Missouri's Governor Continues His Attempts to Impress the Right

Elspode · 09-04-2005, 02:35 PM

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...ntent=ksc_news

This is a typical ploy...to try and get at abortion by doing senseless things to the law that make them harder to get, without actually making them illegal (but making them illegal is coming, don't you doubt it).

Once the Right has nullified abortion rights, it won't be long before they start making sex out of wedlock illegal, too.

-----------------------------------------------

Special session of General Assembly

Abortion limits are on the table

By TIM HOOVER

The Kansas City Star

JEFFERSON CITY — If Missouri lawmakers give Gov. Matt Blunt what he wants in a special session starting Tuesday, Michelle Turner-Collins says abortion services in Springfield may become non-existent.

“The effect could potentially close our facility, thereby causing more stress and financial burden on women in Missouri,” said Turner-Collins, administrator of the Springfield Healthcare Center, the only abortion provider in southwest Missouri.

In what some consider a risky political move, Blunt has called lawmakers back to the Capitol to again consider legislation that would make it harder to get abortions in Missouri. He’s also asking legislators to fix problems in laws dealing with workers’ compensation, underage drinking parties and the posting of information about public officials on the Internet.

On the issue of abortion, Blunt has directed lawmakers to again consider a proposal that would require physicians to have privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic where they perform abortions. Another of Blunt’s proposed abortion restrictions would prohibit anyone from helping a pregnant girl under 18 travel to another state to obtain an abortion without a parent’s consent. Kansas already has a similar law.

Abortion rights supporters have said the first proposal is aimed at making it harder to get abortions at clinics in Springfield and Columbia, which use doctors from Kansas City and St. Louis.

Officials with a clinic in Columbia said the measure would have a minimal effect there, because one doctor already has privileges with a local hospital and another is attempting to obtain them.

The proposed restriction, though, could have a direct effect on Turner-Collins’ clinic. The physician who works at her clinic is from St. Louis and has privileges at four other hospitals in Missouri and Illinois, but not in Springfield.

She said her agency is trying to obtain local privileges for its doctor, but that takes time and requires the physician to serve a rotation at the local hospital. If the proposal becomes law, it could at least temporarily force women to go to Columbia or St. Louis for abortion services. The only abortion provider in the Kansas City area is in Overland Park. Turner-Collins said her clinic provides abortion services for about 1,500 women a year. Many come from southwest Missouri, but also from Oklahoma, Arkansas and Kansas, she said.

Regular session failure

Blunt called the special session after the two proposed restrictions failed during the regular legislative session. House leaders complained that a Senate bill had become unwieldy and overloaded with wide-ranging anti-abortion provisions. Blunt’s support of a slimmed-down anti-abortion bill only fueled an already existing dispute he had with Missouri Right to Life, one of the state’s most powerful anti-abortion groups and a leading opponent of embryonic stem cell research.

The governor supports embryonic stem cell research, and his position has sparked a summer-long feud with Missouri Right to Life, with each publicly attacking the other. Some Democratic and Republican lawmakers say Blunt is attempting to make amends with abortion opponents by calling the special session. But there is also a risk for him, some say.

If abortion rights supporters manage to stall the special legislation long enough, proponents might give up, and then Blunt will have gained nothing for all the taxpayer money spent on the session, a sum that could top $100,000.

There is also the possibility that a proposed ban on embryonic stem cell research will come up during debate, something that has divided Republicans all year.

Blunt’s narrowly worded directive to lawmakers for the special session does not include addressing stem cell research, but opponents of the research may try to talk about it anyway or attach amendments to the abortion legislation — even though such actions might be ruled out of order.

“It’s possible but not likely,” said Sen. Matt Bartle, a Lee’s Summit Republican who has been the chief opponent of embryonic stem cell research in the legislature. “I’m not willing to say I’m not going to raise it.”

Even a successful outcome for Blunt in the special session may not mend fences with Missouri Right to Life.

“The governor continues to support embryonic research,” said Susan Klein, legislative liaison for Missouri Right to Life. “Obviously, we’ll still be at odds. We’ll continue to tell the public the truth.”

Potential override

There is also some talk among Republicans of attempting to override Blunt’s veto of $227,000 for Alzheimer’s disease research at the University of Missouri. Blunt said the money was outside the mission of the Department of Higher Education.

Rep. Bob Johnson, a Lee’s Summit Republican who sponsored legislation in the late 1980s to start the Alzheimer’s research funding, said Blunt’s veto was a mistake.

“I think if the Alzheimer’s issue is raised, it will be overridden,” Johnson said.

Other Republicans discounted that possibility, saying their party likely will stick with Blunt.

Rep. Brian Baker, a Belton Republican, said he had heard complaints about the cut in Alzheimer’s research funding. Several lawmakers, he said, have relatives who have the disease and believe the state ought to work toward a cure.

He expects discussion of that veto and perhaps other funding cuts Blunt made.

“We should discuss these things because we shouldn’t just follow the governor blindly,” Baker said. “…It could come to a vote.”

But the legislature has overridden a governor’s veto — which takes a two-thirds majority vote — only 10 times in state history. Baker said this year’s vetoes haven’t generated that kind of opposition.

“I don’t know that what the governor did would generate 109 votes,” he said. “Besides, we can always come back next year and decide to put the money back in. It’s not as if he cut $500 million from schools.”

The special session could continue through Sept. 14, when the regular veto session starts. Vetoes can only be overridden during the veto session.

The Senate’s costs for the special session, scheduled to begin Tuesday, could be more than $15,000, depending on how many days senators are at the Capitol.

Most House members, meanwhile, won’t show up until Sept. 13. Only a small number of lawmakers will meet in committees and leadership meetings from Tuesday through Friday.

House officials estimated special session costs as high as $80,000, including mileage and expenses for five days and printing and staff costs.

Because most House members are not scheduled to show up the first week, the cost could be significantly smaller than $80,000. But if lawmakers bog down in debate over abortion and other issues for longer than five days, the costs could be greater.

wolf · 09-04-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by article

On the issue of abortion, Blunt has directed lawmakers to again consider a proposal that would require physicians to have privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic where they perform abortions. Another of Blunt’s proposed abortion restrictions would prohibit anyone from helping a pregnant girl under 18 travel to another state to obtain an abortion without a parent’s consent. Kansas already has a similar law.

I don't see a problem with either specification ... given than an abortion clinic is NOT a hospital, and that sometimes medical procedures performed outside of a hospital might result in complications that are beyond that facility's ability to manage, it only makes sense to have a physician who has privileges at a nearby hospital doing the work ... this can actually streamline the process of getting necessary medical services for the patient. If a physician is not eligible for privileges at a hospital (that means they are allowed to provide treatment services there), why should they be performing a surgical procedure outside of one?

I don't have a problem with parental notification, either. Abortion is a medical procedure. A child under the age of 18 cannot consent to medical treatment in an emergency. A school nurse can't remove a splinter without parental consent. Why should any elective medical procedure be treated differently?

Elspode · 09-04-2005, 06:25 PM

I'm sure that public health concerns are all that is behind this, although, frankly, Blunt's cutting of thousands of elderly, disabled and poor from the Missouri Medicaid program would not seem to indicate that public health is an overriding concern of his. Blunt's tenure in office so far would seem to me to be much more in line with trying to impress the Right on a national level.

Brett's Honey · 09-04-2005, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspode

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...ntent=ksc_news
This is a typical ploy...to try and get at abortion by doing senseless things to the law that make them harder to get, without actually making them illegal (but making them illegal is coming, don't you doubt it).
Once the Right has nullified abortion rights, it won't be long before they start making sex out of wedlock illegal, too.---------------------------------------------

I'll probably reget this but.... - sex is a consensual action and abortion is not. Abortion involves taking a life, and I'll be the first to admit that I do have more of a problem with it when it is a few months into the pregnancy. I just don't think that abortion issues are that reaching of an issue, to reach into sex out of wedlock.

Brett's Honey · 09-04-2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspode

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...ntent=ksc_news
This is a typical ploy...to try and get at abortion by doing senseless things to the law that make them harder to get, without actually making them illegal (but making them illegal is coming, don't you doubt it).
Once the Right has nullified abortion rights, it won't be long before they start making sex out of wedlock illegal, too.---------------------------------------------

I'll probably regret this but.... - sex is a consensual action and abortion is not. Abortion involves taking a life, and I'll be the first to admit that I do have more of a problem with it when it is a few months into the pregnancy. I just don't think that the abortion issue is that reaching of an issue, to reach into sex out of wedlock.

Brett's Honey · 09-04-2005, 07:33 PM

One guy I used to work with voiced it this way - "I beleive in a woman's right to choose - and she makes that choice as soon as she spreads her legs."
I. personally have never had a problem with birth control. I may be predjudiced since it has always worked for me!

warch · 09-04-2005, 07:40 PM

Keeping an eye on birth control....

What do y'all think about "Pharmacists for Life" who lobby state gov. the right to refuse to fill a Drs. written prescription for federally legal birth control pills for an adult woman as a matter of their conscience?

richlevy · 09-04-2005, 07:55 PM

I guess the real problem is that hospitals can voluntarily refuse to grant privileges or be coerced into denying them, just as hospitals have stopped performing abortions. The law doesn't say anything about forcing hospitals to grant privileges.

Abortion clinics are under siege, and this can allow pro-life groups to cut off the clinics by taking aim at the hospitals which have a severe aversion to risk and controversy.

It's a smart, cowardly move.

Brett's Honey · 09-04-2005, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warch

Keeping an eye on birth control....

What do y'all think about "Pharmacists for Life" who lobby state gov. the right to refuse to fill a Drs. written prescription for federally legal birth control pills for an adult woman as a matter of their conscience?

I think they should fill the prescription.

Clodfobble · 09-04-2005, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

If a physician is not eligible for privileges at a hospital (that means they are allowed to provide treatment services there), why should they be performing a surgical procedure outside of one?

I thought these doctors did have privileges at a hospital, but it was a hospital more than 30 miles away--these doctors were basically traveling a large distance to provide abortions to the area.

Elspode · 09-05-2005, 12:30 AM

My major point here is that the change in the law is not being sought for any other purpose than to further hamper the availability of abortions. To say otherwise is being disingenuous.

I don't have a big problem with the parental consent issue, because as the parent of a minor child, I want to be involved in what is going on, as is my parental right.

NICOTINEGUN · 09-05-2005, 05:50 AM

What is wrong with having the baby and giving it up for adoption? I don't understand why people are so concerned with the Death Penalty and prisoners rights but when it comes to killing a baby they're all for it, "Unwanted babies need a good killin." I don't believe in abortion. I think the woman should have the child and give it up if she doesn't want it. Besides, the baby could live and some family could have the opportunity to screw up being good parents.

Dagney · 09-05-2005, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warch

Keeping an eye on birth control....

What do y'all think about "Pharmacists for Life" who lobby state gov. the right to refuse to fill a Drs. written prescription for federally legal birth control pills for an adult woman as a matter of their conscience?

Considering that not _all_ birth control pill prescriptions are used for birth control, I don't think it's a pharmacist's right to judge on what a customer can or cannot have.

09-04-2005, 02:35 PM	#1
Elspode When Do I Get Virtual Unreality? Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Raytown, Missouri Posts: 12,719	Missouri's Governor Continues His Attempts to Impress the Right http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...ntent=ksc_news This is a typical ploy...to try and get at abortion by doing senseless things to the law that make them harder to get, without actually making them illegal (but making them illegal is coming, don't you doubt it). Once the Right has nullified abortion rights, it won't be long before they start making sex out of wedlock illegal, too. ----------------------------------------------- Special session of General Assembly Abortion limits are on the table By TIM HOOVER The Kansas City Star JEFFERSON CITY — If Missouri lawmakers give Gov. Matt Blunt what he wants in a special session starting Tuesday, Michelle Turner-Collins says abortion services in Springfield may become non-existent. “The effect could potentially close our facility, thereby causing more stress and financial burden on women in Missouri,” said Turner-Collins, administrator of the Springfield Healthcare Center, the only abortion provider in southwest Missouri. In what some consider a risky political move, Blunt has called lawmakers back to the Capitol to again consider legislation that would make it harder to get abortions in Missouri. He’s also asking legislators to fix problems in laws dealing with workers’ compensation, underage drinking parties and the posting of information about public officials on the Internet. On the issue of abortion, Blunt has directed lawmakers to again consider a proposal that would require physicians to have privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic where they perform abortions. Another of Blunt’s proposed abortion restrictions would prohibit anyone from helping a pregnant girl under 18 travel to another state to obtain an abortion without a parent’s consent. Kansas already has a similar law. Abortion rights supporters have said the first proposal is aimed at making it harder to get abortions at clinics in Springfield and Columbia, which use doctors from Kansas City and St. Louis. Officials with a clinic in Columbia said the measure would have a minimal effect there, because one doctor already has privileges with a local hospital and another is attempting to obtain them. The proposed restriction, though, could have a direct effect on Turner-Collins’ clinic. The physician who works at her clinic is from St. Louis and has privileges at four other hospitals in Missouri and Illinois, but not in Springfield. She said her agency is trying to obtain local privileges for its doctor, but that takes time and requires the physician to serve a rotation at the local hospital. If the proposal becomes law, it could at least temporarily force women to go to Columbia or St. Louis for abortion services. The only abortion provider in the Kansas City area is in Overland Park. Turner-Collins said her clinic provides abortion services for about 1,500 women a year. Many come from southwest Missouri, but also from Oklahoma, Arkansas and Kansas, she said. Regular session failure Blunt called the special session after the two proposed restrictions failed during the regular legislative session. House leaders complained that a Senate bill had become unwieldy and overloaded with wide-ranging anti-abortion provisions. Blunt’s support of a slimmed-down anti-abortion bill only fueled an already existing dispute he had with Missouri Right to Life, one of the state’s most powerful anti-abortion groups and a leading opponent of embryonic stem cell research. The governor supports embryonic stem cell research, and his position has sparked a summer-long feud with Missouri Right to Life, with each publicly attacking the other. Some Democratic and Republican lawmakers say Blunt is attempting to make amends with abortion opponents by calling the special session. But there is also a risk for him, some say. If abortion rights supporters manage to stall the special legislation long enough, proponents might give up, and then Blunt will have gained nothing for all the taxpayer money spent on the session, a sum that could top $100,000. There is also the possibility that a proposed ban on embryonic stem cell research will come up during debate, something that has divided Republicans all year. Blunt’s narrowly worded directive to lawmakers for the special session does not include addressing stem cell research, but opponents of the research may try to talk about it anyway or attach amendments to the abortion legislation — even though such actions might be ruled out of order. “It’s possible but not likely,” said Sen. Matt Bartle, a Lee’s Summit Republican who has been the chief opponent of embryonic stem cell research in the legislature. “I’m not willing to say I’m not going to raise it.” Even a successful outcome for Blunt in the special session may not mend fences with Missouri Right to Life. “The governor continues to support embryonic research,” said Susan Klein, legislative liaison for Missouri Right to Life. “Obviously, we’ll still be at odds. We’ll continue to tell the public the truth.” Potential override There is also some talk among Republicans of attempting to override Blunt’s veto of $227,000 for Alzheimer’s disease research at the University of Missouri. Blunt said the money was outside the mission of the Department of Higher Education. Rep. Bob Johnson, a Lee’s Summit Republican who sponsored legislation in the late 1980s to start the Alzheimer’s research funding, said Blunt’s veto was a mistake. “I think if the Alzheimer’s issue is raised, it will be overridden,” Johnson said. Other Republicans discounted that possibility, saying their party likely will stick with Blunt. Rep. Brian Baker, a Belton Republican, said he had heard complaints about the cut in Alzheimer’s research funding. Several lawmakers, he said, have relatives who have the disease and believe the state ought to work toward a cure. He expects discussion of that veto and perhaps other funding cuts Blunt made. “We should discuss these things because we shouldn’t just follow the governor blindly,” Baker said. “…It could come to a vote.” But the legislature has overridden a governor’s veto — which takes a two-thirds majority vote — only 10 times in state history. Baker said this year’s vetoes haven’t generated that kind of opposition. “I don’t know that what the governor did would generate 109 votes,” he said. “Besides, we can always come back next year and decide to put the money back in. It’s not as if he cut $500 million from schools.” The special session could continue through Sept. 14, when the regular veto session starts. Vetoes can only be overridden during the veto session. The Senate’s costs for the special session, scheduled to begin Tuesday, could be more than $15,000, depending on how many days senators are at the Capitol. Most House members, meanwhile, won’t show up until Sept. 13. Only a small number of lawmakers will meet in committees and leadership meetings from Tuesday through Friday. House officials estimated special session costs as high as $80,000, including mileage and expenses for five days and printing and staff costs. Because most House members are not scheduled to show up the first week, the cost could be significantly smaller than $80,000. But if lawmakers bog down in debate over abortion and other issues for longer than five days, the costs could be greater. __________________ "To those of you who are wearing ties, I think my dad would appreciate it if you took them off." - Robert Moog

09-04-2005, 06:25 PM	#3
Elspode When Do I Get Virtual Unreality? Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Raytown, Missouri Posts: 12,719	I'm sure that public health concerns are all that is behind this, although, frankly, Blunt's cutting of thousands of elderly, disabled and poor from the Missouri Medicaid program would not seem to indicate that public health is an overriding concern of his. Blunt's tenure in office so far would seem to me to be much more in line with trying to impress the Right on a national level. __________________ "To those of you who are wearing ties, I think my dad would appreciate it if you took them off." - Robert Moog

09-04-2005, 07:55 PM	#8
richlevy King Of Wishful Thinking Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Philadelphia Suburbs Posts: 6,669	I guess the real problem is that hospitals can voluntarily refuse to grant privileges or be coerced into denying them, just as hospitals have stopped performing abortions. The law doesn't say anything about forcing hospitals to grant privileges. Abortion clinics are under siege, and this can allow pro-life groups to cut off the clinics by taking aim at the hospitals which have a severe aversion to risk and controversy. It's a smart, cowardly move. __________________ Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE! I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. -- Barack Hussein Obama

09-05-2005, 12:30 AM	#11
Elspode When Do I Get Virtual Unreality? Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Raytown, Missouri Posts: 12,719	My major point here is that the change in the law is not being sought for any other purpose than to further hamper the availability of abortions. To say otherwise is being disingenuous. I don't have a big problem with the parental consent issue, because as the parent of a minor child, I want to be involved in what is going on, as is my parental right. __________________ "To those of you who are wearing ties, I think my dad would appreciate it if you took them off." - Robert Moog

09-05-2005, 05:50 AM	#12
NICOTINEGUN Resident President Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 82	What is wrong with having the baby and giving it up for adoption? I don't understand why people are so concerned with the Death Penalty and prisoners rights but when it comes to killing a baby they're all for it, "Unwanted babies need a good killin." I don't believe in abortion. I think the woman should have the child and give it up if she doesn't want it. Besides, the baby could live and some family could have the opportunity to screw up being good parents. __________________ Hurricanes are racist!

09-04-2005, 07:33 PM	#6
Brett's Honey whatever Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 308	One guy I used to work with voiced it this way - "I beleive in a woman's right to choose - and she makes that choice as soon as she spreads her legs." I. personally have never had a problem with birth control. I may be predjudiced since it has always worked for me!

09-04-2005, 07:40 PM	#7
warch lurkin old school Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,796	Keeping an eye on birth control.... What do y'all think about "Pharmacists for Life" who lobby state gov. the right to refuse to fill a Drs. written prescription for federally legal birth control pills for an adult woman as a matter of their conscience?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)