Pro-lifers win some, lose some
By Barbara Shoun
Contributing Writer
JEFFERSON CITY – The pro-life community came away from the 95th Missouri General Assembly with mixed results.
Efforts to protect women from coerced abortion bit the dust when House Bill 46 & 434 became so diluted that pro-life advocates agreed it would do more harm than good.
The bill would also have given pregnant women adequate information to make their decisions and provide them with information on abortion alternatives.
On the positive side of pro-life causes, Missouri has fully funded the Alternatives to Abortion program, is the only state to designate a portion of its federal stimulus package to pro-life projects, and was the first state to pass a resolution opposing the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).
Sen. Rob Mayer, R-Dexter and a member of First Baptist Church of Dexter, had strong support from pro-life legislators on both sides of the aisle when he first introduced a Senate abortion bill, and passage of the House version seemed likely until the final days of the legislative session which ended May 15.
Almost identical bills were introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Bryan Pratt, R-Blue Springs, and Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O’Fallon. These were combined as a package, passed by the House in early March, and sent on to the Senate.
But Mayer and his fellow pro-life senators ultimately struggled to attain passage of the bill. Kerry Messer, lobbyist for the Christian Life Commission of the Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC), explained what happened in the final days of the session.
“Some pro-abortion senators see all pro-life bills as a hill to die on politically,” he said. “With the impending threat of a filibuster, pro-life senators tried to figure a way to pass a simplified version of the House bill. In return, pro-abortion senators agreed not to filibuster.”
Senate leadership developed two such bills and presented them with the option of allowing the weaker of the two to come up for a vote without a filibuster or the stronger to be brought to the floor and possibly face a filibuster. If this were to happen, pro-life senators could break with tradition and call for the question.
“You have to note that no senator desires to do this to another senator. Their ultimate political defense is that they have the right to filibuster on issues that are important to them, and they don’t want to lose that right,” Messer said.
In the end, pro-abortion Senate leaders agreed to allow the weaker of the two bills to receive a vote.
Because agreement on the language in the lesser bill took an extended period of time, the details of the negotiations were never made public. On May 13, the Senate continued working up to 1:30 a.m. May 14 (Thursday). Sometime around midnight was the first opportunity pro-life organizations were given to review the language of the pared-down bill. By the time Missouri Baptists and other likeminded groups could analyze the smaller version, the Senate was already voting on it. It passed, 25-7.
The bill was passed over to the House for the morning of Thursday, the second to the last day of the session. As the House convened later on in the morning, all the historical pro-life organizations with a presence in the Capitol were in agreement that the bill had been watered down to the degree that it actually risked becoming a pro-abortion victory.
MBC joined with other pro-life groups in requesting that the House not adopt the revised version of the bill. This led the House leadership to send a message to the Senate that they would reject the Senate version. They asked the Senate to establish a conference committee so representatives from both chambers could work out a consensus bill to advance the pro-life cause.
The Senate responded by refusing to go to conference lest there be a filibuster. No further action was taken on either the House or Senate version of the legislation and it died despite a failed second attempt by the House on Friday to request an opportunity to find a solution with the Senate and pass a pro-life bill.
Pro-lifers had reason to rejoice, however, in three other actions taken by the 95th Legislative Assembly.
In February, the resolution opposing FOCA was sent to the United States Congress. FOCA would wipe out almost all regulations Missouri requires of abortion providers.
These include health and safety standards, parental consent for minors, proximity to a hospital, a physician with admitting privileges, conscience protections for medical personnel, prohibition of partial-birth abortion, and Missouri’s ban on state funding of abortions.
“That was our first pro-life victory of the year,” Messer pointed out.
Also on the plus side, Missouri’s Alternatives to Abortion program, which was enshrined in statute in 2007 and is funded through annual appropriations administered by the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS), received full funding at last year’s level for the new 2010 budget – but not without a hitch.
Messer explained that he and other pro-life representatives learned that the Alternatives to Abortion program took a hit in the allocation process, and the amount to be funded was dropped.
“We worked diligently through the spring break to identify why the numbers dropped,” he said. “While not completely clear, it appears that some internal bureaucrats fed erroneous numbers to the budget chair, leaving the budget committee to believe a fallacy – that previous funding had not been used. This left the impression that the program was not being run efficiently and that taxpayer dollars were at risk of being wasted.”
Messer said he and other pro-life advocates were able to correct the invalid information and get the full funding restored through the remainder of the budget process.
Additionally, the House and Senate broke ranks with the other states around the country by carving out $2 million from the federal stimulus program. These funds are to assist pro-life agencies which are already recognized for providing maternity homes and pregnancy resource center services for pregnant women.
Messer, who also represents Alliance for Life, a consortium of pregnancy resource centers and maternity homes, joined with Sam Lee, lobbyist for Missouri Campaign for Life, to suggest the use of stimulus funds to upgrade these centers and homes.
“Many of the agencies are trying to figure out how to purchase properties or how to remodel properties they own,” said Messer.
Messer and Lee knew that legislative leaders were hoping to use the stimulus money on special projects rather than having them integrated with normal budget programming seen as entitlements that would need to be continued.
They approached legislators with the idea of allocating some of the funds for the pregnancy resource centers and maternity homes.
In the end, the budget included both the full funding for Alternatives to Abortion and the additional $2 million for special projects from the stimulus package. It was passed by lawmakers and sent to the governor.
“All we can say is ‘Praise the Lord,’” Messer commented.
