrat [sic] leadership said they rejected those bills was, no, we want it seventy-two hours because that will be easier to prove the unconstitutionality of the bill. And so when this was happening there was a chance, there was a dialog, a chance for debate, a chance for compromise and it was flatly rejected. So I think you need to be aware of that. Um, also, uh, just on the political side, just so you’ll get a little bit of background information on this, two very, very controversial bills, this and right to work. And, and basically the Democratic Party, uh, said, we’ll sit down on the seventy-two hours if you won’t bring up right to work. So, um, this was used as somewhat political leverage on this issue. And so to say it’s a Republican versus Democrat there, there’s a whole lot more to the issue than that. Um, the one thing that, that I feel is lost in this whole discussion is the baby. You know, we talk about inconvenience, we talk about over population, we talk about poor versus wealthy. What about the baby? I don’t believe it’s a tissue, I don’t believe it’s a fetus, I believe it’s a baby. And when you take a life, you take a life. Uh, and so that’s my fundamental belief on that. I am not god, and when we’re talking about how many people should populate this Earth, that’s not our decision. Uh, and so I fundamentally think that somebody needs to stand up for that baby. Because he or she can’t make that decision. Somebody else is making it for them, somebody else is saying, you’re not gonna live. And so that’s why it’s such a huge fundamental core value decision for me and, and for others. And so, to me, I think, I think it’s a good thing when we’re having less abortions in our state. And we have. We’re down to, I believe, less than seven thousand in our state, I think it’s down to sixty-five hundred now. Um, we just have one abortion clinic in the state. I think that’s a good thing. Uh, if we were down to zero abortions I think that would be a positive thing. Uh, and so for those reasons, uh, I will vote to, to, uh, override the veto….
….I do believe in the case of rape or incest that, that abortion should be allowed. Uh, not all folks in the pro life community feel that way, but I do….
Still another constituent: Would you just address why seventy-two [hours] opposed to twenty-four [hours]? What is the purpose of that?
Senator David Pearce (r): Well, uh, both, uh, South Dakota and Utah have adopted that. Uh, so we would not be the first state, we’d be the third. I think these are important life and death decisions and so the longer [crosstalk] that a, that a person has to reflect that.
Still another constituent: Do you think women make it frivolously?
Senator David Pearce (r): What’s that?
Still another constituent: Do you think women make that decision frivolously? Because I don’t think they do. I think they go through a lot of torment before that twenty-four hour counseling. I’m sorry, just my personal experience with people I know….
Still another male constituent: And now you’re making it for them….
Still another constituent: You didn’t answer why the seventy-two was better than the twenty-four.
Still another male constituent: Yeah, you didn’t answer that.
Still another constituent: And then it’ll be a week and then it’ll be a month. I mean, what is the point of this?
Senator David Pearce (r): I, I fundamentally think these are life and death decisions. And the more that, that people can reflect and, and ponder on this I think it’s, it’s better. Uh, if it will decrease the number of abortions, uh, I think that’s probably a good thing. Uh, I just think it’s fundamentally something we’re gonna disagree on.
Still another male constituent: So, expand it to nine months.
“…So, expand it to nine months…”
That’s the goal.
Uh, if no republican voted against the bill and a small number of Democrats joined in to support it, it’s still a partisan issue. You know, there used to be pro choice republicans in the Missouri General Assembly. They were purged.
Uh, offering a “compromise” of thirty-six hours rather than seventy-two hours when you have a twenty-two to nine advantage to begin with is no compromise. Further that says a lot about the “core value” of those remaining “compromise” hours. One hour, nine months, it makes no difference, does it?
“…went to the Democratic leadership in the Senate and offered to go down to thirty-six hours. That was rejected. Uh, went back and said, can we go forty-eight hours, that was rejected. …”
Think about that for a second. The republican majority offered a “compromise” which was rejected, and then subsequently they offered a worse “compromise”. Accepting the second “compromise” would be gross malfeasance on the part of the Democrats in the Senate. The republicans expected acceptance on the second offer? Idiots.
Interestingly, Senator Pearce’s (r) interpretation of republican dogma on the imposition of seventy-two hour waiting period appears to be that the opposition was too clever by half in allowing the overwhelming republican majority to impose the full seventy-two hour period. Idiot.
“…And when you take a life, you take a life…”
“…I am not god, and when we’re talking about how many people should populate this Earth, that’s not our decision. Uh, and so I fundamentally think that somebody needs to stand up for that baby…”
If you’re for the death penalty and against Medicaid expansion in the State of Missouri (that intransigence on the part of the right wingnut controlled General Assembly is costing lives) and you’re against abortion you aren’t “pro life”. You’re against women controlling their own bodies. Period. If you’re a republican office holder in Missouri and you’re against the death penalty, you know that Medicaid expansion is the right thing to do, and you haven’t done anything about it then you’re nothing but a coward. Period.
“….I do believe in the case of rape or incest that, that abortion should be allowed. Uh, not all folks in the pro life community feel that way, but I do….”
That’s okay. Since they don’t appear too interested in promoting accessible health care for all and ending the death penalty it’ll fit nicely under their label.
Why seventy-two hours? Interestingly, we didn’t hear a rational explanation on that.
Senator David Pearce (r) is supposedly what passes for a “moderate” in the modern republican party. We haven’t seen any daylight between him and his party. He’s no “moderate”. In reality all he is for the republican majority and republican dogma in the Missouri General Assembly is a useful idiot.