ABORTION: A "WE CAN'T SAVE THEM ALL" attitude coming from Missouri Republicans who allowed IP REFORM to be defeated year after year. Now, without a fight, they want a "compromise" on abortion. Why?

SUMMARY FROM LAST WEEK:

CORRECTION: SJR 10 mentioned in podcast uses HOUSE DISTRICTS AND NOT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.

When the Senators/Republicans in Missouri failed to pass IP Reform over the last 8 years, and as a result a ballot initiative passed last year that now allows babies to be aborted through the 9th month, it seems so messed up for some of these virtue signaling senators and their staffs to be lecturing the rest of Missouri on how this should go now. They are refusing to fight, yet again, because “we can’t save them all”. They are, yet again, compromising with life and death while chastising the rest of us who dare hope to see full restoration of the laws that once made Missouri the most protective state in the country when it came to the life issue.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU SEE NOW? In the Missouri Senate and House you see the weakness of how far Missouri Republicans have fallen. Many of these elected senators and reps. have had the power to fight for IP REFORM. IMPOSTERS PRETENDING TO BE CONSERVATIVES WHO ARE WEAK LIKE TO TALK A LOT, BUT REFUSE TO STAND MORE. WE ARE HERE NOW BECAUSE THE SAME SENATORS, STATE REPS, LEADERSHIP, AND THEIR STAFFERS WHO TRY TO DECEIVE THE REST OF US INTO BELIEVING THAT WE MUST SETTLE BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO FIGHT FOR THE BABIES SINCE THEY ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT.

OH, YE OF LITTLE FAITH. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW WE GOT TO THIS PLACE. THAT SAME, WEAK, MENTALITY AMONG POLITICIANS WHO SAY ONE THING AND DO ANOTHER.

They should have fought harder due to the fact they (and others in the senate) had the power to filibuster until IP Reform was heard and made a priority. THEY DID NOT DO THAT. YEAR AFTER YEAR THEY DID NOT DO THAT. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE NOW. Now you are told that in order to have a chance to “fix” Amendment 3 these same Senators cannot stand to oppose any other “REPUBLICAN” or they will not work with them to “fix” the abortion issue in Missouri.

Now there is a weird posturing going on with reference to the abortion issue among Republicans in Missouri.

Adam Schnelting has an SJR to save “as many babies as we can” or as otherwise noted “we can’t save them all” SJR.

YOU CAN READ SCHNELTING’S SJR HERE:

When one of Senator Rick Brattin’s constituents dare question an analogy of the house being on fire used by a staffer in the senate on a FB Post, it appears he became unhinged with his response here:

Can someone ask Senator Brattin why HE did not fight harder in the PAST FOUR YEARS that he was in the senate for IP Reform that would have protected Missouri from the predicament we find ourselves in now? WHY DID BRATTIN NOT FIGHT HARDER FOR IP REFORM WHEN HE WAS IN THE HOUSE FOR 8 YEARS BEFORE THAT? HE is part of the problem. You could easily say HE should have kept the house from catching on fire. He helped light the fire. He should have stood and blocked every single piece of legislation until he had no ability to stand every single day! If he truly cared, why did he allow it to get to this point when he had the power to fight. Had he fought harder and brought attention to the issue in a bold and strong way we would not NEED $50 MILLION to fight a ballot initiative ** see his comment above. Now, he stands and virtue signals on what we need to do about abortion in Missouri reminding us we can’t save them all.

Brattin is bold to brag now about how well the senate is operatingand how well they are getting along. This is why. NO ONE IS FIGHTING FOR THE BABIES AND ON THE ABORTION ISSUE IN A MEANINGFUL WAY. Why has the fix to A3 not been the priority all session from the beginning? Since day one? Odd to anyone else?

FAIR QUESTION: Did Senator Brattin get his appointment as the Chairman of the Education Committee in the Senate this year because he sat down on IP REFORM last year and played their little game? Is he getting along because leadership is rewarding him for not leading in a meaningful way against bad bills and on the abortion issue?

You would think Senator Brattin would have fought just as hard for IP Reform in years prior as he is fighting for “compromise” now with his “we can’t save them all” mentality on abortion. UNITY is ugly when the definition is defined by those whose intentions are unknown.

DID YOU SEE WHAT SCHNELTING AND BRATTIN VOTED FOR LAST WEEK?

SB 10 lifted over 25 sunsets on pork projects in Missouri. Why do we want and need sunsets? It is a tool to ensure that programs funded by the state were being operated as intended. Sunsets ensured that Missouri had the funds to allow such tax credits to remain in our state. Sunsets were a protective mechanism to ensure good stewardship of tax dollars in Missouri.

Last week with one vote over 25 sunsets were lifted in Missouri. THAT ALONE IS A HUGE DEAL…GIVING AWAY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MISSOURI DOLLARS WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO REVIEW AND RE-APPROVE THOSE PORK PROJECTS EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS IS A TRAVESTY. That is not very Republican when you consider the liberal programs and projects were funded with this “yes” vote.

HERE IS THE BIG DEAL:

SB 10: LIFTED THE SUNSET ON THE FRA (FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT ACT). Every other year there was a fight due to the fact the reimbursement from the Feds funded Planned Parenthood in Missouri. This was traditionally a huge fight on the floor to keep the FRA from funding the killing of Missouri’s babies.

Did you see that Senator Rick Brattin (the Chairman of the Freedom Caucus in the Senate) and Senator Adam Schnelting voted for SB 10 and the funding of the FRA?

Do you know why?

Senator Rick Brattin offered amendments to lift the sunsets on Men in Women’s sports legislation and the S.A.F.E. Act in Missouri.

First, ask why a super majority of Republicans ever placed a four year sunset on these two Republican priorities in our state? Those laws were only enacted for four years. WHY? JUST WHY?

You will be told that existing legislation recently adopted will ban Planned Parenthood from Missouri funding. Many attorneys argue that medicaid reimbursements are federal and the vote for Amendment 3 nullifies any prior laws that keep women from “reproductive healthcare”. Here is a recent ruling from the MO Supreme Court with reference to denying medicaid funds to PP.

MORE FROM THE COURTS:

MEN IN WOMEN’S SPORTS AND THE SAFE ACT:

Those two laws had sunsets (expiration dates) in August of 2027. But, during the debate against SB 10 Senator Brattin offered an amendment to lift the sunsets on those two laws. Those amendments were a false flag. We did not need “amendments” to protect us for another year. As well, President Trump has dealt with both of those issues for now with Executive Orders. See below:

Brattin’s Amendment should have proudly been a stand alone bill to lift the sunsets on those two issues. It should have NEVER been a trade off based on Missouri having to allow the FRA and abortion funding in exchange for these amendments that were not urgent. They had been addressed by Trump AND the sunsets were not going to be lifted until August of 2027.

SB 10 was heralded as a bill that lifted those sunsets and Rick Brattin is parading around as a hero for the amendment he added in exchange for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAX CREDITS IN MISSOURI FOR MANY LIBERAL CAUSES. His amendment felt like a distraction.

Brattin is virtue signaling on the abortion issue so he does not have to stand on other things of major priority in Missouri such as the horrific utility bill SB 4 and the exportation of Missouri’s Water.

Senator Schnelting’s Staff is very vocal on social media telling everyone that in order to “save the babies” (which Schnelting just voted to fund Planned Parenthood with his vote on the FRA in SB 10) these senators will have to compromise on a lot of bad bills this session.

Senator Mike Moon had to make a choice. He knew. The sunset being lifted on the SAFE ACT and MEN IN WOMEN’S SPORTS was just an ugly distraction to fund abortion without limits. This is why he was the ONLY Republican to vote against SB 10. He refused to be manipulated.

Every other Republican voted to fund the FRA. They voted to lift all accountability. They could have added an amendment to address the funding of Planned Parenthood. But, they did not even do that. “UNITY”. Even when it means killing babies.

See the votes here:

HERE IS THE SUMMARY PAGE FOR THE PERFECTED VERSION OF SB10: click to read

Mike Moon has an SJR to protect babies, too. Here is his version. Very simple. No compromise. It would appear this is what the Chairman of the Freedom Caucus is fighting against. Click photo to read:

Just think IP REFORM. We could not move the needle on IP Reform and that hot button issue has been replaced with a fix to A3. Funny that both issues of importance to true Republicans have been held until after spring break to really “make a move”. This means those two issues will be leveraged …. again….until the last days of session to get the Republicans to vote for everything bad in hopes that they may save the babies in the waning hours of session. It will never happen. We have a road map to where we are going based on where we have been.

And we are being told that after the “good guys” pass all of these bad bills they will make sure and come back to those bills in the future and fix them then. Okay, we are sure that will work. NOT EVER. This is the mentality we are dealing with.

This is nothing more than an excuse to pass everything bad to maybe have a shot at “saving the babies”.

Where are we now on IP Reform this year? Yeah, nowhere.

Are you starting to see the game played here?

We have been told that the good “conservatives” could not stand to filibuster the bad bill SB 84 because they don’t want to make the RINOs angry and in turn they will stand in the way to a fix for A3. Below you will see what SB 84 will do to Missourians.

This bill would have been perfected and moving on had Joe Nicola and Mike Moon not stood. Because of those two senators this bill was laid over….for now.

Why is the Freedom Caucus not standing to filibuster this bill and others equally as bad?

You understand now. Weak men hiding behind babies in order to have an excuse to be weak. I am sorry if that is hard to hear, but sometimes if the shoe fits they need to wear it.

I wonder if Schnelting and Brattin HAD TO VOTE FOR SB 4 (THE RADICAL UTILITY BILL THAT PROMISES TO INCREASE ALL UTLITY BILLS FOR EVERY MISSOURIAN) to save the babies? Was that part of that bad vote, too?

SB 4 Utility Bill Omnibus Vote:

NOTE: BRATTIN VOTED NO ON EMERGENCY CLAUSE; SCHNELTING AND SCHROER VOTED FOR THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE ON THE BAD UTILITY BILL ATTEMPTING TO SEE THIS BILL IMPLEMENTED WITH UTILITY INCREASES IMMEDIATELY.

Lisa’s Notes from the week: These are just notes for summary purposes.

General laws 737 Podcast first week of March

Hearing on SJR10, SJR30,SJR47,SJR11

These are all about the initiative petition process with sponsors Moon, Ben Brown, Carter and Bean. All seem good and all different. Bean’s seems like it is good too but not sure so didn’t testify in support. Changing threshold to voters to 35% of voters. Also. It requires more signatures.

Sb160 Hudson faith based organizations in higher education. It was discussed last week and offered a substitute.

Added on to substitute: The provisions of this section shall not apply to a  belief-based student association if there is substantial evidence that such association viewpoint or expression of the viewpoint by the association or the association & members would cause a material and substantial disruption to the educational environment or interfere with the rights of others on campus, in accordance with the United States  Supreme Court’s decision in Healy v. James, 408 U.S. (1972). -not sure how this would impact the entire thing

SB66 Mcreery age of marriage

SB38 Washington the crown hair bill

SB218 Black mental health courts, recommendation of substance abuse committee. Schroer hopes every court in the state utilitizes this. Nicola asked questions concerned about Christians being diagnosed with mental health issues. After Nicola asked the question then he sat down.

SB43 Fitzwater added SB519 Hudson is Trey’s law as amendment on floor. What’s happening in other states-Albert Einstein Public School that offers special education and autism programming. It’s a LGBTQ affirming and inclusive school.

In the original bill Page 16 appointing counsel under proceedings under sections 210.110 to 10.165 “This 210.110 includes “emotional abuse” It also includes investigations under 210.115 number 4 it says a medical treatment for a religious belief FOR THAT REASON ALONE shall not be found to be an abused or neglected child.

*However the Division may accept reports concerning such a child and may subsequently investigate or conduct a family assessment as a result of the report. Such an exception shall not limit the administrative or judicial authority of the state to ensure that medical services are provided to the child when the child health requires it.

It also references homeless-homeless is no longer what we think of as homeless now it includes children taken from loving parents because they don’t believe in certqin life choices. Mckinney Vento is the homeless assistance act that authorizes federal education for homeless children.

-The national center for homeless education talks about its support for the LGBTQ youth at risk. According to their website 28% of LGTQI youth experience homelessness due to family conflict related to their sexual identity or orientation.

210.135 gives immunity from a liability civil or criminal regarding the removal or retaining of a child pursuant to 210.110 to 210.165.

-So if they are abusing this there are no consequences that is unacceptable. Now if you go a step further t hand them a lawyer to decide what emotional abuse is and become homeless at risk youth. Section 210.140 says these communications with the lawyer would be priviledged.

On page 2 services providers will be licensed and accredited.

As well as meet additional requirements set by the dept to meet the best interest of the children they serve.

The dept shall be authorized to enter into MOU. These are places to hide everything.

The facilities can literally be just about anyone because you put “shall not be limited to”. Page 2, line 4 provisions of this section 210.114 shall apply with is giving qualified immunity to private contractors. You then again let the dept make the rules but give a severability clause because what you are doing is not constitutional.

Page 35 can accept literally money for anything.-this was all illegal before-creating a system to buy people off.

In CA parents can lose custody of children if they refuse to transition-prioritizing health, safety and welfare of the child is the language they are citing.-look at article TN has an at risk residential charter school that right now our momma’s are saying are doing these things.

Fitzwater said on floor he appreciates this year has been different then previous years. They are “getting along”. He was warned of the potential issues in this bill and did not add protections.

They brought up the bill first thing Tuesday afternoon. Democrat Roberts added an amendment for tax credits for main street. Then McCreery added as an amendment age of marriage to 18. Then Brattin added an amendment confronted by case worker why they are there to seek information. Nurrenberg added an amendment to the amendment to have to show a form of identification with reference to who is wanting to have access to the child. Then, adding an amendment with Senator Washington regarding judges continuing GAL appointment if they determine need be and also with addition to dept of corrections.

Democrat Washington gave a shout out for how it is working so much better getting everything done.

Jill Carter said she is very happy with this bill.

Democrat Webber added an amendment but talked about needing to remove the immunity portion. Webber withdrew his amendment to allow Senator Fitzwater to give an amendment instead.

Nurrenberg said she was delighted that SB43 got worked out. It was a really fine bill.

SB87 Nicola allows for the counties to decide if they want to implement, so it pretty much makes it meaningless. It is not mandatory. Property tax credit on 2 year cycles and capped. Its basically a tax credit. Keeps liability from being raised more than 5% on every 2 years.

Beck tried added an amendment any of them reduced the state would make up the difference.

Nicola said 20,000 people in his district are being taxed out of their homes. Nicola said he doesn’t like Becks amendment. Nicola said my bill is allowing for a 5% increase over 2 years. It is why I am here to secure the rights of the people. We are making it worse because these people can’t pay the taxes and the local government isn’t getting their money. The beauty of the bill is that the local do not have to adopt it. I don’t think that’s a bonus.

Burger has concerns for his area to keep money in local communities so he is saying his people should not have theirs capped at 5% over 2 years.

HB495 Christ or Schroer public safety bill being heard

Trent’s SB385 in committee

In committee Trent’s legislation came from NIAC insurance Data Security Model Law #668

Bill Gates funds NIAC.

26 other states have adopted, uniform standard with data breaches.

SB488 Crawford in committee addressing payment methods technology linked with fed now and real time payments-Crawford said she its need for real estate transactions

SB381 Crawford peer to peer bill executed out even though they said the language is not right. Crawford met with Walmart to deal with their concerns about the app. Mcreery and Mosley were the only no votes in committee.

In Committee both the amendment 3 fixes were voted out today. I would not expect Moon’s to move much further because it is the best amendment…. but God. We shall see.

In committee Senator Cierpiot had SB100 that a birth certificate could not be changed identity from birth. One weird exchange was a witness that said he had changed thousands of birth certificates and then said this isn’t happening so it isn’t a problem-which is it? If you are changing thousands that would be a problem.

Then Sb178 Lewis was heard that said under 210.030 every licensed physician shall if the woman consents take or cause to be taken a sample of blood of such woman. it adds another test at 28 weeks. This includes anything Dept. of Health and Senior Services categorizes as a metabolic disorder . Focus is on all these others but it is literally anything DHSS categorizes.

Then if the mother tests positive they SHALL Aadminister treatment in accordance with the most recent acceptable medical practice. The mother does not have to consent. Rules accepted by USFDA.

Sponsor said the baby would be given antibiotics but it clearly says differently on page 4 it says the newborn would be administered a hepatitis vaccine.

In the house this was HB398 Tara Peters bill voted out of committee 16-0. Now democrat Lewis has it in the senate. One of these great bi partisan bills-not.