• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: Mary Elizabeth Coleman

HB 2424: Covid Mary

14 Friday Jan 2022

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anti-science, anti-vaccine, Corona virus, COVID-19, General Assembly, HB 2424, Mary Elizabeth Coleman, missouri, pandemic, right wingnut

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

A bill, introduced on January 12th:

HB 2424
Prohibits a court from denying or limiting parental visitation because a parent is not vaccinated against COVID-19
Sponsor: Coleman, Mary Elizabeth (097)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 5176H.01I
Last Action: 01/13/2022 – Read Second Time (H)
Bill String: HB 2424
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 2424 [pdf]
101ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN (97).
5176H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 452.400, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to
visitation rights.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Section 452.400, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 452.400, to read as follows:

[….]

…The court shall not deny or limit visitation to the parent not granted custody because of the parent’s COVID-19 vaccination status…

[….]

What could possibly go wrong?

Previously:

HB 1987: apparently 1984 was already taken (December 16, 2021)

The reason for the season? (December 26, 2021)

HB 1993: and you’ll have to wear a brown shirt while you’re driving on it (December 28, 2021)

HB 1993: and you’ll have to wear a brown shirt while you’re driving on it

28 Tuesday Dec 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Donald Trump, Fascist pig, General Assembly, Grifter, HB 1993, infrastructure week, Mary Elizabeth Coleman, missouri, right wingnut

Wasting time.

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

A bill, prefiled on December 16th:

HB 1993
Designates the “Donald J Trump Highway” in Jefferson County
Sponsor: Coleman, Mary Elizabeth (097)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 3695H.01I
Last Action: 12/16/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1993
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The bill text:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1993 [pdf]
101ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN (97).
3695H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 227, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the designation of a highway.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 227, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 227.487, to read as follows:
227.487. The portion of Interstate 55 from State Highway 141 continuing south to Richardson Road in Jefferson County shall be designated the “Donald J Trump Highway”. The department of transportation shall erect and maintain appropriate signs designating such highway, with the costs to be paid by private donations.

It’ll be located in between the Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco segments of the highway.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Once they put in toll booths the former guy’s take from the skim should be fairly lucrative.

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)

Keeping it classy

03 Wednesday Nov 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House, social media

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

General Assembly, Mary Elizabeth Coleman, missouri, right wingnut, social media, Twitter

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

Last night:

MaryElizabethColeman @meaccoleman
Brandon seems to have had a great night.
10:06 PM · Nov 2, 2021

Too clever by half.

Aunt Lydia

03 Friday Sep 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri House, social media

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

abortion, anti-choice, Aunt Lydia, General Assembly, Mary Elizabeth Coleman, missouri, social media, Texas, Twitter

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

Today:

MaryElizabethColeman @meaccoleman
The architects of #hb126 are confident the 8th cir will uphold #MissouriStandsForTheUnborn. We commit that we will take advantage of every opportunity to ensure Missouri’s unborn receive the same protection as babies in Texas @NickBSchroer @adamSchnelting @Koenig4MO @elijahhaahr
6:55 AM · Sep 3, 2021

Some of the comments:

What is your plan for all of these unwanted babies? Does Betsy Devos need some new product to sell?

A modest proposal.

You have no concern for these “babies.” We are not fools.

What would stop you? Even when we vote on things in this state the extreme right blatantly disregards it. So what’s the point. Do whatever you want.

What are you doing for living children? I’ll wait.

Y’all are begging for backlash. Good

Aunt Lydia, will you make sure our kids are fed once they’re out of the womb? [….]

Why do you hate women and want to hurt born children?

You must take great pleasure putting your boot in the neck of young women. The Aunt Lydia of Missouri.

Don’t let anyone tell you this is about abortion! It is anti-intellectualism at its core. Terrorize and intimidate the doctors, scientists, teachers is the fascist playbook. If this were about stopping abortion, the conversation would be about birth control and sex education.

What about the born? History books won’t mention you by name because you aren’t significant, but your movement will be treated harshly. You represent everything that is wrong with our society, enjoy being lumped in with Prohibitionist and other quack groups, ya zealot.

You’re all horrible people and gigantic, embarrassing hypocrites. If you care so much about the unborn, you should try giving a shit about them after they’re born by working to prevent gun violence and poverty. How about not destroying public education?

They consider that a feature, not a bug.

You are an embarrassment and a shame to all women and all Missourians. You are one sad, sick individual if you put clumps of cells before living, breathing women and children. Reexamine your life and your choices, they are extremely bad ones.

We see what you did there.

Oh look, another white woman standing up for the patriarchy. They’ll turn on you in a heartbeat when they no longer have a use for you. Stand up for women and girls, you drunken clown. [….]

Pre 1973 2021 medical equipment.

Previously:

Susan Collins (r) weighs in (September 1, 2021)

Always there (September 1, 2021)

Here we are (September 2, 2021)

Where we’re going (September 2, 2021)

Privatize everything

29 Sunday Aug 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Afghanistan, General Assembly, Mary Elizabeth Coleman, missouri, right wingnut, social media, Twitter

Because that has always worked out so well.

Blackwater founder Erik Prince wants to charge $6,500 per seat on a chartered evacuation flight out of Kabul
Eliza Relman Aug 25, 2021, 10:53 AM
[….]

This evening:

MaryElizabethColeman @meaccoleman
I’d like everyone to remember the private planes and citizens who have come to the rescue of Americans and our allies the next time someone promises a government program as the solution to a problem.
7:01 PM · Aug 29, 2021

Apparently air traffic control, site logistics, and perimeter security, just to name a few, aren’t necessary during an evacuation of non-combatants.

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

Update:

When you find yourself in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging.

“…rescue of Americans and our allies…” That’s not about a hurricane on the Gulf Coast.

Nevertheless, the digging continues:

MaryElizabethColeman @meaccoleman
See also:#CajunNavy
[….]
9:47 PM · Aug 29, 2021

“Cajun Navy”? Afghanistan is landlocked, in case anyone was wondering.

If you take the health care out of Medicaid, is it still Medicaid?

25 Friday Jun 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Federal Reimbursement Allowance, FRA, General Assembly, Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Medicaid, missouri, Special Session

Uh, no.

During the latest regular legislative session the right wingnut controlled Missouri General Assembly failed to continue the legislation enabling the previously non-controversial Federal Reimbursement Allowance [FRA] program for Missouri.

There is a looming deadline for legislation to implement the program before it impacts Medicaid and forces cuts in other general revenue funded areas.

Governor Mike Parson (r) called a special session of the General Assembly in attempt to deal with the mess. The General Assembly is now in that special session.

The Red Lily, Anatole France

…For the poor it consists in sustaining and preserving the wealthy in their power and their laziness. The poor must work for this, in presence of the majestic quality of the law which prohibits the wealthy as well as the poor from sleeping under the bridges, from begging in the streets, and from stealing bread…

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

Today:

MaryElizabethColeman @meaccoleman
For the record. No one is talking about banning contraception. There is discussion about tax payers NOT buying them. I can’t imagine there is anything the left doesn’t want the government to pay for.
10:26 AM · Jun 25, 2021

Some of the responses:

For the record, you cannot stop the Government from paying for healthcare, including Birth Control. This is all a scam on pro life voters.
Also for the record, birth control, by far, the best way to prevent abortions & is extremely cost effective for the gov’t; saves huge $$.

Birth control is a mandatory medical service under Mo Health net, as funded by Federal Medicaid $$.

What’s next? Republicans decide taxpayers shouldn’t pay for insulin? Blood pressure meds? Where does this stop?

Actually, they want nothing at all.

What’s next is other meds/conditions that only impact women. The goal is to subjugate women. No medical necessary hysterectomies, no mammograms, no Pap smears. Republicans will keep trying to control women.

For the record, it’s just that we understand basic economics: Birth control is cheaper than unplanned kids.

How does “only” banning it for people only on Medicaid make what you’re saying any better?

You want taxpayers to shoulder the burden of lawsuits that will arise when police in our state try to enforce federal gun laws, get sued for it, and then sue the state in return.

Likewise, your contempt for most life is readily apparent in your desire to milk as many pregnancies out of low-income women as possible and then callously ignore the healthcare needs of both them and their babies. Single moms can only make $3000 to qualify for Medicaid as is 1/2

2/2 and you would deny them even that unless your bizarre and unfounded grudge against contraception is made into a law that will never be viable anyway. You are running for State Senate on phony pro-life gesturing.

For the record the issue is the RIGHT trying to remove common medical care coverage in place for decades essentially banning covered contraceptive care & medication used to treat endometriosis. I can’t imagine there’s any reproductive healthcare the RIGHT would willingly pay for.

Every single study shows the countries with the fewest abortions are those that provide taxpayer funded healthcare with a broad range of contraceptive options. You’re anti-abortion? Covering contraceptives & providing great pre-natal care is the way to achieve this.

Meanwhile, we are NOW, because of the obstinance of THE RIGHT, talking about no Medicaid coverage at all. Who does that hurt? Mother’s, children, and you know what? It hurts YOU the taxpayer. Missouri insurance plans go up. Hospital bills go up. Our tax $ doesn’t go as far.

So, Mary Elizabeth, don’t even begin to come at THE LEFT when 89% of all Americans approves of birth control, even Catholics use birth control, and the taxpayers at large are THRILLED to pay this fractional amount to cover this form of healthcare.

Birth control is healthcare. I pay for yours if you choose/need so. And I don’t quibble over what’s covered or not. Same for someone on Medicaid. Every woman deserves that right to make those healthcare decisions.

Mary doesn’t want to share that she and her family want full access to all of these services and privacy to make those decisions but ultimately her goal is to take that right from Missouri women. We see your long game Coleman and we call BS.

Also I can pretty much guarantee that “the left” doesn’t want a single penny of Missouri revenue going to make the state a theocracy

Nice try. When you can’t afford something, you can’t access it. It’s a ban on contraception. Your party needs to stop treating Americans like dumb-dumbs.

This logic she is playing here is absolutely dangerous. Coleman knows better. This logic can be used as to ban other medical options and treatment plans. This is not limited government. This is a violation of people’s freedom to a safe and healthy life.

You’re an embarrassment

For the record you are narrow minded and short sighted.

Previously:

Now what? (June 22, 2021)

HB 964 and HB 971: the “Gish Gallop” of legislation

20 Wednesday Feb 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

abortion, Doug Richey, General Assembly, HB 964, HB 971, Mary Elizabeth Coleman, missouri

Pre 1973 medical instruments.

They keep throwing bills against the wall to see if anything sticks. Rinse. Repeat.

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

A bill, introduced by Representative Mary Alice Coleman (r) on Monday:

HB 964
Requires the use of a fetal heartbeat detection test prior to an abortion and prohibits an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected
Sponsor: Coleman, Mary Elizabeth (097)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2116H.01I
Last Action: 02/19/2019 – Read Second Time (H)
Bill String: HB 964
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The bill summary [pdf]:

HB 964 — FETAL HEARTBEAT DETECTION
SPONSOR: Coleman (97)

This bill specifies that a physician shall not perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman without first performing a fetal heartbeat detection test. Except in cases of medical emergency, a physician shall not perform or induce an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected and shall inform the woman, in writing, that such abortion cannot be performed or induced. If a fetal heartbeat is not detected, an abortion may be performed or induced, in accordance with applicable law, so long as the abortion is performed or induced within 96 hours of the fetal heartbeat detection test. If more than 96 hours have passed since the fetal heartbeat detection test, the physician shall perform a new test prior to an abortion.

The physician shall record the estimated gestational age of the unborn child as well as the time, date, method, and results of the fetal heartbeat detection test in the woman’s medical record and in the abortion report submitted to the Department of Health and Senior Services.

Any physician who fails to perform a fetal heartbeat detection test prior to the performance or inducement of an abortion shall be subject to having his or her medical license rejected, revoked, or suspended for six months and shall pay a $1,000 fine. Any physician who performs or induces an abortion following the detection of a fetal heartbeat shall have his or her license revoked and any future license application denied. Any woman upon whom an abortion is performed or induced in violation of these provisions shall not be prosecuted for a conspiracy to violate these provisions.

This bill is the same as HB 126 (2019).

“…This bill is the same as HB 126 (2019).” Then what’s the point?

In Iowa:

Iowa ‘fetal heartbeat’ abortion restriction declared unconstitutional, struck down by Polk County judge
Tony Leys, Des Moines Register Published 4:23 p.m. CT Jan. 22, 2019 | Updated 7:13 p.m. CT Jan. 22, 2019

Iowa’s “fetal heartbeat” law — the most restrictive abortion limit in the country — violates Iowa Constitution and may not be enforced, a state judge ruled Tuesday.

In his decision striking down the abortion law, Polk County District Judge Michael Huppert cited the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling last year in a challenge to a different abortion-restriction law. The high court held that “a woman’s right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy is a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution” in that ruling.

[….]

The law would ban nearly all abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Critics of the law said that can occur about six weeks into a pregnancy and often before a woman realizes she’s pregnant.

[….]

And, a bill, introduced by Representative Doug Richey (r) on Monday:

HB 971
Establishes the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”
Sponsor: Richey, Doug (038)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2103H.01I
Last Action: 02/19/2019 – Read Second Time (H)
Bill String: HB 971
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

From the bill text [pdf]:

[….]
2. Whoever knowingly causes the death of a child who was born alive during or immediately after an attempted abortion shall be guilty of murder in the second degree under section 565.021.
3. Whoever recklessly causes the death of a child who was born alive during or immediately after an attempted abortion shall be guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree under section 565.024.
4. Whoever, with criminal negligence, causes the death of a child who was born alive during or immediately after an attempted abortion shall be guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the second degree under section 565.027.
[….]

Before 1973.

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

HB 680: yet another forced birth bill

27 Sunday Jan 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

abortion, anti choice, General Assembly, HB 680, Mary Elizabeth Coleman

A grand legislative strategy – keep throwing stuff against the wall to see if something sticks.

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

Last week Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman (r) introduced yet another anti choice bill:

HB 680
Establishes the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”
Sponsor: Coleman, Mary Elizabeth (097)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 1651H.01I
Last Action: 01/24/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HB 680
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

The bill summary:

HB 680 — PAIN CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD ACT [pdf]
SPONSOR: Coleman (97)

This bill establishes the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” which specifies that no abortion may be performed or induced, or attempted to be performed or induced if the probable gestational age of the fetus has been determined by a physician to have reached the pain capable gestational age, unless it is necessary to avert the patient’s death or serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function. The physician must terminate such pregnancy in a manner which provides the best opportunity for the fetus to survive unless doing so would pose a greater risk of death or substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function to the patient.

Any physician who performs or induces an abortion shall report certain information, as specified in the bill, to the Department of Health and Senior Services. Beginning June 30, 2019, the department must issue a statistical report of reported information during the previous calendar year.

Any physician or other licensed medical practitioner who intentionally or recklessly performs or induces an abortion in violation of this bill is subject to discipline from the appropriate licensure board.

This bill is the same as HB 339 and HB 1266 (2018).

“…This bill is the same as HB 339 and HB 1266 (2018).”

Ah, the right wingnut caucus is passing out leftovers for the freshmen.

Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Anything else going on?
  • Cass County Democrats – Back to Blue Dinner – Belton, Missouri – April 25, 2026
  • About that ratio
  • “Show me your papers. Pull down your pants.”
  • Never met a Fascist conspiracy theory he didn’t like

Recent Comments

Uh, in case you were… on Some right wingnuts with money…
Winning at losing… on Passing the gas – Donald…
TACO Tuesday | Show… on TACO or Mushrooms?
TACO Tuesday | Show… on So much winning
So much winning | Sh… on Passing the gas – Donald…

Archives

  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • 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
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

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

  • 1,043,146 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...