Annual inspections of abortion clinics, pre-empting St. Louis ord. part of proposal

[GMDino]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-house-advances-tougher-abortion-restrictions/article_95d3182d-f65b-56ea-8a9d-e7b7e1b0ab1e.html

Quote:JEFFERSON CITY • Abortion restrictions at the center of a second special session called by Gov. Eric Greitens are one step closer to his desk, but they could still face significant hurdles in the Senate.



The Missouri House on Tuesday passed a stricter, more comprehensive proposal than the one senators passed last week. House members acted days after the governor’s top policy adviser called on them to “substantially improve” the Senate’s version.


The underlying bill pre-empts a St. Louis ordinance that bans employers and landlords from discriminating against women who have had an abortion, use contraceptives or are pregnant. Abortion rights opponents have argued, despite religious exemptions in the bill, that it could infringe on the free speech rights of facilities that counsel pregnant women against abortion.

Additionally, the measure mandates annual inspections of abortion clinics and tougher regulations for submitting fetal tissue to pathologists.


The House plan goes further to answer the governor’s call, banning abortion clinic staffers from requesting that ambulances responding to medical emergencies at their facilities avoid using sirens or flashing lights. It also gives Missouri’s attorney general the ability to prosecute violations of abortion laws without notifying local prosecutors, and requires doctors to inform women of the medical risks of an abortion 72 hours before the procedure.


Amending the bill all but guarantees the special session — costing taxpayers roughly $20,000 each day — will stretch into a third week next week so the Senate can consider the changes.


There, its future is less certain. Senate leaders have admitted their chamber’s more lenient proposal only made it through after intense, behind-the-scenes negotiations, with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle arguing the issue didn’t warrant an extraordinary session and was instead a tactic to bolster Greitens’ conservative credentials.


“This feels like a political stunt to many of us,” said Rep. Peter Merideth, D-St. Louis, on Tuesday. “It’s being sold as an effort to show how pro-life the governor is.”


House Speaker Todd Richardson, R-Poplar Bluff, disputed that notion.


“The fact that we’ve got a governor who is willing to engage and work on these issues has been positive and helpful,” Richardson said.


The arguments surrounding the proposed restrictions are familiar ones.


Republicans have long insisted regulations on abortion providers protect the health of women by ensuring the procedure is performed in safe, clean facilities. Democrats contend that restrictions in Missouri have become so stringent that few providers can meet them, with the Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis currently the only facility providing abortion in Missouri.

The GOP-led Missouri Legislature routinely writes laws limiting access to abortions, two of which were struck down by a federal judge in April. Citing a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, U.S. District Judge Howard Sachs blocked Missouri requirements for the state’s abortion clinics to meet standards for surgical centers and for their doctors to have hospital privileges.


That ruling was one inspiration for Greitens to call a second special session in his first year serving as Missouri’s chief executive.


Richardson said he was confident the state would prevail if the current bill becomes law and was challenged. But Democrats said they expected a court to eventually overrule the new restrictions, too, should they make it across the finish line this summer.



“The same thing will happen with this bill,” said Rep. Stacey Newman, D-St. Louis. “You already know this is going straight to litigation.”

[GMDino]

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2017-05-03/women-dressed-in-handmaids-tale-garb-protest-at-capitol

Quote:EFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Eleven women dressed in costumes from the television show "The Handmaid's Tale" are drawing attention in the Missouri Capitol as they protest a proposal aimed at limiting abortion funding.

The women on Wednesday walked through the Statehouse in red capes and white bonnets like those worn in the show.

The series is based on a Margaret Atwood novel about a totalitarian society in which human rights are trampled and women are treated as property.

One protester carried a sign that said "'The Handmaid's Tale' is not an instruction manual."

The budget proposal in the Republican-controlled Missouri Legislature would end funding for health care centers that provide abortions or refer women elsewhere to receive abortions not necessary to save mothers' lives.

Lawmakers have until Friday to pass a budget.

[*michaelsean*]

I have a question. Landlord's and abortion and contraception? How does that even come up?

And ambulances on emergency runs should use lights and sirens. They are there for a reason.

[Benton]

(06-23-2017, 09:14 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I have a question. Landlord's and abortion and contraception? How does that even come up?

And ambulances on emergency runs should use lights and sirens. They are there for a reason.

It's lumped in together. Employers are the big issue as they could know about all three and, depending on their personal beliefs, opt not to keep/hire an employee. The landlord, I'm guessing, was added primarily for the pregnancy issue. But it's simpler to keep the language the same and not have a separate bill.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-23-2017, 09:35 AM)Benton Wrote: It's lumped in together. Employers are the big issue as they could know about all three and, depending on their personal beliefs, opt not to keep/hire an employee. The landlord, I'm guessing, was added primarily for the pregnancy issue. But it's simpler to keep the language the same and not have a separate bill.

Ahhhhh

[*michaelsean*]

(06-22-2017, 06:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2017-05-03/women-dressed-in-handmaids-tale-garb-protest-at-capitol

I'm having a hard time seeing the connection between The Handmaiden's Tale and limiting funding for abortion.

[GMDino]

(06-23-2017, 09:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm having a hard time seeing the connection between The Handmaiden's Tale and limiting funding for abortion.

The way I take some women feel that a group of men trying to make a legal reproductive right illegal or incredibly hard to get is similar to the fictional tale where women are treated as property that have no control over their own bodies.

A stretch? Yes.

However allowing business owners to hire/fire/not hire based on the promiscuity of the applicant seems to be pushing the limits also.  

IMHO it's a shame they had to pass a resolution to STOP that from happening in the first place.

Single woman get's pregnant.  Applies for a job and is turned down because that goes against the beliefs of the owner/boss. Gets govt assistance while looking for a job and is called a welfare queen who is too lazy to work.  Finds a job that pays less and still needs food stamps only to see those cut because the GOP wants to put the pride back in working.  Then they cut Head Start, school lunch programs, education funding, etc...and the cycle starts all over again.

Again, just my humble opinion.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-23-2017, 10:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: The way I take some women feel that a group of men trying to make a legal reproductive right illegal or incredibly hard to get is similar to the fictional tale where women are treated as property that have no control over their own bodies.

A stretch? Yes.

However allowing business owners to hire/fire/not hire based on the promiscuity of the applicant seems to be pushing the limits also.  

IMHO it's a shame they had to pass a resolution to STOP that from happening in the first place.

Single woman get's pregnant.  Applies for a job and is turned down because that goes against the beliefs of the owner/boss. Gets govt assistance while looking for a job and is called a welfare queen who is too lazy to work.  Finds a job that pays less and still needs food stamps only to see those cut because the GOP wants to put the pride back in working. Then they cut Head Start, school lunch programs, education funding, etc...and the cycle starts all over again.

Again, just my humble opinion.

I get that part.  I mean my real belief is that you should be able to hire who you want for whatever reason you want, but I understand that doesn't work in real life.

[GMDino]

(06-23-2017, 10:10 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I get that part.  I mean my real belief is that you should be able to hire who you want for whatever reason you want, but I understand that doesn't work in real life.

It's just always seemed to me that you hire the person that can do the job the way your want/the right way (not always the same I've found).

If you are willing to train them that expands the people you can hire.

If you are basing your hiring on race, creed, sex, etc it just seems wrong.  

I am against premarital sex.  One of my holdovers from my Catholic upbringing and real world observations.  But I'd never refuse to higher someone who was  a single parent just for that reason.  

I suppose that is part of the frustration I feel with these constant and redundant attempts to write a law that THIS TIME will be found constitutional while taking away someone's right.  Even as I disagree with abortion.