Op-Ed: Protect the lives of Missouri’s innocent unborn
By State Rep. Mike Moon
A recent Missouri Times op-ed stated that Missouri “has been making national headlines” over the recent and current special session regarding abortion. While it’s true that our state has been making the news, there is a difference of opinion about the perception of the news-making. Governor Greitens traveled the state rallying for the special session announcing his desire to protect the innocent unborn children of our great state – a noble cause. And, what better way to protect the unborn than to stop killing them? Currently, it is “legal” to end the life of an unborn child (medically or surgically) as long as the mother wishes to do so. (A question up for debate is: Which law was passed to allow for the killing of a human being without due process of law?)
The call for a special session included provisions to ensure standards of cleanliness of a facility in which an abortion takes place. Think of it this way: Missouri allows for the killing of an innocent unborn child as long as deed is done in a clean facility. For many this sounds reasonable. In reality, this is nothing short of barbaric!
The actual purpose(s) of this special session is to add more regulation of how an unborn developing baby is killed (facility cleanliness, building code standards, proper disposal and testing of the baby’s body parts, lease contracts, employment rights, et cetera). One point about the current, and the first, special session is that both issues were taken up by the legislature during the regular session. Both were heard in committee and debated in both houses… and both failed – indicating the need for more deliberation (during regular session). The need for a special session regarding abortion, in this writer’s opinion, should not be for the mere purpose of regulating but for establishing a challenge to the 1973 SCOTUS Roe v Wade opinion (more on that, perhaps, in a future op-ed).
Many misstatements have been made regarding the costs of the special session. Each day a member of the Missouri general assembly is present for a session, a per diem of $113.60 is paid to the member. With exception to vacancies, the Missouri House has 163 members and the Senate has 34 members. If all 197 members are present, the costs to taxpayers is $22,911.10 (for various reasons, all House members have not been present on each day of the second extraordinary session). That is certainly a lot of money. In fact, however, during the second extraordinary session, the entire House has been in session only one day (the Senate a few more). So, in reality, the costs purported to be $20,000 plus each day since the governor’s call has been overstated. Still, unless the business conducted is truly extraordinary and it is done within the confines of the Missouri Constitution, it is money not well spent.
Some have declared that hundreds of thousands of Missourians will be without medical coverage (supposedly due to the legislature’s opposition to expanding Medicaid). This is blatantly false. Persons needing medical care need only to present themselves to a hospital – they will not be turned away.
It seems that the true concern should be protecting the health of the woman while doing everything in our power to protect the unborn developing human baby, too.
Should we concede to those who wish to kill a developing unborn human baby before it’s natural death only in the cases where the mother’s life is at risk? That is what all the debate is about anyway, right… women’s health care? Perhaps, this should be where the serious discussions should be focused.
Fifty-one countries allow abortion in cases of mother’s life risk. The bottom line: All human life should be protected. Ending the life of a developing human baby should not be carried out for the mere sake of convenience.
Another interesting fact: physicians who perform abortions and deliver babies have stated that when a pregnant woman presents herself with symptoms which place her life at risk, every possible measure to deliver the developing human baby is exercised. Taking this course relieves the mother of the risky pregnancy and offers the baby a chance at a productive life.
In addition, allegations that organizations, like Pregnancy Care Centers, use trickery and shame to encourage women to protect their developing baby’s health (and choose to give the baby a chance at life instead of prematurely killing the her) has not gone unnoticed. How about some evidence to support these claims?
Governor Greitens and this writer are in complete agreement regarding the rally rhetoric (protect the lives of Missouri’s innocent unborn) however the governor’s actual call for the current extraordinary session does not match. Missouri must do everything in her power to protect the lives of each and every innocent unborn developing human life. How about we employ our state motto (“Show-me”) and show other states how to protect the health of women and their developing babies!
One final point: This writer agrees wholeheartedly with each of the components of SB 5. The method by which the bill was passed, however, may need a little work. According to Missouri’s constitution, article III, section 21, “No law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall so amended in its passage through either house as to change its original purpose.”
Additions were made to SB5 (to include the regulation of facility cleanliness, building code standards, proper disposal and testing of the baby’s body parts, lease contracts, employment rights, et cetera) changing the original purpose of the bill from having to do with the Missouri attorney general’s concurrent jurisdiction in cases relating to abortion to (just before final passage) “relating to abortion.”
And article III, section 23 says, “No bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title….” Again, the writer agrees with each of these components individually so, either the bills could be passed individually or the title of the original bill could be introduced as “relating to abortion…,” In this writer’s opinion, doing so would satisfy the Missouri constitution. (The House had four bills which accomplishes this.)
This writer believes that the governor should encourage legislation which would lead to a challenge of Roe v Wade. Until that time, however, in order to grant the governor’s wishes to simply regulate the continued killing of our unborn developing human children, the general assembly may well have to go back the drawing board.