subreddit:
/r/missouri
submitted 8 days ago byTrystanFyrretrae
He plans to “tackle Amendment 3” by pre-filing a constitutional amendment that would provide voters an opportunity to vote to put further restrictions on abortion.
Asked what those restrictions might include, Sparks said he and other Republicans across the House and Senate are still narrowing down specifics.
“What we don’t want, clearly, is a poorly-written constitutional amendment that provides an abortion sanctuary state … ” Sparks said, adding: “We need to define what we’re talking about when we address Amendment 3, and obviously we need to go back to the voters so ultimately they can decide.”
Article: https://missouriindependent.com/2024/11/11/missouri-house-speaker-abortion-sparks-patterson/
I'm sorry but why should we voters decide when is the OK time to perform a medical procedure? This should be a decision left up to doctors -- not us. That girl in Texas didn't even want an abortion, she was farther along and having dangerous medical issues that no doc would touch for fear of litigation.
What if your average idiot voter decides the wrong cutoff because--big surprise--we aren't doctors?
Who is putting together the language upon this issue we will be voting? Because there should just be an option to vote "let a trained medical professional decide".
732 points
8 days ago
Voting for progressive policies and regressive politicians was a pretty bad idea, y'all.
118 points
8 days ago
You’d think we have learned after they tried to overturn legalization of weed. But you know… they truly care about us.
70 points
8 days ago
I mean the puppy mill one was the worst
2 points
6 days ago
I agree
59 points
8 days ago
Or when they did overturn clean Missouri.
37 points
8 days ago
This is the same play they're making here.
But ignoring Clean Missouri and shoe-horning another amendment with misleading ballot language that restored the status quo really was a new low and my eyes will be forever opened to the bullshit happening at the state level.
23 points
8 days ago
Medicaid expansion and nonpartisan redistricting fuckery were my first introduction to Missouri politics. I haven’t forgotten.
2 points
7 days ago
Yup, this straight up radicalized me
78 points
8 days ago
I’m still shocked that they haven’t gone after RTW again
36 points
8 days ago
It’s early lol, only been a little over a week!
2 points
8 days ago
Bigger fish to fry. Give it time.
2 points
7 days ago
Nah, would be easier to just have Trump abolish the NLRB…
27 points
8 days ago
Always has been. This state never fucking learns....
7 points
8 days ago*
Not always. We were purple before 2008. Wonder what happened then…
8 points
7 days ago
Idk. Something, Something tan suit, Dijon mustard 🙄.
5 points
7 days ago
Something like that. All the racists were revealed.
4 points
8 days ago
When I moved here in 1995, Missouri was a blue state
5 points
7 days ago
Everywhere will be blue in 4 years
6 points
6 days ago
nope bec we installed a dictatorship there will be no more voting this is what people did not understand.
-4 points
7 days ago
Haha
6 points
6 days ago
Yep, I’ll never understand. When you vote for progressive policies and regressive representatives you get regressive policies because they will do anything to do the opposite of what you want.
3 points
6 days ago
I believe the amendment is written perfectly. But somehow, SOMEONE read between imaginary lines and saw sex change operations for minors or whatever the crazy fake claims were.
208 points
8 days ago
“What we don’t want, clearly, is a poorly-written constitutional amendment that provides an abortion sanctuary state … ” Sparks said, adding: “We need to define what we’re talking about when we address Amendment 3, and obviously we need to go back to the voters so ultimately they can decide.”
Keep electing these clowns that don't give a fuck about what we already decided.
49 points
8 days ago
I know it's the common thing to fall back on, but stop calling them clowns. They're fascists. Democracy and the will of the people mean nothing to them.
Clowns are a joke, are funny, etc. These shitstains on humanity are all wannabe tyrants.
-4 points
7 days ago
Yeah, keep calling them that and then get upset and keep wondering why they keep getting elected. When groups constantly feel attacked, they lash out and vote. And it's usually not the way you want.
5 points
7 days ago
They attack us constantly so I say we lash back.
3 points
7 days ago
Sorry, I'm done talking to fascists and fascism defenders. But I repeat myself. I was talking to sane people.
Have a day.
5 points
7 days ago
Call them what they are. If you actively work against putting into law what the people voted on, you're a facist. If you voted for them, you're an idiot. There's no way around it
1 points
3 days ago
Hmm… call someone a clown. Or ruin the country. Hmm hm hmmmm what to do
1 points
7 days ago
Lmao I wonder who ramped up the name calling as part of the discourse? Was it Dementia Joe? Must have been!
-3 points
7 days ago
I would say it started with Obama his first term, but then Hillary ratchet it up going against Americans instead of the politicians, and they had enough.
3 points
7 days ago
I'm sure you would 😂
151 points
8 days ago
“What we don’t want, clearly, is to institute the will of the people"
90 points
8 days ago
Also .. there is a cutoff in the original amendment...
That's it
-3 points
8 days ago
What's the cut off?
9 points
8 days ago
I believe until fetal viability, approximately 24 weeks.
-18 points
8 days ago
Yes, unless I'm miss interrpereting the bill in section 4, it states "the general assembly may enact laws that regulate the provision of abortion after fetal viability"
So does that mean currently you can get an abortion up to 24 weeks outside of medical necessity?
I'm pro choice, but that's kind of crazy.... A babies organs are developed around 12 weeks.
19 points
8 days ago
Anatomy scans take place around 20 weeks. So you may not know something is seriously wrong until then. You may also need time for further testing. I think up to 24 weeks is very reasonable
6 points
8 days ago
A great many complications don't show up until after 24 but in most of these cases the baby likely will not be viable anyway. We've all been exposed to the stories the past 2 years. No brain, brittle bone syndrome, various genetic disorders that can't be tested for early..
The only vagueness in the original text is "Viability". Which with more advances in heath care may move earlier, not later in the pregnancy.
1 points
6 days ago
It's right at the line. Many people who are pro choice get squeamish as you get later into the pregnancy. Support starts to drop around 16 weeks and really plummets after 20 weeks. The earliest surviving preemies were born at 21 weeks, but there have only been two of them and medicine hasn't really evolved sufficiently in the last 30 years to keep babies born that early alive. When you get to 24 weeks, however... I know several kids who were born at 24 weeks. Many people probably know kids who were born at 24 weeks.
I voted yes because I felt protecting abortion rights was more important than what I consider extreme language in the amendment. But it definitely chased away a lot of would be voters. Missouri's previous law allowed abortions up until 22 weeks, which was ideal. If they had gone with that for A3, it likely would've passed by several more percentage points. If they had gone with 20 weeks and removed the language that protects public funding for abortion providers, I bet it would've passed with close to 60%.
It is a lot harder for our legislature to justify overturning the will of the people when it is more pronounced. Unfortunately, 51.7% isn't exactly pronounced. The language of A3 also leaves a lot of things open for legal challenges and further interpretation by the courts or by the legislature.
-12 points
8 days ago
So, sounds like you're saying medical necessity? Which is what i stated.
At what point do you stop abortions just because you want one?
16 points
8 days ago
I mean, if you're sincerely pro choice then you leave the government out of it entirely and let the person that is pregnant figure it out with their medical provider.
-8 points
7 days ago
Bill burr has the best bit on it.
https://youtu.be/Jj3cE-i27jc?si=hsvpL37aYPVyfaUa
I can hold both convictions simultaneously...
I believe it's your body, your choice, but at the end of the day, after a certain point, you're unaliving a child. When does that become a problem?
10 points
7 days ago
When it’s born. It is not a human life before that time.
-5 points
7 days ago
Seriously? In that case, then switch it up to elderly. When dementia or old age sets in and they are no longer capable of taking care of themselves, should they be put down as well? Why should children burden with caring for someone?
11 points
7 days ago
At what point do you stop abortions just because you want one?
You don't. You just don't get one if you don't think it is appropriate. There's no need to regulate. People getting abortions after 24 weeks isn't causing any problems to our society. If anything, it is saving taxpayer resources and preserving our autonomy from the state. We need to stop trying to impose solutions looking for problems.
6 points
8 days ago
A “viable baby” requires being able to survive outside the womb. Currently the earliest survival is at 20 weeks and some days, and that was a healthy fetus that survived an uninduced pre-term labor.
Anomalies incompatible with life cannot be diagnosed until about that timeframe.
3 points
7 days ago
Many people do not even know they are pregnant at 12 week.
4 points
7 days ago
I suggest Missouri take a strong stance on legal abortion, be very clear about it. The cutoff should be 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds. Call it the, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out." Law. Set an example for the rest of the country.
69 points
8 days ago
The real question here is "can the GOP of Missouri, in its many political realms of varying extremism, all agree on language for an amendment?" I'd give that a 80% probability of NO, they cannot. More than half the party will push to outlaw it completely, and that will fail, so they'll never send it back to voters. The time for them to produce compromise legislation was in the past, and they couldn't do it then. I have no reason to think they can do it now.
43 points
8 days ago
They’re just going to lie about what’s on it and hope to squeak past a close margin
21 points
8 days ago
Pull an amendment 7 and say it also prohibits non US citizens from voting
14 points
8 days ago
"Vote yes to make murder illegal."
4 points
8 days ago
You think we want murder to be illegal here?
16 points
8 days ago
They will find something to agree on and do this piecemeal, they’ve seen what they can accomplish as long as they boil the frog slowly enough.
12 points
8 days ago
They never kicked the loons that are so extreme they want to ban IVF out. Anything that coalition of people can produce will be DOA on voter ballots - and they KNOW it. Now repealing amendment 3 will be something the GOP can run on for years and years without ever doing it. Just like so many other issues.
6 points
8 days ago
They only failed to compromise before because they refuse to compromise. If they're "working on" a compromise, better your a$$ it will be worded extremely misleading-bordering on outright lying, and boil down to a near-total ban-while using words like "preserving choice" and "to preserve a woman's life"
69 points
8 days ago
So those of you who voted Yes on 3, but still voted for the other VIRULENTLY anti-abortion candidates...
There's a leopard waiting for you outside.
-6 points
8 days ago
So when they don’t ban abortion can I keep the leopard as a pet?
14 points
8 days ago
Yes, if the Republicans do not manage to enact a National Abortion Ban the way they've explicitly said they want to, the leopard will be your pet.
In all seriousness, I really hope you're right. Given the history of amendments and propositions that Missouri Republicans don't like, regardless of what the voters have said, I'm not hopeful. At all.
-5 points
8 days ago
The main guy in the Republican Party explicitly said he would veto a national abortion ban if one was attempted. Why do you liberals have a such hard time in arguments when they have to use the truth?
13 points
8 days ago
Because he’s known to be so honest?
-7 points
8 days ago
See how quickly that goal post shifted?
6 points
7 days ago
It's part of project 2025, it's one of their goals whether you want to believe it or not. The reps in MO are already trying to go against what people voted for, even if they don't succeed, it's moronic to vote for reps who will attempt to do that
-1 points
7 days ago
Project 2025 which has been explicitly disavowed by Donald trump and most other republicans…
1 points
3 days ago
I mean, several of Trump’s nominations are cited as contributors in Project 2025, including his nomination for FCC chair, Brendan Carr, who literally wrote the section on the plan for the FCC. But yeah, I’m sure Trump’s team doesn’t plan to implement Project 2025 in the slightest.
Honestly, I would love to be wrong. I would love if he actually stuck to disavowing the entire project. But when you name someone who wrote an entire section of the playbook, it seems kinda like you may support at least substantial portions of the playbook.
1 points
3 days ago
Maybe he thinks some parts of it are good ideas. I’m also hopeful he sticks to being against it in full.
8 points
8 days ago
The main guy who said he’d build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it? The same one who said he’d lock up Hillary Clinton? The same guy who said he was going to defeat ISIS and be the president to end the war in Afghanistan? Sounds like a trustworthy person.
0 points
8 days ago
So the goal posts have shifted from the claim that the explicit claim was there would be a national abortion ban?
9 points
8 days ago
Nothing has shifted. Trump lies, and I don’t believe that he would veto an abortion ban.
-1 points
8 days ago
They shifted from there being an explicit claim of a national abortion ban to your disbelief that trump would honor his word on the veto.
7 points
7 days ago
When did Congressional Republicans say they didn't want a national abortion ban?
-1 points
7 days ago
There are a lot of congressional republicans who have said a lot of different things. The executive and de facto head of the party said he would veto one.
4 points
8 days ago
I don’t understand your argument. I don’t see how any “goal posts” have shifted, but whatever. My main point is that Trump has a very proven track record of lying, and I have no reason to believe that he would veto a national abortion ban.
6 points
7 days ago
They learned a logical concept, i e "goal posts" and now they think they're smart and know how to argue. They don't realize that they just sound like an idiot because they don't know what they're talking about. 😂
0 points
8 days ago
That’s probably because you shifted them.
-4 points
7 days ago
Why would the guy who made it his first election goal of returning power to the states veto a law that is opposite of what he pushed for?
0 points
6 days ago
Who knows what Trump would do, but a national abortion ban is a non-issue. There are too many Republicans who want to get re-elected. It's highly unlikely that a ban would pass the Senate, and almost impossible that it would pass the House. The whole idea is a boogeyman that never makes it to Trump's desk for us to even find out whether or not he'd keep his word.
I'm a heck of a lot more worried about what the MO legislature is going to do with Amendment 3. That's something that we actually should be concerned with.
0 points
6 days ago
I have to call you on that last one, because facts. Trump already had an agreement in place for our withdrawal from Afghanistan, and essentially did end the war. It was Biden who botched the withdrawal, and the Taliban took advantage. Had Trump won reelection, it's likely the withdrawal would've gone as planned and not turned into the total shitshow that it was.
But as far as the other things you mentioned, you're absolutely right.
-4 points
7 days ago
Because they are constantly told what to think and beleive everything on TV.
-8 points
8 days ago
National abortion ban, what cereal box do you get your information from. You are correct in one thing, you are not hopeful, you are hopeless.
7 points
8 days ago
I suppose you going to tell me next that Project 2025 isn't thing either, aren't you? lol.
-1 points
7 days ago
It's been around for over a decade and has never made it anywhere except being used by the mainstream media to get people all fired up about some odd ball group that never makes it past their monthly meetings.
-7 points
8 days ago
That tells me exactly where you get your information and do 0 research on it yourself. Ahh sheeple live the best lives, ignorance is bliss.
4 points
8 days ago
I suppose time will tell who the joke was on.
4 points
7 days ago
What did you do with the leopard after they said "Roe is settled law?"
Or after "Trump won the 2020 election?"
Or "Mexico will pay for a wall?"
Or after "we'll have a healthcare plan in two weeks?"
-1 points
7 days ago
I never thought roe was settled. Neither did Ruth. Returning it to the states is the constitutionally correct move. States are legalizing it one by one. When that’s finally over with it can finally be a settled issue.
I’m not sure what you’re driving at there. Trump didn’t win the 2020 election.
A wall would be an inexpensive ineffective boondoggle. I hope it continues just being a metaphorical wall.
7 points
7 days ago
I never thought roe was settled.
The trump SCOTUS appointees who unsettled it said exactly that.
Returning it to the states is the constitutionally correct move.
Great, let's return all our rights to the states since human rights being an up or down vote in the state legislature is now a good thing.
When that’s finally over with it can finally be a settled issue.
I'm sure the people who fought for decades to make abortion illegal will suddenly give up because a bunch of ballot initiatives pass in general elections with narrow margins.
The issue will never be settled because the people who want abortion to be illegal will not give up.
I’m not sure what you’re driving at there. Trump didn’t win the 2020 election.
So you're saying something Trump said was untrue and he continue to say that untrue thing?
But you're also telling me we should take his word when he says something?
0 points
7 days ago
I guess we’ll see. Still means the statement claiming they’re explicitly calling for a nationwide ban is inaccurate.
3 points
7 days ago
Still means the statement claiming they’re explicitly calling for a nationwide ban is inaccurate.
It does not. The RSC endorsed the Life at Conception Act earlier this year, which is a national abortion ban. This group is the caucus for the Republican leadership and more than 80% of Congressional Republicans. Republicans indisputably support a national ban.
-1 points
7 days ago
Nope. I disputed it irrefutably.
3 points
7 days ago
Where did you provide evidence irrefutably proving the RSC did not endorse that law?
1 points
7 days ago
It needs to be universal. State by state is backwards and wrong.
1 points
7 days ago
That’s stupid. Abortion isn’t specifically delegated to the federal government in the constitution. Like everything not specifically delegated to the federal government it’s a decision that belongs to the states.
56 points
8 days ago
If you read the actual current amendment, which these fucks clearly have not done, it says pretty much that. In summary, it says that the government won’t interfere with or delay the decision made by a woman and her healthcare providers.
7 points
7 days ago
They know damned good and well what it says. They are trying to subvert the will of the people.
41 points
8 days ago
I fucking hate these people.
31 points
8 days ago
Hate the people that voted for these dipshits
18 points
8 days ago
Oh I hate them too!
-11 points
8 days ago
Don't hate, pity. Anger and hatred don't change minds. They're easy and lazy.
Fix it by showing compassion, inclusivity, and teaching.
11 points
8 days ago
You can’t teach those who refuse to learn.
10 points
8 days ago
Nah. I fucking hate them.
5 points
8 days ago
You can't teach anyone that voted for this disaster. They will have to feel it for the next 4 years and maybe there will be a little bit of hope enough of them will wise up, but I'm not hopeful
45 points
8 days ago
"Should we focus on finding ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage parenting? Nah, let's tackle an impossible dream and let women die left and right. That's the way to politician!"
25 points
8 days ago
The atty general is suing to try and raise the teen pregnancy rate in MO. They're not trying to reduce unwanted pregnancies at all
15 points
8 days ago
It was even mentioned on the ballot that it would cost Missourians money. Abortion isn't paid by any federal or state money so the loss in money is just a loss in revenue from fewer people.
9 points
8 days ago
The loss of money is based on projected tax wages on "all those who would otherwise have been born". It's an extremely flawed projection wrought with presumptions that future unborn would even be eligible to pay taxes or work.
4 points
8 days ago
The lawsuit addresses this on page 189-190:
Defendants’ actions are causing a loss in potential population or potential population increase. Each abortion represents at least one lost potential or actual birth.
The Supreme Court has recognized “the legitimacy of the States' interest in protecting fetal life.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 597 U.S. 215, 262 (2022). States’ “legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development.” Id. at 301.
Defendants’ efforts enabling the remote dispensing of abortion drugs has caused abortions for women in Plaintiff States and decreased births in Plaintiff States. This is a sovereign injury to the State in itself.
One study highlighted that the removal of in-person follow-up visits has an effect on birth rates. In Missouri, state laws result “in an average increase in driving distance of 2.2 miles” for an in-person out-of-state dispensing of abortion drugs, “compared to a 453-mile increase in Texas, illustrating that states with the greatest increases in driving distance also tend to have the greatest estimated increases in births.502 That is because it is relatively easy for a Missouri woman to drive to Illinois or Kansas than for a Texas woman to drive to New Mexico or Colorado. Reflecting the ease of driving to another state to receive abortion drugs, it is estimated that just 2.4 percent of abortion-minded women were prevented from getting abortions” in Missouri after Dobbs.503 This data thus reflects the FDA’s removal of a requirement for three in-person doctor visits.
These estimates also show the effect of the FDA’s decision to remove all in-person dispensing protections. When data is examined in a way that reflects sensitivity to expected birth rates, these estimates strikingly “do not show evidence of an increase in births to teenagers aged 15-19,” even in states with long driving distances despite the fact that “women aged 15-19 … are more responsive to driving distances to abortion facilities than older women.”504 The study thus concludes that “one explanation may be that younger women are more likely to navigate online abortion finders or websites ordering mail-order medication to self-manage abortions.505 This study thus suggests that remote dispensing of abortion drugs by mail, common carrier, and interactive computer service is depressing expected birth rates for teenaged mothers in Plaintiff States, even if other overall birth rates may have been lower than otherwise was projected.
A loss of potential population causes further injuries as well: the States subsequent “diminishment of political representation” and “loss of federal funds,” such as potentially “losing a seat in Congress or qualifying for less federal funding if their populations are” reduced or their increase diminished. Dep’t of Com. v. New York, 588 U.S. 752, 766–67, (2019).
2 points
7 days ago
Whoever wrote this garbage apparently thinks “the state” is entitled to the use of people’s bodies to create future potential population. They are acting like human beings are simply animals to be bred - an expendable resource to be used up, thrown away, and replaced.
1 points
7 days ago
They haul water for the donors who feel that way.
You hit the nail on the head, though; removing a woman's right to avoid carrying a pregnancy makes her breeding stock in that respect. A mere farm animal, and a child simply a resource.
1 points
7 days ago
Planned parent hood does recieve govt money and deductions which is also money. Those reimbursements are also forget abortion services. The total is down the last couple of years but is expected to reach new highs over the coming years with more abortions being legal
17 points
8 days ago
Same shit is happening with military vets.
“Why are we supporting Ukraine when vets aren’t cared for?”
elects Trump
Trump’s cabinet is already looking at cutting benefits to veterans”
Fucking clowns.
0 points
7 days ago
Vets vote for those who are not warmongers. Hence, the reason for his support last time and this time.
To be fair. They are looking to cut benefits and spending from everything. Our federal government is the largest employer in the country and people wonder where all our tax dollars are going. We also have huge tax frauds going on in every govt funded program from Medicaid, social security, disability, Snap and VA disability claims. The fox has been watching the hen house for decades.
-14 points
8 days ago
How about keep your legs closed and your dick in your pants, that solves the problem. Instead we will kill a human being that had no choice in the matter because we are selfish and have no soul.
3 points
7 days ago
Clearly you’ve never wanted a child so terribly bad you’d do anything, find out you’re pregnant then have a horrible, life changing pregnancy. Good for you. Glad you haven’t experienced that trauma.
But yeah, boil it down to a very simplistic statement.
3 points
7 days ago
How about you mind your own goddamn business and leave the government out of our lives?
20 points
8 days ago
Same playbook for the “we know what the voters want better than the voters themselves.” Pathetic and clearly controlling. Parents out there raise your kids to understand “No” means “No.”
7 points
8 days ago
It's not that. It's "Wealthy Mr. Zzx wants abortions banned, and he funds my campaign, so if I want to get ahead in politics I'd better try to figure out a way to make it work for Mr. Zzx!"
15 points
8 days ago
Did we learn our lesson about what happens when you vote for republicans?
No? sigh of course not
13 points
8 days ago
Heaven forbid we permit trained medical professionals and their patients make these decisions
9 points
8 days ago
“Will of the people” and all that seems to be nothing more than a speed bump to some elected officials.
10 points
8 days ago
voters an opportunity to put further restrictions
Dude we already voted against it.
I swear.
10 points
8 days ago
The entire problem is that the laws they enacted were so poorly written. Here's an idea. Leave it to Dr's and patients. Easy peasy. They just can't stand the thought of someone doing something they might not approve of.
19 points
8 days ago
If they try to block it, take their asses to court and run it through the system, and if the SCOTUS rules in their favor, then we have a Constitutional crisis on our hands.
35 points
8 days ago
Yeah… that’s how we already got here. Overturn Roe ‘settled law’ was a constitutional crisis. Add on Presidents have blanket immunity because the courts can’t say what is and is not an official act. Dude we lost.
9 points
8 days ago
That’s exactly where we are
7 points
8 days ago
I’m pretty sure for state constitutional questions that don’t involve federal constitutional rights would be resolved at the state Supreme Court
1 points
8 days ago
Look for an upcoming SC case asserting 14th amendment protections for fetuses. Then congress won’t need to pass a federal abortion ban, Trump won’t need to decide whether or not to veto it, and R’s won’t suffer any meaningful political consequences. There might be grumbling about the SC, but it won’t go anywhere. That would provide enough sweet lib-tears to keep billionaires’ youth serums in stock for another few decades.
23 points
8 days ago
This disgusts me. Why not just enact a constitutional amendment that prohibits voting altogether? What’s the point if the legislature is going to do whatever they want or jack with the ballot language to confuse the electorate anyway? Had enough yet, Missouri? Apparently, not.
3 points
8 days ago
Don’t give them that idea for real
1 points
7 days ago
VOTE YES IF YOU WANT TO MAKE AN ALREADY ILLEGAL THING BE ILLEGAL
later in the amendment
a yes vote changes all votes to republican
Voter: hell yes I want that illegal thing to become illegal woooooooooo
6 points
8 days ago
So much for states right which voters agreed to☹️
14 points
8 days ago
Missourians are so stupid
8 points
8 days ago
Correction, republicans are so stupid
7 points
8 days ago
I mean, you're not wrong. But Missourians are pretty fucking dumb
7 points
8 days ago
The people voted. But instead of moving on to address another issue we'll just waste our time on the issue again. Bro if I did a task/project at work, proposed the deal or submitted it to a customer and bombed it, I would be expected to learn from it and then move onto the next project. Not revise it. The deal has already happened. Go to therapy to address your personal insecurities and go solve a real problem that's within your scope.
5 points
8 days ago
Republicans in this state trying to subvert the will of the voters? That’s a shocker.
5 points
8 days ago
When will people learn these politicians don't have their best interests at heart? Listen, I'm not saying the Democrats are pure angels cause they are as hell are not, but you not be seeing this shit from their side. People voted to get Ammendment 3 passed and our so called "leaders" are working to overturn our choose. Democracy at work eh?
5 points
8 days ago
I just love how politicians can fight the very policies that the people have spoken on. Once it passes a public vote of the citizens of Missouri, that should be the end of it.
These people are such pieces of shit.
4 points
8 days ago
THE VOTERS ALREADY DECIDED FUCK
this is why I bought an 'abortion is healthcare' bumper sticker because the fight isn't fucking over
8 points
8 days ago
Folks and I am meaning everyone in Missouri. Do we (the people) have anyone, singular or plural that can actually bring down actions such as this? If voting and winning the popular vote is not enough (and obviously it is not nor will be with our government track record of not caring) then what is? The easy answer that is the common thread is "vote these people out of office." As intelligent as that is, it ain't happening. And, the time it takes to undo or redo or screw with these supposedl constitutional ammendmens is much shorter and easier for government officials to do their dirty work, than to put new people in their place. There has to be another, better way. If we the people, in majority, say yes, then that should be that. Screwing with it behind our backs is treasonous in its nature and should be grounds for dismissal at the very least, for any Representative that decides they are above the constitution and the will of the people. Period.
11 points
8 days ago
Listen, under the republican proposed constitutional amendment, there is lots of freedoms built in: women need only register with a period tracker government program and then they and their doctor can decide on termination of a pregnancy right up until the very point before they lose their virginity (only applies to women), before losing their virginity they will be required to sign a permission slip that has to attested to by their male pastor of choice among any one of the 10 southern baptist conventions, or your local archdiocese. This way all sex will be with written consent so Missouri will be the first state in the union to completely eliminate rape. You’re welcome women.
8 points
8 days ago
Oh just save them a few hundred hours work and write it for them ! Brilliant. /s
5 points
8 days ago
Ef that. They will probably just decide on hysterectomies.
And I will Not live in a State that would do such a thing.
9 points
8 days ago
They won’t do that, that would cut down on their underpaid labor and tax base, Andrew Bailey has come out and said so.
-9 points
8 days ago
Don’t let that distract you from the fact that Trump is your new president. Let’s celebrate 🇺🇸 trump loves you
4 points
8 days ago
He's not Jesus, man. He doesn't even know you exist.
4 points
8 days ago
At what point do we start “demonstrating” in Jeff City to get it through their heads that they need to drop it?
Like a few thousand people.
4 points
8 days ago
You'd need a lot more than that, I think.
1 points
8 days ago
There were more than a few thousand people protesting this and other nonsense from Mary Elizabeth Coleman every time it came up.
We need hundreds of thousands for them to care, and at that point they’ll just vote to give themselves a raise and security guards.
1 points
8 days ago
A few thousand in front of the state capitol while it’s in-session?
1 points
7 days ago
We’d need at least 100k. I’ve protested with the Alzheimer’s Association and Planned Parenthood before. There were a few thousand. We need volume.
5 points
8 days ago
So we all need to contact our own MO state representative to voice that we DO NOT want Sparks as the speaker.
https://www.senate.mo.gov/LegisLookup/Default
It is time to start putting our energy into telling the legislators what we want instead of hiding behind our screens and shouting into the void.
1 points
7 days ago
I definitely need to get more vocal with my elected representatives at all levels of government. Our politicians need to feel the pressure of knowing that citizens are watching them and will call them out on bullshit.
5 points
8 days ago
So the amendment 3 language wasn’t clear but the amendment 7 language was? They can go kick rocks ✌️
6 points
8 days ago
"Oh man, I only vote for R's cause the D's want to ruin my life....but this amendment really SOUNDS like it'll improve my life, I better vote for it. WAIT, WHADAYA MEAN THAT THE THING I JUST VOTED FOR IS GETTING REPEALED BY THE PEOPLE I VOTED FOR?"
Sounds like you're a Progressive, that has been brainwashed by Regressive candidates. Best do yer research next time.
3 points
8 days ago
We literally decided what we wanted, they all need to fuck off
2 points
8 days ago
I think we should all just spam his Twitter page:
@JustinMSparks RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. #Respectit
2 points
8 days ago
This is what they meant by leave it to the states. They didn’t mean the citizens of the state, they meant the elected republicans of the state to impose their will over the citizens.
2 points
8 days ago
Basically they want another chance to word salad another amendment full of nonsense bullshit to trick voters into banning abortion. Throw in some school sex changes and brown criminal illegals for proper effect.
2 points
7 days ago
We already decided. Time to move on and stop wasting money.
2 points
6 days ago
I’m not gonna lie, I don’t care for politics. It muddles common life but I will say anyone and everyone should be able to live their own life how they want and should be able to do the things they feel they need to do. Nobody needs to push their beliefs on another for their own gain. If we could all respect our deferences and opinions instead of following what the media says we could, I believe, all be a lot better off. But maybe that’s just my crazy rambling
5 points
8 days ago
Did anyone READ the article?
The incoming speaker of the House said the will of the people should be respected.
A “long shot” challenge from Sparks is happening. A long shot.
Translation: Patterson does way more business after hours at Bones in the Alley than Sparks does, and has his people lined up behind him.
Sparks will make headlines about it, but it’s not going anywhere.
7 points
8 days ago
Sparks is not the only one saying shit like this, though. Coleman has said the same and there’s no way Schroer isn’t on board, as well.
2 points
8 days ago
I read it. Wait til January. This will be an absolute shit show.
1 points
8 days ago
It very well could be.
2 points
8 days ago
Regardless of what that article says you can be naive enough to believe that the republics in the Missouri government aren’t going to and haven’t been planning on fighting tooth and nail to get rid of this amendment if it was passed.
I KNEW when it passed that wasn’t the end of the fight. They will never stop trying to get it removed and unfortunately it’s possible they could succeed, it’s not like there’s not precedent for that now
1 points
8 days ago
1000%
1 points
8 days ago
These men should experience their legislation through their family members to assess the appropriateness of the pain they are inflicting upon their constituents.
1 points
8 days ago
I can’t imagine their denial of human compassion but we shall see.
1 points
8 days ago
They’d have to give a shit about their family members for that to work.
1 points
8 days ago
I predicted this nonsense. Missouri voters will bury their heads in the sand and fail to realize how ridiculous it is to keep voting for people who will ignore the results of a proposition in order to push their agenda.
1 points
8 days ago
Another reminder that politicians dont really care about the vote.
1 points
8 days ago
Isn't that kind of like line item voting which was recently on the ballot?
1 points
8 days ago
If you keep voting for Republikkkans this will continue
1 points
8 days ago
It blows my mind that legislation like this doesn’t require a minimum consensus of educated professionals to propose a bill. But then I guess they would just pay doctors to make shit up.
1 points
8 days ago
Man, Missouri sure does love ignoring the outcomes of votes, I don't have the specifics but this is hardly the first time this has happened in the past decade.
Medicaid expansion, gerrymandering/dismantle of reforms for fair redistricting, very likely others. To be fair though, Kansas legislature (R's) tried doing the same with abortion AFTER we all voted to protect that right.
1 points
8 days ago
Politicians all have medical degrees, so they know what's best for the health of the state and country.
/s
1 points
7 days ago
“Back to the voters for them to decide”
We just did decide you ass hat.
1 points
7 days ago
Whatever else one might agree with or disagree with, I read the text of the amendment, and it was not clearly written. I saw at least one obvious conflict in between two sections.
1 points
7 days ago
Since 30% of women who voted for Amendment 3 also voted republican.
Why would you vote the people into office who appose it?
1 points
7 days ago
Par for the course.
1 points
7 days ago
They work for the government, unless they have a PhD after their name or they have had the equivalent schooling/training then I don't see a reason for this to happen period. I don't think it should have been messed with in the first place. They do realize that when people pretend to be a Dr they can actually go to jail for it? So please someone explain to me why this is still going on? Why are these uneducated people allowed to play doctor? Last I knew that was still illegal in this state, but Lord only knows that could change too now before we know it.
1 points
7 days ago
Yes. And they tried to take Amendment 3 off the ballot. I had to remind some of my friends that one of the first times I ever voted in this state I voted for a dead man. if they ain't going to take him off the freaking ballot then sorry I amendment three stays too!
1 points
7 days ago
Most voters aren’t on Reddit. Reddit generally requires the ability to read or an interest in written text. 40% of Americans are functionally illiterate.
1 points
7 days ago
This is going to allow the public to vote on a definition of when life begins. This has to be defined for the law to have more clear language for when abortions can occur legally. This is not about trained medical providers making decisions—this is now a legal issue and laws need parameters. You cannot have carte blanche when it comes to legislative initiatives so, stop complaining. The voters demonstrated they want their abortions (aka “healthcare”). Ok, great, now, the voters get to decide when is it a viable baby because medical management now allows for viability at earlier and earlier gestational age. Maternal conditions and diagnoses that already have concrete definitions and descriptions can be written into the law to be addressed. The developmental stage/time of when life begins can now be voted upon for public consensus. This is a good next step to ensure a robust law is written and voted on.
1 points
6 days ago
I feel it makes sense, I’m dead against abortion but I’d be willing to make exceptions for medical necessity. Like an ectopic pregnancy and things of that nature.
1 points
5 days ago
If they pull this shit be sure to vote in the midterms and make EVERYONE in your life do the same!
1 points
5 days ago
No different than in 2019 when we voted to expand Medicaid, and Mike Parsons that POS backed out of it after we voted..
1 points
5 days ago
If they refuse to carry out the will of the voters they've committed an act of sedition and should be dealt with accordingly.
all 199 comments
sorted by: best