Missouri House rehashes abortion debate; fireworks (and Twitter) ensue
Bryan Pratt
JEFFERSON CITY — The House of Representatives today passed Speaker Pro Tem Bryan Pratt’s bill criminalizing what it calls abortion coercion.
The debate, which once again got a bit personal, lasted about an hour.
“Please join me to reduce the number of abortions in the state of Missouri,” Pratt said to his colleagues.
Cynthia Davis, R-O’Fallon, and Beth Low, D-Kansas City, who are staunchly on either side of the issue, hashed it out.
“Give me a break, lady,” Low said when Davis said the bill would help women.
“Why are you against giving women information?” Davis asked.
The argument spiraled into both yelling, “You don’t know what you’re talking about!”
Then Davis said, “You do not know diddly squat, when–” at which point she was cut off by the presiding Representative.
Bel Nor Democrat Don Calloway also criticized the bill and its sponsors.
“I would like to give a rousing congratulations to Missouri Right to Life… They have shown who runs this body,” he said. “I think it’s disgusting — I think it’s immoral what we’ve decided to do” with the lobbyists.
Calloway said the bill is “criminalizing parenting, criminalizing pastorship, criminalizing mentorship, criminalizing friendships.”
“Can you show me where in the bill it criminalizes friendship?” Pratt asked.
The bill passed with 115 votes, which is more than enough to override a veto.
Incidentally, a few Representatives were twittering while this was going on. Some excerpts:
Republican Scott Diekhaus (@sdieckhaus):
- Looks like Rep. Calloway is receiving an education from Rep. Pratt.
- Very heated and emotional debate on abortion bill. Rep. Davis is likely crossing the line and making attacks personal.
Democrat John Burnett (@johnburnettkc):
- Speaker gavels Cynthia Davis down for being rude in abortion debate.
- Beth Low and Cynthia Davis debating abortion.This is worth the price of admission.
Follow me at @roseannmoring.
SMC -
“RHarnack: Try making an argument based in logic rather than emotion.”
Okay, but only if you are willing to accept logic and reason.
1. This bill effectively can be interpreted to mean that anyone providing information on birth control, abortion, etc. can be indicted as “coercing”.
2. It also means, that if left to stand on the books, it becomes the proverbial “camel’s nose in the tent”, for if anyone charged under this bill is actually convicted, then coupled with the “parental consent” provisions, this effectively precludes the woman from accessing any but a particular group’s position.
3. Also, can you guarantee, that even after a woman has made an informed choice on her own, that you or some other “interested party” won’t try to later get her to say that she was “compelled”?
Sorry, this is either a poorly written and thought out law, or it is yeat another “sly” attempt by anti-individual choice advocates to enforce their religious doctrine on all, even those not belonging to their “church”.
SMC, by the way, when has the Anti-Choice lobby ever attempted reason?
Can we outlaw twits in the capitol?