• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: forced birth

HB 1987: apparently 1984 was already taken

16 Thursday Dec 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

abortion, bounty, forced birth, General Assembly, HB 1987, Mary Elizabeth Coleman, missouri, right wingnut, vigilantes

“…10. (1) Any person, except for the state, a political subdivision of the state, or an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action against any person who:
(a) Performs or induces an abortion in violation of this chapter;
(b) Knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this chapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this chapter; or
(c) Intends to engage in the conduct described under paragraph (a) or (b) of this subdivision.
(2) If a claimant prevails in an action brought under this subsection, the court shall award:
(a) Injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this chapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this chapter;
(b) Statutory damages in an amount of not less than ten thousand dollars for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced in violation of this chapter and for each abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter that the defendant aided or abetted…”

A $10,000.00 bounty for vigilantes. Where on this Earth did that come from?

MaryElizabethColeman @meaccoleman
My first bill of the upcoming session has been filed! Missouri’s Empower Women, Promote Life Act #hb1987 will create a private cause of action to ensure Missouri uses every legal avenue to protect women and children in our state from the violence of abortion. #prolife #moleg
8:37 AM · Dec 16, 2021

Mary Elizabeth Coleman (r) [2019 file photo].

Bill prefiling for the Missouri General Assembly session started on December 1st.

Yet another bill, addressing a matter of great urgency for right wingnuts, filed today:

HB 1987
Modifies provisions relating to abortion
Sponsor: Coleman, Mary Elizabeth (097)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 3693H.01I
Last Action: 12/16/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1987
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The bill language:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1987 [pdf]
101ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN (97).
3693H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

[….]

…(11) “Pregnancy”, the human female reproductive condition that:
(a) Begins with fertilization;
(b) Occurs when the woman is carrying the developing human offspring; and
(c) Is calculated from the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period;
(12) “Pregnant woman” or “pregnant women”, includes any individual who is pregnant, regardless of any gender identity that the pregnant person attempts to assert or claim…

[….]

1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”.
2. A child born alive during or after an abortion or an attempted abortion shall have all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state, including any other liveborn child.
3. Any health care provider licensed, registered, or certified in this state who is present at the time a child is born alive during or after an abortion or attempted abortion shall:
(1) Exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care provider would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and
(2) Ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subdivision (1) of this subsection.
4. In addition to any criminal or administrative liability that may be incurred, person shall be civilly liable when he or she:
(1) Knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causes the death of a child who is born alive during or after an abortion or an attempted abortion;
(2) Knowingly fails to comply with any of the provisions of subsection 3 of this section if the person is a health care provider subject to such provisions;
(3) Knowingly performs or induces, or attempts to perform or induce, an unlawful abortion upon another person;
(4) Knowingly aids or abets another person to undergo a self-induced abortion or attempted self-induced abortion or to procure an unlawful abortion or attempted unlawful abortion;
(5) Knowingly, recklessly, or negligently supplies or makes available any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or any other means or substance for another person to undergo a self-induced abortion or attempted self-induced abortion or to procure an unlawful abortion or attempted unlawful abortion; or
(6) Knowingly incites, solicits, or otherwise uses speech or writing as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute to influence another person to undergo a self-induced abortion or attempted self-induced abortion or to procure an unlawful abortion or attempted unlawful abortion.
5. If injury or death arises out of or results from any circumstance under subsection 4 of this section to any of the following persons, including:
(1) A person upon whom the unlawful abortion or attempted unlawful abortion was performed or induced;
(2) A person who underwent a self-induced abortion or attempted self-induced abortion or who procured an unlawful abortion or attempted unlawful abortion;
(3) A child who was born alive during or after an abortion or attempted abortion; or
(4) An unborn child, a cause of action for personal injury, bodily injury, or wrongful death may be brought. In a cause of action for wrongful death, the spouse, partner, parents, siblings, and children of the deceased person, child, or unborn child shall be entitled to bring the action. Damages for injury or death may be recovered for including, but not limited to, any damages described in chapters 537 and 538 which are applicable; loss of future fertility; loss of love and companionship of the spouse, partner, parent, child, unborn child, or sibling; and for injury to or destruction of the spouse, partner, parent, child, unborn child, or sibling relationship in such amount as, under all the circumstances of the case, may be just. The court shall also award a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and expenses as part of the costs. A defendant shall not plead or prove as a defense that the plaintiff assumed the risk of undergoing, or consented to undergo, a self-induced abortion or attempted self-induced abortion or that the plaintiff assumed the risk of procuring, or consented to procure, an unlawful abortion or attempted unlawful abortion. The fact that a plaintiff consented to undergo a self-induced abortion or attempted self-induced abortion or to procure an unlawful abortion or attempted unlawful abortion shall not, in and of itself, be considered evidence of contributory or comparative negligence. Any exculpatory agreement between or among parties that is related to undergoing a self-induced abortion or attempted self-induced abortion or to procuring an unlawful abortion or attempted unlawful abortion shall be against public policy and shall be void.

[…]

188.202. 1. No federal act, law, executive order, administrative order, rule, or regulation shall infringe on the rights of the people of Missouri to:
(1) Protect state sovereignty and state taxpayers by restricting public funds, public facilities, and public employees from being used to perform, induce, or assist in an abortion, except as provided for in state statutes;
(2) Encourage childbirth over abortion in the use of the state’s public funds, public facilities, and public employees;
(3) Defend the religious beliefs or moral convictions of any person who, or entity that, does not want to be forced to directly or indirectly fund or participate in abortion;
(4) Prevent the state or its political subdivisions from being coerced, compelled, or commandeered by the federal government to enact, administer, or enforce a federal regulatory program that directly or indirectly funds abortion; and
(5) Prohibit the federal government from commanding or conscripting public officials of the state or its political subdivisions to enforce a federal regulatory program that directly or indirectly funds abortion.
2. In any action to enforce the provisions of sections 188.200 to 188.215 by a taxpayer under the provisions of section 188.220, a court of competent jurisdiction may order injunctive or other equitable relief, recovery of damages or other legal remedies, or both, as well as payment of reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses of the taxpayer. The relief and remedies set forth shall not be deemed exclusive and shall be in addition to any other relief or remedies permitted by law.
3. In addition to a cause of action brought by a taxpayer under section 188.220, the attorney general is also authorized to bring a cause of action to enforce the provisions of sections 188.200 to 188.215.
188.207. It shall be unlawful for any public funds to be expended to any abortion facility or to any affiliate or associate of such abortion facility.

[….]

188.900. 1. The Missouri general assembly finds, according to contemporary medical research, that:
(1) Fetal heartbeat has become a key medical predictor that an unborn child wil reach live birth;
(2) Cardiac activity begins at a biologically identifiable moment in time, normally when the fetal heartbeat is formed in the gestational sac;
(3) The state of Missouri has compelling interests from the outset of a woman’s pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the unborn child; and
(4) To make an informed choice about whether to continue her pregnancy, the pregnant woman has a compelling interest in knowing the likelihood of her unborn child surviving to full-term birth based on the presence of cardiac activity.
2. For the purposes of determining the presence of a fetal heartbeat under this section, “standard medical practice” includes employing the appropriate means of detecting the heartbeat based on the estimated gestational age of the unborn child and the condition of the woman and her pregnancy.
3. Except as provided under subsection 6 of this section, a physician shall not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman unless the physician has determined, in accordance with this section, whether the woman’s unborn child has a detectable fetal heartbeat. In making such determination, the physician shall use a test that is:
(1) Consistent with the physician’s good faith and reasonable understanding of standard medical practice; and
(2) Appropriate for the estimated gestational age of the unborn child and the condition of the pregnant woman and her pregnancy.
4. A physician making a determination under subsection 3 of this section shall record in the pregnant woman’s medical record:
(1) The estimated gestational age of the unborn child;
(2) The method used to estimate the gestational age; and
(3) The test used for detecting a fetal heartbeat, including the date, time, and results of the test.
5. Except as provided under subsection 6 of this section, a physician shall not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child or failed to perform a test to detect a fetal heartbeat. A physician does not violate this subsection if the physician performed a test for a fetal heartbeat and did not detect a fetal heartbeat. This subsection does not affect:
(1) The provisions of this chapter that restrict or regulate an abortion by a particular method or during a particular stage of pregnancy; or
(2) Any other provision of state law that regulates or prohibits abortion.
6. Subsections 1 to 5 of this section do not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this section. A physician who performs or induces an abortion when the physician believes a medical emergency exists shall make written notations in the pregnant woman’s medical record of:
(1) The physician’s belief that a medical emergency necessitated the abortion; and
(2) The medical conditions of the pregnant woman that prevented compliance with subsections 1 to 5 of this section.

A physician performing or inducing an abortion under this subsection shall maintain in the physician’s practice records a copy of the notations made under subdivisions (1) and
(2) of this subsection.
7. The requirements of this section shall not apply to an abortion performed at the behest of federal agencies, contractors, or employees that are carrying out duties under federal law if the enforcement of those requirements would violate the doctrines of preemption or intergovernmental immunity.
8. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to:
(1) Authorize the initiation of a cause of action against or the prosecution of a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this section;
(2) Wholly or partly repeal, either expressly or by implication, any other statute that requires or prohibits abortion;
(3) Restrict a political subdivision from regulating or prohibiting abortion in a manner that is at least as stringent as the laws of this state; or
(4) Create or recognize a right to abortion before a fetal heartbeat is detected.
9. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the requirements of this section shall be enforced exclusively through the private civil actions described in subsection 10 of this section. No direct or indirect enforcement of this section shall be taken or threatened by this state, a political subdivision, a prosecuting attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of this state or of a political subdivision against any person, and no violation of this section shall be used to justify or trigger the enforcement of any other law, except as provided in subsection 10 of this section.
(2) Subdivision (1) of this subsection shall not be construed to:
(a) Legalize the conduct prohibited by this section;
(b) Limit in any way or affect the availability of a remedy established under subsection 10 of this section; or
(c) Limit the enforceability of any other laws that regulate or prohibit abortion.
(3) Neither the state nor a political subdivision, prosecuting attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of the state or of a political subdivision shall act in concert or participate with anyone who brings suit under subsection 10 of this section.
10. (1) Any person, except for the state, a political subdivision of the state, or an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action against any person who:
(a) Performs or induces an abortion in violation of this chapter;
(b) Knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this chapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this chapter; or
(c) Intends to engage in the conduct described under paragraph (a) or (b) of this subdivision.
(2) If a claimant prevails in an action brought under this subsection, the court shall award:
(a) Injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this chapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this chapter;
(b) Statutory damages in an amount of not less than ten thousand dollars for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced in violation of this chapter and for each abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter that the defendant aided or abetted;
(c) Nominal and compensatory damages if the plaintiff has suffered harm from the defendant’s conduct including, but not limited to, loss of consortium and emotional distress; and
(d) Costs and attorney’s fees.
(3) Notwithstanding subdivision (2) of this subsection, a court shall not award relief under this subsection in response to a violation of paragraph (a) or (b) of subdivision (1) of this subsection if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant previously paid the full amount of statutory damages under paragraph (b) of subdivision (2) of this subsection in a previous action for that particular abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter, or for the particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person shall bring an action under this section within six years of the date the cause of action accrues.
(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following are not a defense to an action brought under this subsection:
(a) Ignorance or mistake of law;
(b) A defendant’s belief that the requirements of this chapter are unconstitutional or were unconstitutional;
(c) A defendant’s reliance on any court decision that has been overruled on appeal or by a subsequent court, even if that court decision had not been overruled at the time the defendant engaged in conduct that violates this chapter;
(d) A defendant’s reliance on any state or federal court decision that is not binding on the court in which the action has been brought;
(e) Nonmutual issue preclusion or nonmutual claim preclusion;
(f) The consent of the unborn child’s mother to the abortion; or
(g) Any claim that the enforcement of this subsection or the imposition of civil liability against the defendant will violate the constitutional rights of third parties, except as provided under subsection 11 of this section.
(6) It is an affirmative defense to an action brought under this subsection if:
(a) A defendant against whom an action is brought under paragraph (b) of subdivision (1) of this subsection reasonably believed, after conducting a reasonable investigation, that the physician performing or inducing the abortion had complied or would comply with this chapter; or
(b) A defendant against whom an action is brought under paragraph (c) of subdivision (1) of this subsection reasonably believed, after conducting a reasonable investigation, that the physician performing or inducing the abortion would comply with this chapter.

The defendant has the burden of proving an affirmative defense under paragraph (a) or
(b) of this subdivision by a preponderance of the evidence.
(7) This subsection shall not be construed to impose liability on any speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as made applicable to the states through the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, or by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of Missouri.
(8) Neither the state nor a political subdivision, prosecuting attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of the state or of a political subdivision shall act in concert or participate with anyone who brings suit under subsection 10 of this section or intervene in an action brought under this section. This subsection does not prohibit a person or entity described under this subsection from filing an amicus curiae brief in an action as long as that person or entity does not act in concert or participation with the plaintiff or plaintiffs who bring an action under this section.
(9) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a court shall not award costs or attorney’s fees under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure or any other law to a defendant in an action brought under this subsection unless it is determined that the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, malicious, or brought in bad faith.
(10) A court shall not find that an action brought under this subsection is frivolous, malicious, or brought in bad faith under subdivision (9) of this subsection if the plaintiff:
(a) Reasonably believed that the defendant performed or induced an abortion in violation of any requirement or provision of this chapter, engaged in conduct that aided or abetted the performance or inducement of such an abortion, or intended to engage in any such conduct, regardless of whether a previous court decision declared a requirement or provision of this chapter unconstitutional; or
(b) Brings suit seeking to overrule on appeal any previous court decision ruling that a requirement or provision of this chapter is unconstitutional.
(11) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of sections 1.302 and 537.528 shall have no application to any civil action brought under this section.
(12) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action under this subsection shall not be brought by a person who impregnated the abortion patient through an act of rape, sexual assault, or incest.
(13) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action under this section shall not be brought against a person who performed or aided or abetted an abortion at the behest of federal agencies, contractors, or employees that are carrying out duties under federal law, if a prohibition on that abortion would violate the doctrines of preemption or intergovernmental immunity.
(14) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action under this section shall not be brought against a common carrier who transports a pregnant woman to an abortion provider, if the common carrier is unaware that the woman intends to abort her unborn child.
11. (1) A defendant against whom an action is brought under subsection 10 of this section may assert an affirmative defense to liability if:
(a) The defendant has standing to assert the rights of a woman or group of women seeking an abortion under the tests for third-party standing established by the Supreme Court of the United States; and
(b) The imposition of civil liability on the defendant will result in an undue burden on such abortion-seeking woman or group of abortion-seeking women.

The defendant has the burden of proving an affirmative defense under this subsection by a preponderance of evidence.
(2) The affirmative defense under subdivision (1) of this subsection is not available if the United States Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), regardless of whether the conduct on which the cause of action is based occurred before the Supreme Court overruled either of those decisions.
(3) Nothing in this section or chapter shall in any way limit or preclude a defendant from asserting the defendant’s personal constitutional rights as a defense to liability, and a court shall not award relief if the conduct for which the defendant has been sued was an exercise of state or federal constitutional rights that personally belong to the defendant.
(4) Nothing in this section or chapter shall limit or preclude a defendant from asserting the unconstitutionality of any provision of Missouri law as a defense to liability under subsection 10 of this section.
12. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action brought under subsection 10 of this section shall be brought in:
(a) The county in which all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred;
(b) The county of residence for any one of the natural person defendants at the time the cause of action accrued;
(c) The county of the principal office in this state of any one of the defendants that is not a natural person; or
(d) The county of residence for the claimant if the claimant is a natural person residing in this state.
(2) If a civil action is brought under subsection 10 of this section in any one of the venues described under subdivision (1) of this subsection, the action shall not be transferred to a different venue without the written consent of all parties.
13. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the state shall have sovereign immunity, each of its political subdivisions shall have governmental immunity, and each officer and employee of the state or a political subdivision shall have official immunity in any action, claim, or counterclaim or any type of legal or equitable action that challenges the validity of any provision or application of this chapter, on constitutional grounds or otherwise, or that seeks to prevent or enjoin the state, its political subdivisions, or any officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision from enforcing any provision or application of this chapter, unless that immunity has been abrogated or preempted by federal law in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no provision of state law shall be construed to waive or abrogate an immunity described under subdivision (1) of this subsection unless it expressly waives or abrogates immunity by specifically referencing this section.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no attorney representing the state, its political subdivisions, or any officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision is authorized or permitted to waive an immunity described in subdivision (1) of this subsection or take any action that would result in a waiver of such immunity.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court of this state shall have jurisdiction to consider any action, claim, or counterclaim that seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent the state, its political subdivisions, any officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision, or any person from enforcing any provision or application of this chapter, or from filing a civil action under subsection 10 of this section.
(5) Nothing in this subsection or chapter shall be construed to prevent a litigant from asserting the invalidity or unconstitutionality of any provision or application of Missouri law as a defense to any action, claim, or counterclaim brought against that litigant.
14. (1) It is the intent of the general assembly that every provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word in this chapter, and every application of the provisions in this chapter, is severable from each other.
(2) If any application of any provision in this chapter to any person, group of persons, or circumstances is found by a court to be invalid, preempted, unconstitutional, or to impose an undue burden, the remaining applications of that provision to all other persons and circumstances shall be severed and preserved, and shall remain in effect. All constitutionally valid applications of the provisions of law contained in this chapter shall be severed from any applications that a court finds to be invalid, preempted, unconstitutional, or to impose an undue burden on women seeking abortions, and the valid applications shall remain in force because it is the general assembly’s intent and priority that every valid application be allowed to stand alone. Even if a reviewing court finds a provision of this chapter to impose an undue burden in a large or substantial fraction of relevant cases, the applications that do not present an undue burden shall be severed from the remaining applications and shall remain in force and shall be treated as if the general assembly had enacted a statute limited to the persons, group of persons, or circumstances for which the statute’s application does not present an undue burden.
(3) The general assembly further declares that it would have enacted this chapter, and each provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and all constitutional applications of this chapter, irrespective of the fact that any provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word or applications of this chapter were to be declared invalid, preempted, unconstitutional, or to impose an undue burden.
(4) If any provision of this chapter is found by any court to be unconstitutionally vague, the applications of that provision that do not present constitutional vagueness problems shall be severed and remain in force, consistent with the severability requirements of subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection.
(5) No court shall decline to enforce the severability requirements of this subsection on the ground that severance would rewrite the statute or involve the court in legislative or lawmaking activity. A court that declines to enforce or enjoins a state official from enforcing a statutory provision does not rewrite a statute, as the statute continues to contain the same words as before the court’s decision. A judicial injunction or declaration of unconstitutionality:
(a) Is nothing more than an edict prohibiting enforcement that may subsequently be vacated by a later court if that court has a different understanding of the requirements of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Missouri;
(b) Is not a formal amendment of the language in a statute; and
(c) No more rewrites a statute than a decision by the executive not to enforce a duly enacted statute in a limited and defined set of circumstances.
(6) If any state or federal court disregards the severability requirements of subdivisions (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of this subsection, and declares or finds any provision of this chapter facially unconstitutional when there are discrete applications of that provision that can be enforced against a person, group of persons, or circumstances without violating federal law, the federal or state constitution, or imposing an undue burden on women seeking abortions, that provision shall be interpreted, as a matter of state law, as if the general assembly had enacted a provision limited to the persons, group of persons, or circumstances for which the provision’s applications will not violate federal law, the federal or state constitution, or impose an undue burden on women seeking abortions, and every court shall adopt this saving construction of that provision until the court ruling that pronounced the provision facially unconstitutional is vacated or overruled.

[….]

Some of the responses via Twitter:

Abortion is healthcare. Women will have access to all forms of healthcare. Mary can Aunt Lydia all she wants.

Taking away bodily autonomy empowers women. Interesting take.

Why don’t you revisit what “empower” and “protect” mean? Because I don’t think they mean what you think they do.

Orwell would be ashamed.

“empower women” by making them the target of specious lawsuits that will cost them at least $10,000 plus legal fees?

What could possibly go wrong with vigilante bills like this? Hmmm… I can’t think of a single thing.

That’s not “empowering” women- it’s oppressing them.

The last thing our state needs is this! This is a terrible idea.

But what will protect the women of Missouri from you and government intrusion to their bodies?

Forced Birth doesn’t empower women & girls.

By the way, abortion will ALWAYS be an option for those with enough money. Everyone knows this #moleg #Missouri

The party of q demanding people snitch on their neighbors and friends.

You know you’ve created the perfect vehicle for those mythical gun takers to actually become real, right?

Everyone loses. This is legislative crack – you get one empty hit and then you’re fighting something you created for the rest of your life.

What the hell are you thinking?

This is Orwellian and you know it. This doesn’t empower women at all, it takes away a right they’ve had for half a century. Shame on you.

How about you save that for yourself. You are doing no woman any favors. These decisions are between a woman, her DOCTOR, and her god. You can go ahead and stay out of it.

This is disgusting. You’re not protecting women. You are actively keeping them from getting Healthcare. Shame on you.

This is NOT empowering women! This is putting a vice grip on them! Empowering involves access to education and freedom to choose! We are NOT your handmaids. Stop trying to justify this horror!

Kindly stay the fuck out of my uterus, Mary Elizabeth.

You are American Taliban.

You are anti-woman – how about you keep your religion to yourself instead? Putting bounties on women is disgusting.

You hate your own gender.

This is abuse of women and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Empower women? Are you stupid?

Screw you. If men got pregnant abortions would be free and clinics would be on every corner.

Previously:

Celebrating forced birth (December 4, 2021)

More from forced birthers (December 4, 2021)

HB 680: yet another forced birth bill (January 27, 2019)

HB 1572: for crying out loud

05 Sunday Dec 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

abortion, Ann Kelley, anti-choice, forced birth, General Assembly, HB 1572, missouri, right wingnut

Bill prefiling for the Missouri General Assembly session started on December 1st.

Yet another bill, addressing a matter of great urgency for right wingnuts:

HB 1572
Designates January 22 as the “Day of Tears” in Missouri
Sponsor: Kelley, Ann (127)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 3597H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1572
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The bill language:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1572
101ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE KELLEY (127).
3597H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 9, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the day of tears.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 9, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 9.342, to read as follows:
9.342. January twenty-second each year is hereby designated and shall be known as the “Day of Tears” in Missouri. The day shall commemorate all those lost to abortion. The United States flag and Missouri state flag shall be flown at half-staff on all government buildings on the day of tears.

Lack of access to healthcare? No problem. Resistance to simple and effective public health measures? No problem. Death penalty? No problem. Mass shootings in schools (and elsewhere)? No problem.

That silence is defeaning.

Previously:

Celebrating forced birth (December 4, 2021)

More from forced birthers (December 4, 2021)

More from forced birthers

04 Saturday Dec 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Josh Hawley, meta

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

abortion, forced birth, meta

We get comments. Every once in a while one of those aggregation sites posts a link (or something) to one of our posts. We’ll get a significant traffic spike and, with that, a few comments from lunatic fringe individuals who think we give a shit about what they think.

We’ve been in this blog thing since 2007. Posting content is a constant – and people can read it, or not. We call the process “feeding the content beast”.

Comments here are held for approval by an admistrator. In general we don’t allow lunatic fringe/right wingnut comments, but, we will mock them at our discretion in a subsequent meta post. Like this one.

The longest response:

I honestly cannot believe how many Evil & Murderous People have come out of their dens since the 2020 election!! Were there certain people left responsible for leaving the front door open to every mental home in the United States last year?? Unbelievable!!

I would consider myself “Pro-Life” with stipulations. I am against abortion for the most part, however, would agree to them for certain reasons. Those reasons being pregnancies caused by rape, child molestation, unsurvivable medical / mental disease, illness or condition with the baby, the mother or both, stillborn and those similar in circumstances.

I do NOT, nor will I ever, agree to abortions being performed as a form of birth control, for grown ass women who were careless and didn’t take the necessary precautions, girls of the ages 13 to 17 who felt they were old enough to act like an adult and have sex, but then NOT feel they are old enough to face the consequences of thier actions and I DAMN SURE do NOT agree with or support in any way, at any time or at any place the murdering of full term babies!! How can ANYONE in the entire world believe that it is okay to pull apart a tiny “PERSON” limb by limb, breaking every bone in their little bodies in order to make smaller pieces that will deliver easier??

WHAT THE HELL is wrong with you people??? There is definitely a special place in Hell for people like you and I hope that if reincarnation IS real, that each and every one of you evil people come back as one of those full term aborted babies so that you can feel the exact same pain as they felt!! Then try to preach that it’s not Inhumane!!

“…I honestly cannot believe how many Evil & Murderous People have come out of their dens since the 2020 election!! Were there certain people left responsible for leaving the front door open to every mental home in the United States last year?? Unbelievable!!…”

That’s really not a nice thing to say about MAGA people.

“…I am against abortion for the most part, however…”

You’re either against abortion or you’re not. You just want to make the decision for someone else.

Uh, how many third trimester abortions occur each year in Missouri? We’ll wait.

“…There is definitely a special place in Hell for people like you…”

That’s very Christian of you.

Another response:

The unborn have rights! The right to life! Abortion should never be used as a birth control method, but that is what has happened. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers should be giving out birth control pills or devices instead of doing abortions day after day. Preventing unwanted pregnancies should be their goal, not how many lives can be destroyed each and every day!

You can make a contribution to Planned Parenthhod for women’s health care. You seem interested in doing so.

Previously:

Celebrating forced birth (December 4 2021)

Celebrating forced birth

04 Saturday Dec 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Josh Hawley, social media, US Senate

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

abortion, forced birth, Josh Hawley, social media, Twitter, U.S. Supreme Court, Virginia

Josh Hawley (r) [2016 file photo].

Yesterday:

Josh Hawley @HawleyMO
The Justices are conferencing today in the #Dobbs case. Huge week for the right to life in America. I’m incredibly proud of my wife Erin and @ADFLegal for their work on this landmark case
11:48 AM · Dec 3, 2021

Some of the responses:

When do plan to introduce the Fugative Abortion-Seeking Law?

When Roe is overturned, won’t states have the the right to protect their “unborn”?

Then after we carry this child for nine months, we’ll leave the child at your doorstep. Just like Justice Amy said.

Not really sure I understand the logic of the Alliance Defending Freedom literally supporting the loss of freedom of womens rights for their own faux biblical gain, but its 2021 I guess anything can happen.

“War is peace” “Facts are fake” “Love is Hate” etc etc [….]

Too bad right to life doesn’t include kids at school when someone shows up with a gun.

How do you know that? Seems inappropriate. Can you explain Stare Decisis? Taking away women’s liberty is not something to be proud of.

Yay medieval times! [….]

If only you were pro-life….

Yes, landmark on the regression of our society imposed by a minority of the population.

I know you don’t live here anymore but I thought you should know that the government of the state that you represent suppressed information that showed that mask mandates save lives. If you are are so pro-life then why don’t you call for an investigation.

I wonder if Josh is having a rally anywhere so the women of America can go listen to him and tell him exactly how we feel.

You let your wife work? I thought you believed in biblical masculinity?

You’re a lucky man Josh. A woman working hard to limit women’s rights is a gal after every male Republican’s heart.

Abortions won’t stop. Rich women will still get safe ones. I wish you cared about all the citizens of Mo, just not your fan club.

You believe in the right to life, Josh? Very cool. Now do vaccinations and gun violence. Hurry up. Tick Tock.

Of course, after birth it’s a big FU from Republicans.

It’s not about life – you don’t care about life.

It’s a huge week for increasing your control over women, forcing them to bear children for you.

You should be ashamed.

#ResignHawley

I guess you’re going to be proud to see back alley abortions and women die from abortions because they’re not clean operating rooms and stuff. So yes great job [….] I guess all those raping incest victims will just have to live with their kid huh

Facist

Let’s make America 1900s again

Medieval.

Bless your heart, you’re so slow that you don’t even realized you aren’t even close to “right to life”- living, breathing kids are climbing out of classroom windows to stay alive and you don’t care so sit down and shut up

Huge week for fascist cult followers.

Liar, Jackboot Josh, you have never been a “life” proponet, only “Forced Birth”.

Nobody is taking your religious rights, speech rights, or any other rights. On the other hand, you and Repubs are trying to take away a woman’s rights, private business’s rights, and voting rights. You are a weasel.

Tell your wife that my business is not her business and to keep her nose out of it. Ok, mr insurrection?

No surprise.

HJR 28: forced birth

23 Wednesday Jan 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

abortion, forced birth, General Assembly, HJR 28, Mike Moon, unconstitutional

Nothing, not a word, about the death penalty or war.

Representative Mike Moon (2019 file photo).

Filed today by Representative Mike Moon (r):

FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 28 [pdf]
100TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE MOON. 0654H.02I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri an amendment repealing Section 2 of Article I of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section in lieu thereof relating to affirming life.

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, 2020, 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. Section 2, Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is repealed and one new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be known as Section 2, to read as follows:
Section 2. That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.
(1) That the term “person” under this constitution includes every human being, including every in utero human child at every stage of biological development from the moment of conception until birth.
(2) Nothing in this constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion.

Section B. Under section 116.155 and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state authorizing 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 shall be as follows:
“Should the Missouri Constitution be amended to protect pregnant women and children in the womb by recognizing that a child in the womb of a woman is a person with a right to life which cannot be deprived by state or private action without due process and equal protection of law?”.
Section C. Under section 116.155 and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state authorizing the general assembly to adopt a fiscal note summary for the submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official fiscal note summary of the amendment proposed by section A shall be as follows:
“This change is expected to have no fiscal impact.”

Yep, it’s only about forced birth.

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 775,156 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...