Missouri Republicans Are Trying to Push Through a New Abortion Ban

(Permanent Musical Accompaniment To This Post)

Being our semi-regular weekly survey of what's goin' down in the several states where, as we know, the real work of governmentin' gets done, and where the eyes of the idol with the iron head are glowing.

Be moderate,” the trimmers cry,

Who dread the tyrants’ thunder.

“You ask too much and people fly

From you aghast in wonder.”

’Tis passing strange, for I declare

Such statements give me mirth,

For our demands most moderate are,

We only want the earth.

—James Connolly, Irish Patriot, 1907.

It seems that there were marches of opposition all over the world on Thursday to mark International Workers' Day. We have to give the president this—he may be bringing back the Gilded Age, but he also may be bringing May Day back at the same time. Folks in Pittsburgh should keep a lookout for Pinkertons until we clear things up.

Anyway, we begin in Missouri where, in the face of Republican victories, the citizenry of Missouri voted in favor of a referendum to embed a right to choose in the state's constitution. Since then, the heavy GOP majority in the state legislature has broken a lot of rock trying to overturn the results of that election. Its latest attempt seems to be designed to leverage conservative anti-trans prejudice to confound the will of the voters. From the Missouri Independent:

The legislation approved on a 4-2 party line vote would repeal the reproductive rights amendment known as Amendment 3 but allow exceptions for medical emergencies, fatal fetal anomalies and for survivors of rape and incest in the first 12 weeks of gestation. If approved in the Senate, the proposal would be on a statewide ballot in November 2026. It could also be placed before voters earlier by Gov. Mike Kehoe...

...The ballot language that would appear before voters does not explicitly say the amendment would ban abortions.

Instead, Missourians would be asked if they want to amend the Missouri constitution 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.”

The anti-choice side tested the limits of irony at a recent hearing.

The committee adjourned less than two hours into testimony. Of the people crowded into the hearing room and hallway, only six were there to speak in support of the legislation. State Sen. Patty Lewis, a Kansas City Democrat, noted that after her GOP colleagues again said that Missourians only approved Amendment 3 because they didn’t understand what they were voting on. “Missouri Right to Life represents hundreds of thousands of people across Missouri,” Klein said.

“Where are they?” Lewis asked.

We move on up to Maryland. It seems that there is a national movement to deputize local sheriffs to work with ICE on their roundups. Some states have jumped in enthusiastically. Some states are refusing on the grounds that it's a genuinely terrible public policy, Some Democratic Maryland legislators have been trying to put the state on that side of the issue. From Bolts:

They were pushing the legislature, with its Democratic supermajorities, to ban Maryland sheriffs from participating in the federal 287(g) program, which empowers local law enforcement to arrest and detain people they suspect are undocumented on behalf of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The program has drawn in conservative sheriffs nationwide who are eager to assist ICE. Several blue states have already banned it, but Maryland has not.

In fact, amid President Trump’s return to office on a promise to deport millions, Maryland’s Republican sheriffs have rushed to join the 287(g) program: Four of the state’s 24 sheriffs have contracted into it just in the last eight weeks, bringing the total state participants to seven. More than 1.1 million Marylanders, nearly a fifth of the state, now live in 287(g) counties.

A ban on these arrangements would alleviate the problem of this patchwork situation. However, the Democratic super-majority turned out to be less than... super.

This was at least the third year since 2020 that a proposed 287(g) ban had failed to pass Maryland’s legislature, but this one particularly stung supporters, because lawmakers knew well before the session began that Trump was looking to reinforce the cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE. And the debate within Maryland grew more heated in the the final weeks of the session, as a Maryland resident, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, involuntarily became an international symbol after he was deported to a Salvadoran mega-prison despite having a legal order protecting him from removal... Lawmakers told Bolts they were tracking the case at the same time they were holding last-minute talks on 287(g).

Now we come to that part of the story at which it might be wise to remove all the breakables from easy reach.

Several lawmakers who talked to Bolts since the session ended pinned the failure of the 287(g) ban primarily on a general fear that the Trump White House could seek to punish Maryland if it passed the ban—that is, make life even harder on immigrants in the state than it is today, as retribution for anti-287(g) reform. State Senator Will Smith, a Democrat who chairs a committee that reviewed immigration bills this session, said that while he supported the ban, “I’m also clear-eyed as to the likely retaliatory actions that would be forthcoming from the administration if we were to do so.”

“Do you venture in and live your values, with the understanding that repercussions could hurt thousands or hundreds of thousands of Marylanders?” Smith continued. “It’s a terrible and unfortunate intersection to be at as a lawmaker.”

I understand the dilemma but, folks, in the immortal words of Hyman Roth, this is the business you have chosen. You will note the difference between how the Republican legislative super-majority in Missouri behaves and how the Democratic super-majority in Maryland behaves. In Missouri, they press ahead with their policy agenda despite its demonstrated unpopularity with the voting public. In Maryland, the Democrats hear bustling in their hedgerows and get alarmed now. One side knows how to run a political party. One doesn't. It's a horribly value-neutral proposition, but it's a true one.

And we conclude, as is our custom, in the great state of Oklahoma, whence Blog Official Vinho Verde inspector Friedman of the Algarve brings us the tale of Happy Jesus Time in the Sooner State. From News4 in Oklahoma City:

The debate continues over the “Christ is King” resolution passed by the Oklahoma House of Representatives. On Wednesday, those against the resolution held a news conference saying they believe in religious freedom for all Oklahomans. “Declaring one’s God king over another person’s God isn’t just exclusionary, it’s an attack on one’s religious freedom,” said Rep. Mickey Dollens, D-Oklahoma City...

...However, Senator Shane Jett, R-Shawnee, is a co-author of the resolution says that’s not what it is. “It’s just a very warm, inspirational way to honor Christ and to recognize his role and the foundation of the nation and the important role that he plays in the hearts of Oklahomans all over,” said Jett.

Christ is king, but he's a warm and inspirational king. Won't you be his neighbor?

This is your democracy, America. Cherish it.