Newman: The war on woman continues

I was a bit late with the news release, which I posted earlier tonight, about the bill filed by Rep. Stacey Newman, D-St. Louis, which would make it more difficult to men to receive vasectomies in Missouri. The bill received nationwide attention Friday when it was mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's syndicated program. In her weekly report, Rep. Newman offers an update on the bill:

The War on Women Continues…

This past week my bill, HB1853 received national attention from none other than Rush Limbaugh on Fox News. I filed the Anti-Vasectomy bill in response to the increasing furor in the state legislature and Congress to restrict women’s access to reproductive healthcare - this year the attack is on birth control.

Used by over 98% of child-bearing women and over 98% of Catholic women, birth control is also prescribed for many women for various health reasons – including prevention of some cancers and regulation of hormonal levels. It’s been considered safe since 1960 – so what exactly is the furor about? Political agendas.

I’ve had enough. HB1863 is modeled on legislation which my progressive colleague, Georgia State Rep. Yasmin Neal filed recently in her state for the exact same reasons.

Since Limbaugh talked about it on his show Friday, I have been hearing from women and men across Missouri AND all over the country who are thanking me. I've received calls from women who have told me privately that their sister or aunt depended on birth control medications for extreme serious health situations.

Limbaugh's vitriol has become extreme against women who use birth control– as I’m sure you have heard. This week he has been targeting Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law student whose Congressional testimony was blocked – but in essence, he is attacking every woman and their partners who depend on birth control to plan if and when to have children.

So along with my co-sponsors – Reps. Tishaura Jones, Tracy McCreery, Mary Nichols, Rochelle Walton Gray, Jeanette Mott Oxford, Sharon Pace, Judy Morgan and Cherie Spreng – we simply said “enough is enough”.

Equality and justice = men need the same government barriers that women have when making decisions with their physicians. Some may laugh but WE WOMEN ARE NOT LAUGHING in committee and on the House floor each week when our reproductive decisions are constantly scrutinized with intrusive government proposals.

Read local coverage here and Kansas City TV coverage here. A more tongue in cheek article here from the St. Louis Riverfront Times.

OUR CURRENT STATE SENATOR IS AFTER WOMEN TOO

Sen. John Lamping has filed Missouri’s equivalent of the “Blunt Amendment” which would allow corporations, employers, HMO’s and insurers to deny coverage for birth control and other women’s reproductive health care.

SB749, like Congressman Roy Blunt’s amendment (which just failed this week) would not undo the recent Obama Administration decision to extend birth control without co-pays to millions of American women, but the entire new health care program.

Sen. Lamping claims he’s only trying to protect the “conscience” rights of these corporations to deny birth control, in vitro fertilization, etc but corporations don’t have “consciences” to protect.

I am greatly disappointed in Sen. Lamping for sponsoring SB749 which would hurt the majority of women in this district and across the state. I am passionately working to defeat it and any other legislation that restricts women from accessing the healthcare we need.

Newman bill would prevent men from receiving vasectomies

With her latest piece of legislation, Rep. Stacey Newman, D-St. Louis, is hitting men right where it hurts. The news release is printed below:


On the heels of the Missouri House debating a birth control resolution (HCR41) last week at length, yesterday (Wednesday) State Rep. Stacey Newman filed HB1853 which would prevent men from vasectomies unless needed to avert serious injury or death.
 
“I was one of the 'Silenced Seven,' seven progressive Democratic women, who stood at the microphones for over three hours last Wednesday and were not allowed to speak on a topic unique to females,” said Newman, who chairs the House Progressive Caucus.  If we are going to seriously restrict access to birth control used by over 98% of Missouri women and widely used since 1960, then it’s only fair we legislate men’s access as well.”
 
The anti-vasectomy bill reads in part:  “In determining whether a vasectomy is necessary, no regard shall be made to the desire of a man to father children, his economic situation, his age, the number of children he is currently responsible for, or any danger to his wife or partner in the event a child is conceived. A vasectomy shall only be performed to avert the death of the man or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the man. “
 
HB1853 was co-sponsored by Representatives Jones (63), McCreery, Nichols, Walton Gray, Oxford, Pace, Morgan and Spreng.  No men were asked to co-sponsor a bill tailored specifically to men in response to the women not being allowed to speak on the resolution regarding women’s reproductive health.  Noticeably HB1853 was not read aloud on the House floor Wednesday afternoon as other newly filed bills were first read.
 
Newman’s bill borrows language liberally from fellow Democrat colleague, Georgia State Rep. Yasmin Neal who filed a similar vasectomy bill last week after a severe anti-abortion bill was debated in the Georgia state legislature.  Their efforts reflect a nationwide pushback to anti-birth control and restrictive reproductive efforts in legislatures and in Congress.  In January, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell offered an amendment, requiring rectal exams for men before obtaining prescriptions such as Viagra, on an intrusive pregnancy ultrasound bill.
 

Audit shows Rex Sinquefield's Everything Tax proposal will cost public schools billions

(From the Missouri Association of School Administrators)


Roger Kurtz, Executive Director of the Missouri Association of School Administrators (MASA) reacted today to the cost of a petition filed by Rex Sinquefield attorney Marc Ellinger, “The proposal by Rex Sinquefield and Marc Ellinger will force districts to spend millions developing and administrating standardized tests while wasting valuable instruction time.” The petition was approved by the Missouri Secretary of State’s office late yesterday for circulation.  

Kurtz continued, “Auditor Tom Schweich noted that the impact of the Amendment could be ‘significant’ and force local school districts to waste millions of dollars on bureaucracy.”  

MASA prepared its own analysis of the impacts of the Sinquefield Amendment and concluded the costs could reach over $1 billion dollars in the first two years.  “This Amendment does nothing to improve our schools instead it drowns educators, students, and parents in a sea of red-tape.” said Kurtz. The MASA submission to Auditor Schwiech can be found here: www.masaonline.org. 

“Mr. Sinquefield is the largest political contributor in the state and has donated millions of dollars to politicians and campaigns to advance his anti-public school agenda. His recent comments regarding the KKK, public education, and teacher tenure show a dangerous lack of understanding of and outright hostility towards our public schools and the children they serve.” Kurtz said.  

Kurtz was referring to a presentation at Lindenwood University where Sinquefield made offensive comments and demonstrated a lack of understanding of how teacher evaluation currently functions in Missouri. The video can be found here: http://youtu.be/w1z4OYxjOjg 

Missouri schools face real challenges with shrinking budgets while serving more children in poverty than ever before. Now is the time for serious and thoughtful solutions that support our public schools, not degrade them. Sinquefield and Ellinger’s constant at

Legends in Branson provide tornado update

Richard bill would extend home insurance coverage

The Joplin Tornado exposed some serious flaws in home insurance coverage and those flaws are the target of a bill sponsored by Sen. Ron Richard, R-Joplin. He discusses the bill in his latest report:

The tornado that struck Joplin last May destroyed thousands of homes and damaged countless others. Many people literally lost everything they had. Since then, Joplin and its citizens have worked tirelessly to rebuild. Their continued perseverance in the face of such hardship is admirable and moving. Some people, however, have had difficulty rebuilding their lives because of a loophole in Missouri law regulating how insurance companies calculate payouts on homes that are destroyed by disasters.

Under current law, insurance companies are required to pay out the full value of a homeowner’s insurance policy for both real estate and personal property if the home is a total loss and destroyed by fire. Other disasters, like tornadoes, are not covered.  This means that insurers only have to pay what the home is worth at the time of the loss. When the housing market is down, as it is now, people are getting far less for their homes than what they paid on their insurance policies. They also have to provide an itemized list of all their personal property, and justify the value, to receive their personal property coverage from the insurer.

This is simply not right. People who have lost everything—their home, their possessions, in some cases, their livelihoods—should get the full value of their policy. If a homeowner purchases an insurance policy for $200,000 on their home, they should receive that amount. We already require insurance companies to do this in instances of a house fire. The same protection should be extended to homeowners who’ve lost their homes from any disaster covered under their policy.

Senate Bill 619, which I am sponsoring, would modify the state’s statute to include a wind or tornado disaster, requiring insurance companies pay claimants for the total face value of an insurance policy for the loss of, or damage to, a home from any disaster covered under the policy without claiming a diminished value on the property. 

The Senate Small Business, Insurance and Industry Committee held a hearing on SB 619 this week. Former Missouri State Representative Chuck Surface, of Joplin, testified in favor of the bill. He spoke about how the current policy is particularly hard on seniors.

The people of Joplin and the surrounding areas endured one of the most destructive, deadly tornadoes in the history of our state. As they continue to recover and rebuild, they should not be at the mercy of insurance companies because of a blind spot in state law. My office has received many calls from individuals who are fighting with their insurance companies to get the full value of their policy. These are people who were prudent, who paid month after month, for years, on an insurance policy in case of just such an instance. They deserve better, as do all citizens in Missouri who have dealt with the loss of their home from a disaster. Senate Bill 619 would ensure those homeowners receive a fair deal from their insurance companies. It is my strongest hope that this bill makes it to the governor’s desk.

MSSU faculty fears Speck ready to use collegiality as a hammer in personnel decisions

Recent comments by Missouri Southern State University President Bruce Speck about upcoming personnel decisions, which will include the removal of faculty, purportedly for budgetary reasons, have the staff on edge.

And judging from Speck's history at Austin Peay University in Tennessee, faculty members have every reason to be worried...especially if they have crossed Speck in the past.

Saturday night, I posted a memo from Speck to the Faculty Senate, in which the university president criticized the panel for its lack of "collegiality."

MSSU faculty fear that Speck will use collegiality as one of the determining factors in whether faculty members are retained.

The following passage is taken from the September 2003 edition of the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) Newsletter at Austin Peay:

In essence, the problem is a recent tendency among administrators and faculty to use collegiality as a category of faculty evaluation equal to and separate from the traditional areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. In response, the Council of the National Association adopted in 1999 a policy statement, "On Collegiality as a Criterion for Faculty Evaluation," which can be found in AAUP, Policy Documents & Reports (2001). On the whole, the authors of the statement "view this development as highly unfortunate, and we believe that it should be discouraged." 

However, as the statement notes, the issue is not a simple one. On the one hand, it is obvious that some degree of cooperation and civility are essential to the vitality of any academic institution. On the other hand, it is equally obvious that charges of lack of collegiality occasionally mask various forms of discrimination and efforts to suppress unorthodox opinion. Also, collegiality is often confused with excessive deference to administrative and faculty decisions which, for the good of the institution, ought to be openly and rationally debated. Thus, collegiality, when misused or misunderstood, can be a direct threat to academic freedom.

At that time, Bruce Speck was serving as the enforcement arm for Austin Peay University President Sherry Hoppe. History does have that unsettling habit of repeating itself.

Architects review Joplin High School plans

In this Jet 14 video of the first portion of the Feb. 28 Joplin School Board meeting, architects review plans for the new Joplin High School. The beginning of the presentation occurs about 10 minutes or so into the video.

Huff offers rundown on Joplin School District bond issue

In this Jet 14 video of the Feb. 28 Joplin School Board meeting, Superintendent C. J. Huff offers a rundown on the upcoming $62 million bond issue.

MSBA update: People need to keep up pressure on voucher legislation

Buck O'Neil inducted into Hall of Famous Missourians

Veterans legislation passes House

Cynthia Davis: We're losing our freedoms

The new ad from former Rep. Cynthia Davis, the Constitution Party candidate for lieutenant governor.

Memo: Bruce Speck tells MSSU Faculty Senate to stop being so mean

An epidemic of use of the word collegiality appears to be sweeping the Missouri Southern State University campus if you believe the indignant memo University President Bruce Speck fired off to the Faculty Senate Thursday.

In the memo, Speck whines about the "lack of collegiality" in the Senate and says he won't have anything to do with the Senate until its members learn how to play nice.

Of course, Speck's emphasis at a time when it is growing more and more obvious that he intends on eliminating the jobs of some of those whose collegiality he is questioning is almost as ridiculous as someone writing and singing a song called "The Pink Slip Blues" during a similar time.

Speck's memo is printed below:

Comments to Faculty Senate Executive Committee regardingCollegiality Issues

I made a decision after the October2011 Faculty Senatemeeting not to allow my directreports to appear before the Faculty Senate. I think therehas been some confusion about why I madethat decision and what has transpired sinceI made that decision, so hereare the facts about the issue as I know them:

•    The Faculty SenateExecutive Committee in its joint meetingwith the President's Council prior to the October 2011 Faculty Senatemeeting requested that Jared make a presentation about athletics. The purpose of thepresentation, as was stated duringthat meeting, was to providegeneral information about athletics. Jared agreed to make such a presentation.

•    After making comments at the October2011 meeting, I left and did not hear Jared's presentation, but immediately after his presentation, hecame to my office and wasagitated about what had happened. He told me that just prior to his presentation,Cliff told him privately that the Senatewould want to hear ajustification for athletics. After his presentation, afaculty member approached Jared and asked about the cases of beerthe athletic department providedstudents on the bus after an away-game. Jaredthought the faculty memberwas kidding, but soonrealized that she wasn't.  In short, Jared felt set-up, and came to me to expresshis agitation at the situation.

•    AJ told meabout the treatmentKelly Larson and Shanna Slavings receivedat the Faculty Senate when they reported on the courseredesign in communications. His report served to increase my concern about problems with collegiality in the Senate.

•    At the November meeting between the FacultySenateExecutive Committee and the President's Council, I expressed my concern regarding what appeared to me violations of collegiality inthe Faculty Senate.AJ also expressed his concerns. I noted that I would need evidence that the leadership ofthe Senate was willing to address the issue so that should futureincidents of failed collegiality begin in the Senate the leadership would address those incidentsimmediately. I recommended astatement from the Executive Committee that would provideme with evidence so that I would be comfortable allowing my direct reportsto return to the Senate.

•    At the November Senate meeting,AJ read a statement regarding his disappointment at failedcollegialityand, prior to the November Senate meeting, Richard Miller sent an

I                                                                                                                                               email to Cliff expressing his concerns about failed collegiality atthe October meeting.

I

I                  Richard was present duringthe October meeting.According to the Faculty Senate

minutes for November, the following was attributed to Cliff, "Toliver welcomed Senators

I                                                                                                                                   and briefly reflected on the October 3, 2011 meeting. He noted that good work was accomplished. He encouraged all members to consider ideas,programs, and proposals and subject them to rigorous debatewhile treating all individuals humanely." That statement fell far short of what I anticipated regarding the conversation with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee before the November Senate meeting.

•             I scheduled an appointment with Cliffto  inform him that I was not willingto have my direct reports come to Senate without assurances that future incidents of failed collegiality would be addressimmediately. Cliff told me that he thoughtthe October meeting could not have been handledany better, that AJ and Richard's views would not be endorsedby the Senate, and that what transpired was "academics engaged in proper

academic discourse regardingacademic issues."  Cliff suggestedthat I listen to the audio tapeof the October meeting and make a judgment of what happenedbased on that tape. He assured me that I would find his viewpoint correct.  I said that I would listen to thetape.

•    I listenedto the entire audio tape of the October Senate meeting in preparation for the Januaryjoint meeting betweenthe Faculty Senate ExecutiveCommittee and the President's Council.  I was unable to attend that meeting because I was called to JeffersonCity to testify before a House committee.  Ultimately, Cliff cancelled the meeting.

•    I attended the JanuaryFaculty Senate meeting,and no one asked me any questions about thesituation regarding my direct reportscoming to the Senate.  However, a Senator,who was present at that meeting, chose insteadto write a letter to the school newspaper addressing the issue, without either asking any questionsat the Senate meeting or contacting me personally to ascertain the status of my concern.

•              In listeningto the audio tape of the October Senate meeting, I could not always hear what wasbeing said.  In fact, several Senators requested that a fellow Senator "speak up."  Anaudio tape captures only so much of what is being transacted, but I did note the followingcomments:  "I feel like we're attacking our colleagues"; Thank you for fielding our "aggressive questions"; "Sorry I said 'jerk' to you."

•    I asked Kelley Larson to provideme with his perceptions of what transpired at the October Senate meeting, particularly in light of the 'jerk" comment, and he told me two peoplein the Senate called him a jerk.  When I asked him about how he was treated,he said that there was a lack of collegiality.

Given these facts, I believe the Senate needs to address a serious lapse in collegiality that occurred in the October meeting.  I really have little indication that either the Executive Committee or the Senatorsbelieves what transpired at the October meeting was a significant demonstration of violated collegiality.  A clear statement by the Senate Executive Committee at the next Senate meeting will provide me with sufficient evidence to resume the participation of my direct reports in Senate meetings.  Sucha statement must include the following elements:

•              Clear acknowledgement that during the October Senate meeting the Senate failed to practiceappropriate collegiality.

•    A statementof apology for such a lapse in collegiality.

•    A commitment by the leadershipof the Senate to immediately address any furtherlapse in collegiality during a Senate meeting.

If you want to provide me with a draft of such a statementbefore the next Senate meeting in time to discuss whether the draft isaddressing the elements I have outlined, I am willingto review sucha draft.