Missouri GOP Has One Weird Trick To Get Voters To Re-Outlaw Abortion
And hopefully a judge will stop them. (But probably not.)
Republican legislators in Missouri have proposed a new ballot initiative meant to ban abortion in the state, a year after voters very definitively voted to keep it legal — but their dreams may soon be dashed if a judge sides against them in a lawsuit meant to keep the initiative off the ballot this year.
Last year, Missouri voters were given the opportunity to vote on a ballot initiative that would enshrine the right to abortion in the state’s constitution — and enshrine it they did! Just like every other state that put abortion on the ballot except for Florida, and only because Florida required a 60 percent supermajority.
These voters thought that they could elect Republicans but still enjoy left-wing policies, like legalized abortion, increasing the minimum wage, and requiring most employers to provide paid sick leave for their workers. Did this work out like they dreamed? It did not! Paid sick leave is already out the window, and legislators have been hard at work trying to make abortion illegal again.
Because, you see, they are quite sure that voters actually wanted to keep abortion illegal and were just really confused by the language on the ballot.
Here is the incredibly confusing ballot measure that Missourians definitely interpreted as the abortion ban they so desperately wanted. (Bolding mine, random capitalization theirs.)
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?
So confusing! Especially the part that says “Remove Missouri’s abortion ban,” because that could mean anything. If someone were really into anagrams, it could mean something like “Rise above ominous brainstorm” or “Ominous, abrasive, moist reborn” and maybe people thought it was about those creepy dolls that people collect that are supposed to look like real babies?
Could be anything!
So the GOP-controlled Legislature has decided to retaliate and put out their own ballot initiative this year.
Now this is what I call clarity!
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
Guarantee access to care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages;
Ensure women’s safety during abortions;
Ensure parental consent for minors;
Allow abortions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape, and incest;
Require physicians to provide medically accurate information; and
Protect children from gender transition?
Of course, it doesn’t mention that it would mean that abortion would be illegal in circumstances other than for “medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape, and incest,” or mention banning it any way whatsoever, but is any of that really necessary?
It also, weirdly, adds in a provision about “protect(ing) children from gender transition,” a thing that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion bans other than the fact that the same people who don’t want abortions to exist also do not want trans people to exist. Of course, gender affirming care is already banned for minors in the state of Missouri, but why nitpick the details?
On Wednesday, Cole County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Green heard arguments from both sides in a lawsuit against the ballot initiative. Anna Fitz-James, a retired physician, is being represented by lawyers from the ACLU and Stinson LLP, who argued that the ballot language is unclear and the random inclusion of a gender transition ban is not allowed, as the state constitution bans ballot initiatives with multiple subjects.
Missouri Solicitor General Louis Capozzi argued that it’s not random, but should be included in the measure because certain gender transition procedures carry the risk of infertility and therefore the law “ensures that Missouri children are able to make the choice whether to reproduce when they are adults,” because if someone is “unable to reproduce, they can’t access reproductive health care.”
In case that last sentence deep-fried your brain, this law bars them from accessing reproductive health care that Missouri Republicans happen not to like very much.
Unfortunately for the people of Missouri, Judge Green is also a Republican and has ruled against the ACLU in abortion-related cases before, so it is entirely possible that he will ignore the state constitution and just give them whatever they want.
As mentioned, Missouri Republicans have been saying for a year that people didn’t know what they were doing when they voted for that ballot measure, and that they really thought it was just for victims of rape, incest, or the life or health of the mother, even though it said no such thing. If they are so very sure about this, it’s strange that they would not put it in there directly. After all, it’s what the people want, right? Why obfuscate? Why not declare, proudly, that this is what that is?
It’s almost as if even they don’t believe their own bullshit.
PREVIOUSLY ON WONKETTE!
When I voted I was behind 2 ladies that were happy they could "save the abortion privilege" and still vote for Trump.
That's when I decided I needed the really big bottle of gin.
OT: In unsurprising news the shooter wasn't trans, but was riding the hard right trans community. Not a slight against the trans community at all. I loathe the right wing nuts who have made up their own community to cosplay as detransitioners and fly around the few that side with them to testify against trans rights.