Thanks to St. Louis Activitist Hub, I got my first real introduction to the strange mixture of hysteria and ignorance that is Dr. Gina Loudon, local Tea Party luminary. Adam at the Hub was having a little fun with her over the top spiel about the Burlington Coat Factory Muslim community center (known on Fox News as the Ground-Zero mosque), which she compared to a Nazi war memorial in the center of London. Enough said. What struck me, though, was Loudon’s evocation of a tenet of “Sharia law”* to justify her bigotry.

Sharia law seems to have become one of the concepts that gets wingers salivating right now. Oklahomans will vote this November, for instance, on whether or not to ban Sharia law – in spite of the fact that there is not even the slightest indication that anyone would ever try to impose Sharia in Oklahoma.

Closer to home, winger William Teach wonders why those who have a problem with the religous overtones of Missouri’s most recent anti-abortion legislation aren’t fighting Sharia law instead. The fact that right-wing Christians rather than Muslims have a stranglehold on the Missouri legislature doesn’t seem to strike him as germane to the topic.  

Nevertheless, Teach’s emphasis on religious law is suggestive. If you go to Loudon’s Webpage, you will find, immediately following the mosque harangue, a post titled “A Call to Christians,” the burden of which is the need to get Christians energized to take back the country.

Now, I’m not too keen on Sharia law, but neither am I keen on Christian theocracy. While I have no evidence that Muslims in the U.S. want to impose Sharia, there’s lots of evidence that many in the Christian-leaning right-wing here in Missouri would just love, as Loudon suggests, to take back the country and stick me with their version of biblical law.

Consider Cynthia Davis, dogged purveyor of Christian Nation legislation.  Davis takes her cues from people like David Barton, revisionist pseudo-historian and founder of the Wallbuilders, a group dedicated to establishing a Christian nation – or as Barton would prefer, returning the nation to its Christian roots.

*Photo of Cynthia Davis and David Barton

And who could forget Todd Akin – who carried the Barton banner into battle to retain “under God” in the pledge of allegiance? If you doubt his Christian Nation credentials, just listen to his discussion of the topic at last year’s prayercast against Health Care Reform (beginning at 49:45):

http://www.frcaction.org/player.swf

To summarize the highlights, Akin is unequivocal that the Bible provides:

“… a blueprint for all of mankind … a blueprint to tell us abut the economy, to tell us about education, to tell us about government … an entire blueprint for how civilization can be structured.”

Akin, is of course, limited in his role in the U.S. House – he seems to spend lots of time on mostly symbolic gestures. Davis and her ilk, however, are apparently able to lead the Missouri legislature around by a ring in the nose – even our Democratic governor, Jay Nixon, doesn’t dare veto her Christian-inspired abortion legislation. So while, I don’t see Sharia law hiding over the horizon, the proponents of a particular, narrow brand of Christian law seem to stand a much better chance of success.

* Loudon is quoted on the St. Louis Activist Hub as saying: “They are using the Sharia law concept of lying in the best interest of Allah … .” Her Webpage now reads: “They are using the concept of taqiyya (lying) in the best interest of Islam … .” Unfortunately, that is not exactly what taqiyya means. It is a Sharia tenet that allows Muslims to conceal their faith when under threat and its use is carefully circumscribed.

According to the Turner Report, Cynthia Davis believes that she would not have lost her race for the State Senate if only people outside her district were not “unfamiliar with me and were easily misled by all the negative campaigning.” But I think Cynthia might have missed the point here. I bet most Missourians know lots about Cynthia and many are pretty turned off by what they know – particularly when it comes to her vendetta against children, especially poor children.

While we know that Cynthia really cares about fetal life, we also know that she thinks poor school children don’t deserve free school lunches, but should instead rely on McDonalds. We surely all remember her outrage that funds from marriage license fees might be used to assist childen and mothers fleeing domestic abuse. Or her belief that that it’s unacceptable government intrusion to close down unlicensed day-care providers accused of criminal child abuse – although when government intrudes into individuals’ reproductive and sexual lives in order to impose minority religious values, it’s just the ticket.

Her bitterness at her loss aside, there is a silver lining for Cynthia given her high opinion of fast foods and the general level of her skills.  As one commenter on the Turner Report suggested, when her term expires in December, McDonalds will probably be hiring.  

It’s almost 11:30 and after looking at today’s election results, it’s clear that what we all knew would happen has happened and Propostion C is winning in the range of 70% to 30%. I promise, I’ll try not to fall into a mad rage every time I hear some wannabe media wise man solemnly talking out of his nether anatomy about what this means for Democratic electoral hopes. I’ve actually got no problem with Tea Party gloating – these fools know as well as I do that they won this one because they’re the biggest part of the tiny fraction that turned out to vote – and they have every right to stick it to us, since we gave it away. Anyway, there’s no way they can be more outrageous and dishonest than they already are.

Of course, there’s always a silver lining – and today it’s the fact that Cynthia Davis went down in her primary, losing to Scott Rupp 45% to his 55%. I’m sure that Rupp is a total ass, but I can’t possibly believe that he could be as offensive as Davis. The only problem with Davis’ defeat is that it means that we lose the most perversely amusing member of the Missouri version of the Insane Clown Posse, also known as our Republican-led state legislature. I’m sure, though, that somehow, someway, she’ll keep right on performing her own special brand of horrorcore in order to change our evil ways –  but not, thank God, in Jefferson City.

This showed up yesterday at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C010984 ELECT CYNTHIA DAVIS [pdf] 6/30/2010

Bernie Davis

O’Fallon MO

Back to Basics Christian Bookstore

6/30/2010

$26,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s a lot more than the perks you get from working at a national fast food chain franchise, don’t you think?

Yes, one of the most incomprehensible right wingnut members of the Missouri House (and that’s saying a lot) is running for the seat in the 2nd Senate District, challenging a republican incumbent in the primary. The candidates on the August 3rd primary ballot:

State Senate – District 2

Democrat

DON CROZIER O FALLON MO 3/29/2010

Republican

SCOTT T RUPP WENTZVILLE MO 696 2/23/2010

CYNTHIA L DAVIS O FALLON MO 874 2/23/2010

Let’s take a look at their campaign finance reports (in alphabetical order).

Cynthia Davis (r) filed her first quarter campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on April 14th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe: ELECT CYNTHIA DAVIS

ReportDate:

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $4,800.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $13,784.00

3. ALL LOANS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $4,000.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $24,884.00

5. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $19,139.45

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $9,985.07

35. TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 29 + 30 + 31 – 32 – 33 – 34) $4,000.00

[emphasis added]

And the money came from:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: ELECT CYNTHIA DAVIS

Report Date: 4/10/2010

Robert Knodel Chestfield, MO 01/11/2010 $1,000.00

James Finch Defiance, MO 01/09/2010 $1,000.00

Mark Andrews Jr. Sanibel FL 02/15/2010 $1,000.00

High Way Media O’Fallon, MO 03/31/2010 $2,100.00 In-Kind

Michelle Fitch Defiance MO 02/16/2010 $5,000.00

2. TOTAL ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $25 OR LESS $604.00

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $3,275.00

The expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: ELECT CYNTHIA DAVIS

ReportDate: 4/10/2010

A. EXPENDITURES OF $100 OR LESS BY CATEGORY

Public Relations $572.88

Fees $209.00

Postage $24.62

Supplies $8.48

Media $100.00

B. ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES ALL OVER $100 AND ALL PAYMENTS TO CAMPAIGN WORKERS

Universal Printing St. Louis, MO 01/26/2010 Tabloid ed1, vol 1 $7,366.51

Allegra Print & Imaging Louis, MO 01/14/2010 Donation envelopes $251.00

I Heard The People Say Chesterfield, Missouri 02/22/2010 Booth at Rally $295.00

Marks Quick Print St Louis. MO 03/15/2010 Bumper Stickers $220.00

I wonder if we could get one of those bumper stickers. I bet Stephen Colbert would appreciate one – it could be a collector’s item.

The incumbent, Scott Rupp, filed his amended first quarter campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on April 15th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe: RE-ELECT RUPP FOR SENATE

ReportDate:

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $231,613.69

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $27,520.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $259,133.69

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $145,933.01

20. TOTAL ALL CONTRIBUTIONS MADE THIS ELECTION (SUM 16B + 19A) $46,630.00

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $62,701.41

35. TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 29 + 30 + 31 – 32 – 33 – 34) $0.00

Uh, yeah, those are big numbers. But…

Let’s take a look at where the money came from:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: RE-ELECT RUPP FOR SENATE

Report Date: 4/15/2010

Home Building Industry PAC St. Louis, MO 03/03/2010 $1,000.00

Missouri Professional Mutual Saint Louis, MO 01/07/2010 $2,500.00

CenturyTel Inc Monroe, LA 01/27/2010 $1,250.00

Eli Lilly Indianapolis, IN 02/04/2010 $1,000.00

APS Healthcare Bethesda Inc Windsor Mill, MD 02/04/2010 $2,000.00

Consumer Lending Alliance Crawfordville, FL 02/25/2010 $1,000.00

Missouri Ambulatory Surgery Center Assn PAC Lees Summit, MO 03/25/2010 $1,000.00

Missouri Petroleum Marketers & Conv Store Assn Jefferson City, MO 03/03/2010 $1,000.00

3. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $2,645.00

Uh, yeah, that’s a distinctly different donor base.

The expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: RE-ELECT RUPP FOR SENATE

ReportDate: 4/15/2010

A. EXPENDITURES OF $100 OR LESS BY CATEGORY

Filing Fee $100.00

Dues $136.96

Publishing Fees $57.00

Food and Beverage $226.28

Office expense $59.52

Advertisement $516.65

Grassroots Expense $100.00

B. ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES ALL OVER $100 AND ALL PAYMENTS TO CAMPAIGN WORKERS

Art Works Design Chesterfield, MO 01/25/2010 Website Design $2,150.00

Art Works Design Chesterfield, MO 02/12/2010 Website Design $250.00

Survey St. Louis Saint Charles, MO 01/07/2010 Website Domain $150.00

Westplex 100.7 Troy, MO 01/12/2010 Radio Ads $480.00

AT&T Mobility Lubbock, TX 01/04/2010 Phone Expense $295.29

AT&T Mobility Lubbock, TX 01/25/2010 Phone $283.14

AT&T Mobility Lubbock, TX 02/22/2010 Phone Expense $296.18

PM Printing Jefferson City, MO 03/15/2010 Printing Expense $858.82

Westplex 100.7 Troy, MO 02/01/2010 Radio Ads $300.00

Barat Academy O Fallon, MO 01/02/2010 Advertisement $150.00

NextFlood Publishing LLC St. Louis, MO 01/04/2010 Subscription $500.00

I Heard The People Say Chesterfield, MO 02/16/2010 Booth Rental $295.00

Lincoln County Fair Troy, MO 03/05/2010 Advertisement $450.00

City of Cottleville Cottleville, MO 03/03/2010 Parade fee $150.00

Capitol Consulting Jefferson City, MO 03/03/2010 Fundraising Expense $800.00

Capitol Consulting Jefferson City, MO 01/11/2010 Fundraising Expense $1,500.00

Capitol Consulting Jefferson City, MO 02/22/2010 Fundraising Expense $3,247.44

Embassy Suites 2 Convention Center Plaza St. Charles, MO 03/03/2010 Lodging Expense $178.69

C. MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS MADE (REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT)

SHOW ME LEADERSHIP FUND ST CHARLES MO 03/25/2010 $2,000.00

DESTEFANO FOR SENATE PARKVILLE MO 64152 03/31/2010 $5,000.00

MO REPUBLICAN PARTY JEFFERSON CITY MO 65101 01/07/2010 $750.00

MO REPUBLICAN PARTY JEFFERSON CITY MO 65101 02/12/2010 $160.00

ST CHARLES COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL CO
MMITTEE ST CHARLES MO 01/02/2010 $250.00

ST CHARLES COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE ST CHARLES MO 01/02/2010 $500.00

“Grassroots Expense” of $100.00 in a campaign that’s raised over a quarter of a million? What will they think of next?

“I heard the people say”? Ah, teabaggers.

Paying a $150.00 to be in a parade in a small town?

There are no campaign finance reports available on-line at the Missouri Ethics Commission for Don Crozier, the Democratic Party candidate.  

State Rep. Cynthia Davis and Rep. Todd Akin are, predictably, wringing their hands about the ruling by a U.S. District Judge in Wisconsin that found the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. How can they possibly worship their God if they can’t let non-Christians know who’s boss? Sister Cynthia, never one to let the grass grow under her feet, is taking action:

… I am preparing a Missouri Resolution that will join our state with the national effort to stand strong against those who seek to strip us of our traditions, our heritage and our acknowledgement of God Almighty, Creator and sustainer of the universe, author of all civility and source of mercy, grace and charity.

Akin is, of course, equally concerned about this victimization of innocent Christians:

This decision flies in the face of reason as well as our nation’s traditions and is yet another attempt by an activist court to subvert our national spiritual heritage

Both bible thumpers cite historical justification for the National Day of Prayer – and it does have historical antecedents, although the record is not as clear as they claim. For instance those in attendance at the Constitutional Congress of 1776 not only rejected repeated requests by Benjamin Franklin for prayer, but:

…there is no record of a resolution providing for prayer. Franklin himself wrote afterwards that “the Convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary.

James Madison also proclaimed a day of prayer, but later repudiated such events because “they seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion.” Or take Thomas Jefferson, who explicitly opposed such public prayer events, believing that faith was the province of the individual, not the state:

I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it’s exercises, it’s discipline, or it’s doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.

So no, Todd and Cynthia, the founding fathers, were they Christian, deist, or whatever, don’t really seem to have supported your brand of Christian triumphalism, but rather preferred to establish a democratic republic where individuals are free to take responsibility for their own worship in the confines of their homes and churches. Perhaps the Bible says it best in Mark, Chapter 6, verse 5:

And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men.

There is no trope so worn out, dishonest, or silly that some right-wing hack won’t revive it when subjected to the appropriate Pavlovian stimulus – such as, for instance, taxes. Which brings me to Cynthia Davis who, in her latest Capitol Report, has resorted to pushing the Tax Foundation’s old Tax Freedom Day chestnut:

Tax Freedom Day answers the basic question, “What price is the nation paying for government?” An official government figure for total tax collections is divided by the nation’s total income. The answer this year is that taxes will amount to 26.89 percent of our income, and the stretch of 99 days from January 1 to April 9 is 26.89 percent of the year. Overall, Americans will pay more taxes in 2010 than they will spend on food, clothing and shelter combined.

I’ll  refrain from overmuch commiseration since I strongly suspect that most of those Americans who made enough money to pay taxes are still getting plenty of food, clothing and shelter – while enjoying the physical, educational and social infrastructure their taxes purchased. Additionally, except for a very few, “tax freedom day” came and went long before the April 1 date cited above. The Center on Budget and Policy Policies publishes an annual analysis of the ways that the Tax Freedom Day percentage misleads:

* The Tax Foundation employs averages in a misleading fashion that overstates the tax burdens of the vast majority of families. Analysis by authoritative institutions such as the Congressional Budget Office shows most Americans pay significantly less in taxes than the Tax Foundation reports.

* In figuring the percentage of income that U.S. families as a whole pay in taxes, the Tax Foundation counts taxes paid on capital gains but ignores the capital gains income on which these taxes are paid. This approach, which Alan Greenspan has said is invalid, artificially inflates the percentage of income consumed by taxes.

* The Tax Foundation analysis also counts as taxes certain non-tax items, like the premiums that older American can elect to pay for Medicare Part B, intra-governmental transfers, and rents that individuals or businesses pay to rent property that state or local governments own. This further inflates tax burdens.

Although the Tax Foundation’s calculation of the tax burden is flawed, and does not provide a reliable measure of the middle class American tax burden, it is still instructive to compare the Tax Freedom Day calculations over a period of years. Doing so shows Davis’ worries about excessive taxation to be no more than a case of hysterical vapors:  

The percentage of income that we pay in taxes has been going down for half a century. This year, Americans paid 26.89 percent of their income for all taxes, according to the Tax Foundation. In 2000 we paid 32.98 percent, in 1990 we paid 30.4 percent, in 1980 we paid 30.4 percent, in 1970 we paid 29.6 percent, and in 1960 we paid 27.7 percent. You have to go back to 1950 to find a time when the tax burden was lower (24.6 percent).

…

If people are complaining about socialism with today’s 35 percent top income bracket, what must they have thought about the 91 percent bracket under Dwight Eisenhower?

If memory serves me right, Eishenhower’s high taxes failed to harm the steady economic growth that characterized the period – nothing like the harm hat George W. Bush’s tax cuts did fifty-odd years later. None of which, however, gives good old, reliably dim Cynthia pause as she breathlessly proclaims:

Congress has taken us to a point where our finances are so out of control; it is as though they made it their goal to destroy the economy of the greatest nation ever and as quickly as possible!

No, we’re not making this up. And we can’t really venture to call this an elaborate “April Fools” joke because it is coming from the poster child for the batshit crazy wingnut segment of the Missouri body politic.

With apologies to Atrios

HB 2468 Creates the Missouri Freedom to Own Lightbulbs Act

Sponsor: Davis, Cynthia L. (19) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: LR Number: 5509L.01I

Last Action: 04/01/2010 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB2468

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

Yes, you read that correctly, the “the Missouri Freedom to Own Lightbulbs Act”. From Representative Cynthia Davis (r). Yes, that Representative Cynthia Davis.

The bill:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 2468

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS.

5509L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 21, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the Missouri freedom to own lightbulbs act.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 21, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 21.930, to read as follows:

           21.930. 1. This section shall be called and may be cited as the “Missouri Freedom to own Lightbulbs Act”.

           2. The general assembly declares that the authority for this section is the following:

           (1) Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Missouri certain powers as they were understood at the time that Missouri was admitted to statehood. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Missouri and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Missouri and the United States;

           (2) Amendment IX of the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the people rights not granted in the Constitution and reserves to the people of Missouri certain rights as they were understood at the time that Missouri was admitted to statehood. The guarantee of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Missouri and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Missouri and the United States;

           (3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under Amendments IX and X of the Constitution of the United States, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of lightbulbs or lightbulb accessories;

           3. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall mean:

           (1) “Generic and insignificant parts”, includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins;

           (2) “Lightbulb accessories”, items that are used in conjunction with a lightbulb but are not essential to the basic function of a lightbulb;

           (3) “Manufactured”, creating a lightbulb.

           4. A lightbulb or lightbulb accessory that is manufactured commercially or privately in Missouri and that remains within the borders of Missouri is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a lightbulb or lightbulb accessory that is manufactured in Missouri from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not lightbulbs or lightbulb accessories, and their importation into Missouri and incorporation into a lightbulb or lightbulb accessory manufactured in Missouri does not subject the lightbulb or lightbulb accessory to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials are not lightbulbs or lightbulb accessories and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate lightbulbs or lightbulb accessories under interstate commerce as if they were actually lightbulbs or lightbulb accessories. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include the authority to regulate lightbulbs or lightbulb accessories made in Missouri from those materials. Lightbulb accessories that are imported into Missouri from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a lightbulb to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a lightbulb in Missouri.

           5. A lightbulb manufactured or sold in Missouri under the provisions of this section shall have the words “Made in Missouri” clearly stamped.

As if maybe energy efficient bulbs which in aggregate use significantly cut energy consumption and diminish America’s dependence on foreign energy sources is some kind of affront to an originalist interpretation of Constitution? I don’t know, your guess is as good as mine.

Ah, the usual “tenther” drivel. Interestingly, there are no co-sponsors listed for this bill. It would appear that there are a few republican members of the House with some small shred of self respect left.

HB1778 (Organ Donor Awareness Day) passed 141-7 with 7 Republicans (Cynthia Davis, Ed Emery, Doug Ervin, Tim Flook, David Sater, Rodney Schad, Bryan Stevenson) voting Nay.

There’s diminishing returns and all in the reaction for these things. But apparently that was the time to make a stand against the tyranny of the government making people aware of organ donation.

Anyone who follows the antics of Tea Partying State Rep. Cynthia Davis (R-19) is used to her endless bleating about a big government takeover. At the same time, many of us have also noted Davis’ proclivities for pushing legislation that oversteps normative bounds in terms of government intrusion into personal areas such as marriage, divorce, sexuality and choice. Yesterday, Davis, in her role as Chair of the House Special Committee on Children and Families, may have gone a little too far and unequivocally revealed her hypocrisy about the perils of big government’s stealthy takeover tactics when she made a flagrant bid to impose her anti-choice beliefs on the rest of us by trickery.

Democratic members of the Committee assert that Davis attempted to substitute the text of one anti-abortion bill, HB1236, that had not been referred to her committee for action, for the text of HB1238, which was scheduled to be heard yesterday morning. HB 1236 mandates a complex series of medical screening criteria before an abortion can be performed. The less restrictive text of HB1238 rquires evidence of informed consent on the part of a woman seeking abortion. Both bills are onerous, but HB1236 is ultimately more problematic.

If true, not only is Davis’ behavior dishonest, it’s a violation of Missouri’s constitution. A news release yesterday (via The Turner Report) stated:

Davis’ attempt to switch bills violates Article III, Section 21 of the Missouri Constitution, which prohibits bills from being changed from their original purpose. The action also could violate Missouri’s Sunshine Law, which requires advance public notice of what legislation will be considered at government meetings.

To add insult to injury, Davis not only attempted to thwart the legislative process through deception, but she attempted to stifle discussion that might have revealed her subterfuge:

Davis allotted nearly all of the March 3 hearing to supporters and prohibited the standard practice of allowing committee members to question witnesses. After all supporters had testified, Davis allowed a mere five minutes of questioning about the bill at the end of the hearing.

One can understand that the general Republican postmodern approach to truth may have encouraged little Cynthia to believe that her ends justified her means – and since she makes no bones about taking her inspiration from David Barton, founder of the Wallbuilders, a group that has set out to rewrite American history to conform to their fundamentalist religious preferences, she may even think that she is ethically entitled to act in this fashion.

If Davis has indeed tried to subvert the legislative process, she has violated the public’s trust and is unfit for office. I’ll certainly email (Ronald.Richard@house.mo.gov) or phone (573-751-2173) the speaker of the house to inquire and ask that she be removed from her position as Chair of the House Special Committee on Children and Families. Who knows – if a few people protest, maybe she’ll get some kind of slap on the wrist?  

This morning the Missouri House took up debate on HJR 48, 50 & 57, a state constitutional amendment nullifying federal health care reform legislation.

Our good friends at Fired Up via Twitter:

Uninterested in dealing with actual state issues, MO House turns its attention back to federal legislation…    about 13 hours ago   via DestroyTwitter  

From the beginning:

republican Representative [speaking as an advocate of the resolution at the opening of the debate]: …Democrat  Congressman Bart Stupak, if you’re pro-life you will vote for the health care freedom act and against Obamacare….

Representative Cynthia Davis (r – let them eat McDonalds), debating HJR 48, 50 & 57

There was a flood of something, and it wasn’t water. Representative Cynthia Davis (r – let them eat McDonalds), fifty-five minutes into the debate:

…Representative Cynthia Davis :  Good morning, I rise to speak on the HJR.

Speaker: Proceed, lady.

Representative Cynthia Davis : Thank  you. Mister Speaker, a lot of people are confused about what is the role of the national government and what is the role of the state government. Truth is, the national government has no business doing education or health care. It’s not in the Constitution. You know, a river is a beautiful thing when it stays within its boundaries, but when it’s unlimited it’s called a flood.  And a flood is destructive. And it’s not pretty anymore.  [inaudible] Also, this has nothing to do with Barack Obama. It has to do with choice. It has to do with liberty. And it has to do with our freedom and our right to govern ourselves. The national program really has nothing to do with protecting insurance companies either. You know, I moved here from Massachusetts. And they forced everybody to get on the insurance program and they still have not achieved that goal. And if Massachusetts had such a great plan show me where are the people clamoring to move into Massachusetts? The bigger question I want all of you to consider today is why would any state legislator want to give up our liberty? You know, we’re vested with the duty of protecting our citizens and protecting their liberty is foundational.

Some of you may have not heard my bullying story. When I was in seventh grade I learned a lesson about bullies that I’ll never forget. You know, the national government is strutting around like a big bully. And unless we say no, we’re gonna get hurt. There was a time in junior high when all the classes had to pass in the hallway. There was a girl who, apparently, didn’t like me, though I will never know why. But she would sneak up behind me and stick her foot in front of mine and trip me. So I’d fall or sometimes almost fall. And then I’d go home and I’d tell my mother. Mom, this girl tried to trip me again today.  And my mom said the only way to stop it is if you stand up to her and hold firm. Well there was one day when we were passing through the hall, through the classroom and, and, and I, I noticed her tripping me and, and I turned around and what happened next was a blur.  But, it was good. It was good ’cause I stood up to her and, and the, we were ushered to the principal’s office and the principal called my mom and said, your daughter was engaged in a fight. And my mom was never more proud of me. And that girl never tripped me again.

And that is what we’re confronting with this resolution to try and tell the federal government, you can not bully us, we are gonna stop you right here, right now. We’re gonna protect our citizens.

This HJR is our only and last hope for protecting Missourians, to keep their freedoms and their rights.  Thank you….

“…Also, this has nothing to do with Barack Obama…”

You weren’t listening to your colleague at the start of debate, were you?

“…It has to do with choice…”

So, if you support the resolution you’re pro-choice?

“…And it has to do with our freedom and our right to govern ourselves…”

Question. Didn’t we elect our members of Congress? Just asking. Oh, you meant they should all be republicans just like you.

“….[blah, blah, blah] your daughter was engaged in a fight…”

You’re not advocating violence, are you?

“…our only and last hope…”

Obi-wan would be so proud.

What the House passed and sent to the Senate today:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

[PERFECTED]

HOUSE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NOS. 48, 50 & 57

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

3173L.02P                                                                                                                                                 D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri an amendment to article I of the Constitution of Missouri, relating to prohibiting laws interfering with freedom of choice in health care.

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, 2010, 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 thereto one new section, to be known as section 35, to read as follows:

           Section 35. 1. That a law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.

           2. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

           3. Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.

           4. This section does not:

           (1) Affect which health care services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide;

           (2) Affect which health care services are permitted by law;

           (3) Prohibit care provided under workers’ compensation as provided under state law;

           (4) Affect laws or regulations in effect as of January 1, 2010;

           (5) Affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing a person or employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider or hospital for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

           5. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean:

           (1) “Compel”, any penalties or fines;

           (2) “Direct payment or pay directly”, payment for lawful health care services without a public or private third party, not including an employer, paying for any portion of the service;

           (3) “Health care system”, any public or private entity whose function or purpose is the management of, processing of, enrollment of individuals for or payment for, in full or in part, health care services or health care data or health care information for its participants;

           (4) “Lawful health care services”, any health-related service or treatment to the extent that the service or treatment is permitted or not prohibited by law or regulation that may be provided by persons or businesses otherwise permitted to offer such services; and

           (5) “Penalties or fines”, any civil or criminal penalty or fine, tax, salary or wage withholding or surcharge or any named fee with a similar effect established by law or rule by a government established, created or controlled agency that is used to punish or discourage the exercise of rights protected under this section.

           Section B. Pursuant to chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the general assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in section A of this resolution shall be as follows:

           “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended as follows:

1. That government may neither penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance, nor infringe upon a citizen’s right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful health care services.

2. This section shall permit courts to enforce contracts voluntarily entered, and the General Assembly to regulate the health insurance industry.”

Here’s hoping the Missouri Senate sits on it.