Recently Dante Atkins reported in a DailyKos article about the “new” Republican strategy for dealing with their woman problem. The remedy for the widespread perception among women that GOPers are intolerant, lacking in compassion and do not understand women’s concerns, according to Republican strategists, is “to ‘go on offense’ on women’s issues.” Unfortunately, however, it seems like many GOP pols have misunderstood and believe that they should instead just continue being offensive, a skill they have thoroughly mastered.

What comes more naturally to the angry, old white men of the GOP than hard-breathing, red-faced hectoring, especially when dealing with uppity women. And that is true as well for the elected women in the GOP, who often seem to be little more than Palinesque angry white men wannabes – even when, as in the case of Ann Wagner (R-2), they try to hide harsh policies by describing them with lots of warm and fuzzy words. Think Todd Akin was bad? Consider Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4) who declared last January that women should be forced to carry pregnancies to term because abortion “robs men of the privilege of fatherhood.” Gives you an idea about who it is that matters in GOPland – and it isn’t women.

Which brings us to today’s vote by the Republican-dominated legislature to override Governor Nixon’s veto of HB1307. This bill will, 30 days from today, increase the waiting time for an abortion from 24 hours to 72 hours after the initial appointment with a doctor – with no exception for victims of rape or incest. Is this going “on offense” or just plain offensive? Many Missourians are convinced it’s the latter:

According to a recent Public Policy Polling survey, eight out of ten Missourians are concerned the 72-hour waiting period intrudes on women’s private medical decisions, and most of them agreed with the governor’s decision to veto it.

The Roosevelt Institute notes that waiting periods are among the types of restrictions on abortion that, ironically, result in “more unplanned pregnancies, more abortions, and more abortions occuring later in pregnancy”:

The Guttmacher Institute reports that already seven in 10 women who had a second-trimester abortion wanted to do so earlier in pregnancy but were unable to because they could not afford it. Economists who study family planning policy argue that the costs a woman seeking an abortion faces do not only come in the form of dollars, but also in the time required to access an abortion. A 2001 study by Marianne Bitler and Madeline Zavodny shows that state restrictions that impose mandatory waiting periods (in other words, a time cost) also delay abortions into the second trimester. A 1994 study of Mississippi’s mandatory delay laws showed a 17 percent jump in second trimester abortions after the law took effect.

Nevertheless, despite its intrusiveness and the potential for unintended consequences, the bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Kevin Elmer (R-139), tells us that he believes that this highly offensive legislation will be the “the pinnacle of his legislative career.” He, after all, believes that “life begins at conception,” which is unintelligible gibberish unless interpreted in a religious context which many of us do not share, and which should not be forced upon us just to give the fuddish Elmer and his fanatical cohorts their self-righteous jollies.

If this typical GOP soundbite doesn’t offend  you, just consider the comments of State Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger (R-108) about a similar but even more restrictive bill, HB1613, that was also considered by the legislature this year. (This bill was much worse – among its many reprehensible provisions was one that would have forced doctors to lie to women and tell them that abortion could cause cancer – a claim that has no scientific support.) While discussing the rationale for the bill, Gatschenberger indicated that he believes women shop for abortions in the same way that he goes about buying a new car or some carpet for his house:

Well, yesterday, I went over to the car lot over here. I was just going to get a key made for a vehicle. And I was looking around because I’m considering maybe buying a new vehicle. Even when I buy a new vehicle-this is my experience, again-I don’t go right in there and say I want to buy that vehicle, and then, you know, you leave with it. I have to look at it, get information about it, maybe drive it, you know, a lot of different things. Check prices. There’s lots of things that I do, putting into a decision. Whether that’s a car, whether that’s a house, whether that’s any major decision that I put in my life. Even carpeting. You know, I was just considering getting some carpeting or wood in my house. And that process probably took, you know, a month, because of just seeing all the aspects of it.

Maybe, given the raw material they’ve got to work with, GOP strategists ought to drop the whole going “on offense” idea. The concept is perhaps a bit too vague for nitwits to apply effectively, rendering it dangerous for the GOP. And in the meantime, all rational women need to remember just who it is that thinks that they – and their doctors – aren’t smart enough to know what they need and when they need it.  

—

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…”

Evidently, with your vote, it is your decision.

Kirk: What does God need with a starship?

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.

Previously: SB 519, HB 1307, HB 1313: wait, wait, wait (January 12, 2014)