Could Missouri Voters Possibly Be As Stupid As Their GOP Secretary Of State Says They Are?
Also, Tennessee doctors can now refuse to give prenatal care to unmarried women.
In 2024, Missourians thought they could have their cake and eat it, too. They thought they could vote for left-wing policies like paid sick leave and raising the minimum wage and keeping the government out of their damn business when it comes to their decisions about abortion and contraception … while still voting for right-wing politicians, whom we guess they just like better on a personal level or something. Who knows?
Perhaps they were just wildly and uncontrollably sexually attracted to candidates like Secretary of State Danny Hoskins, who just recently wrote a heartfelt op-ed in the Springfield News-Leader about how incredibly stupid they are.
“When Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2024,” he wrote, “many believed they were supporting limited access to abortion in rare or tragic cases. Instead, they enacted one of the most extreme and ambiguous abortion policies in the nation, written directly into our state’s most foundational and sacrosanct legal document.”
It is Hoskins’ most sincere belief that Missouri voters are not only largely illiterate and incapable of understanding what words mean, but that they are also quite delusional, frequently seeing words that aren’t even there. And now he and fellow state Republicans want yet another bite at the apple, with a new measure to overturn the referendum that Missourians just voted to approve.
“Missourians were told the measure was moderate,” he continued. “But Section 36 went far beyond what many voters expected. It eliminated long-standing pro-life protections, stripped away parental involvement requirements, and opened the door to late-term and taxpayer-funded abortions with virtually no limits.”
Here is the language for the ballot initiative, which is almost exactly the same as the language in the amendment itself. You will notice that absolutely nowhere in the amendment are the words “limited,” “rare,” or “tragic.” Indeed, it could not possibly be more clear that the amendment would make it so that people were in charge of making their own decisions about their reproductive choices, not their government.
Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:
establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid;
remove Missouri’s ban on abortion;
allow regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain the health of the patient;
require the government not to discriminate, in government programs, funding, and other activities, against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care; and
allow abortion to be restricted or banned after Fetal Viability except to protect the life or health of the woman?
It is not clear what part of this Hoskins thought was so incredibly confusing to voters. Which words is it that he believes they do not know? Is it all of them? Does he think Missouri voters can’t read?
Hoskins also shared his concern that the Missouri constitution can be easily amended by voters themselves instead of by elected officials. Because Missouri voters, again, are very, very stupid. (His take, not mine!)
“It’s a stark reminder of an unfortunate truth: it is far too easy to amend Missouri’s Constitution,” he wrote. “Ours is one of the most vulnerable constitutions in the country — allowing permanent changes with a simple majority vote and no requirement for broad, statewide consensus. That’s how Section 36 passed: millions of dollars from out-of-state groups, emotionally charged messaging, and vague legal language led to a radical policy being cemented into our Constitution.”
Ah yes, vague language like “establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives.” Who can say what that means? Certainly not the stupid, stupid people of Missouri.
Surely there will be no out-of-state money from anti-abortion rights groups to promote this measure, because Republicans like Hoskins are just so very confident that it is what the incredibly daft people in the state want (or what they can convince them to want).
What’s More Pro-Life Than Denying Prenatal Care To Unmarried Women?
For many years now we’ve had to hear tales from irate conservatives about hospitals that refused to give them ivermectin when they were hospitalized for COVID-19, just because of how it doesn’t actually work, or refusing to let them get transplants just because they won’t get vaccinated. You know, because they don’t really want to give hearts out to people who aren’t going to take care of them.
Well, now there is a Tennessee doctor who is refusing to provide prenatal care to an unmarried woman, because they object to unmarried ladies having sex to begin with.
Via TN Repro News:
Last Thursday, at a town hall in Jonesborough, Tennessee, a 35-year-old woman shared her story: she was denied prenatal care by her physician because they objected to the fact that she wasn’t married nor did she plan to be. She’d been with her partner for 15 years and they have a 13-year-old child.
While going through her medical history, the physician told her that because she was unwed, they didn’t feel comfortable treating her, because it went against their values and she should seek care elsewhere. At the time of the appointment, the woman believed she was about four weeks into her pregnancy.
That woman is now seeking treatment in Virginia — not just because of this one doctor, but because she is afraid that if something goes wrong in her pregnancy, the doctors in Tennessee will decide to save the fetus instead of her, and she has another child to care for. What a fun way to live!
While this is the first such case we’ve heard about in this country (though it very likely happened a lot back in the day, just without any records or attention paid to it), it’s not the first time a doctor has refused care based on their own “ethics” regarding reproductive rights. Doctors have refused to prescribe contraception, refused to prescribe emergency contraception to rape patients, etc. etc.
In Tennessee, Republicans passed their Medical Ethics Defense Act in April, which means it probably will not be the last case we hear of like this.
Also In Tennessee …
A federal judge has permanently blocked a portion of the state’s abortion “trafficking” law that makes it a felony to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion without parental permission. Specifically, the block applies to the “recruitment” provision of the law — which makes it illegal to “recruit” a minor to get an abortion — at least in part because no one even knows what the hell that means. Apparently forced birthers think we’re all just very excited to go-a-fetus-killin’ and will try to convince teenagers — who, like so many Madonnas before them (at least two!), want to keep their babies — to have abortions.
“Because abortion is generally illegal in Tennessee, the state may constitutionally punish speech made in direct furtherance of in-state abortions […] The state may not, however, criminalize speech recruiting a minor to procure a legal abortion in another state,” wrote Senior Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Julia Gibbons. “Tennessee cannot criminalize ‘disseminating information about an activity that is legal in another state.’”
I’d really prefer, frankly, if she could also point out the actual insanity of “recruitment” in the first place, as if we are hanging out in soda shops looking for the next Lana Turner of teen abortion-having. That’s not a thing and I don’t believe that the belief that we are doing anything of the kind is something that ought to be coddled.
Meanwhile, In Idaho …
Raúl Labrador, the Idaho Attorney General with a name far too sexy for his shit politics, has signed a consent decree allowing doctors in the state to provide referrals for their patients to get out of state abortions. This was not out of the kindness of his own heart, but because of a lawsuit Planned Parenthood filed against the state that has been going on for two years now.
“This settlement simply affirms what our office already made clear in court: We do not have the authority to prosecute referrals for out-of-state services,” Labrador said. “Resolving this matter through settlement avoids unnecessary litigation and protects Idaho taxpayers from further costs.”
They actually did not make this clear! Indeed, the whole reason the lawsuit was filed was because Labrador came out and said, in April of 2023, that he was going to prosecute doctors for doing just that.
PREVIOUSLY ON WONKETTE!
is it crazy of me to point out that, "the Tennessee Doctor" is not only refusing care to the unmarried young woman, but to the fetus growing inside her who doesn't have any say in whether it's parents are married or not, and would presumably benefit from getting appropriate medical care in order to be born healthy?
also too, why does "the Tennessee Doctor" remain anonymous? other people should be warned so as to avoid his (presumable HIS) practice.
If they vote for liberal policies but fascist politicians, they are, in fact, as stupid as he says they are.