Saturday, July 31, 2010


A staff attorney for the Ninth Circuit wants health insurance for her wife

Once upon a time I was employed in the land title business. That is the industry which pays particular detail to the history of land transactions. Examining title to real property involves researching deeds, mortgages, deeds of trust, judgments, lawsuits, tax liens, mechanic liens, maps, plats, and surveys.

Keeping track of who is who requires a system of classification. How did the deed grant the property to the Buyer. That is another way of saying what type of legal relationship is being recognized. There are tenants in common with or without the right of survivorship. There are joint tenants with the right of survivorship, which is the way many married persons take title. Some jurisdictions recognize a tenancy called the entireties, an estate reserved exclusively for married couples. Unmarried women taking title were often referred to by the  expression feme sole. Today, especially in tenancies in common, unmarried persons are referred to as a single man, or a single woman. Why not just say a single person?

An expression we seldom see, except in the dusty files from gone by centuries, is et ux, the abbreviation of the Latin term et uxor, which means "and wife." If you happen across a deed using the term feme sole then you may run across deeds to a certain man et ux. Women in America were treated as personal property when they married. The woman's name on the deed was superfluous as all the legal right and interest to the title ran to the husband. Essentially, women lost their rights when they wed.  The legal doctrine by which husbands subsumed the legal rights of their wives was called coverture.

Since et ux is so seldom used to reference wife in contemporary parlance my eye was immediately drawn to In the Matter of Karen Golinski, et ux, a case being reported on the home page of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Federal employee Karen Golinski has a wife. Ms. Golinski has been denied a benefit of federal employment, health insurance for her wife, because she is married to a woman. The Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, Alex Kozinski, is handling the case. Ms. Golinski is a staff attorney working for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit

Judge Kozinski has already ruled that denial of the health insurance benefits violates the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals guarantee of equal employment opportunity. That order said:
The availability of health insurance for oneself and one’s family is a valuable benefit of employment, and denial of such a benefit on account of sex and sexual orientation violates the terms of the EEO plan that covers Golinski." See, Amended Order, November 19, 2009.

The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts denied Ms. Golinski claim because he considered the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) 1 U.S.C. § 7 prohibits identifying a spouse as a person of the same gender. Since Ms. Golinski's wife was not her spouse under federal law, she was not entitled to add her wife under the definition of family required under 5 U.S.C. § 8903(1), which is part of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act (FEHBA).

Judge Kozinski found the Director's reading of the statutes was not the only plausible reading of FEHBA. Kozinski relied upon a broader construction of the FEHBA which permits the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract for coverage exceeding the minimum statutory requirements. This allows OPM to contract for family coverage which meets the definition of family under state law, but would not meet the definition imposed by DOMA. Kozinski says:

Adopting the broader construction of the statute not only harmonizes the statutory scheme with our EEO plan, it avoids difficult constitutional issues. If I were to interpret the FEHBA as excluding same-sex spouses, I would first have to decide whether such an exclusion furthers a legitimate governmental end. Because mere moral disapproval of homosexual conduct isn’t such an end, the answer to this question is at least doubtful.
Kozinski supports his decision by reliance on Romer v. Evans, 241 U.S. 620 (1996). In that case the Supreme Court said that an amendment to the Colorado constitution prohibiting civil rights protections for gays and lesbians contravened the United States Constitution.

Describing the type of inquiry required to sift through the facts and weigh the circumstances to determine constitutionality of the involved statutes, Kozinski relied on the case of Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967).  In that case a racially neutral housing law in California was struck down because on the basis of the context and circumstances surrounding the statute's enactment it had the design and intent of weakening the state's anti-discrimination laws.

Note to Kris Kobach, what say you to the context and circumstances surrounding enactment of SB 1070?

Back to Golinski. Judge Kozinski stares into the process of ruling DOMA unconstitutional and does what all good jurists do. Judge Kozinski avoided the constitutional question and harmonized the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. § 7; the statutes creating the benefit program at issue, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), 5 U.S.C. §§ 8901 et seq.; and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' commitment to equal employment opportunity.

Judge Kozinski's order in this case set forth the following six provisions.

  1. This matter is referred to the Appellate Commissioner for a hearing on Ms. Golinski’s claim under the Back Pay Act. Within 70 days, he shall submit a report and recommendations on the factual issues listed above.

  2. Within 30 days, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall re-submit Ms. Golinski’s Health Benefits Election form 2809 to her designated insurer, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan. The AO shall process any future benefit forms without regard to the sex of the listed spouse.

  3. Within 30 days, the Office of Personnel Management shall rescind its guidance or directive to the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan and any other plan that Ms. Golinski’s wife is not eligible to be enrolled as her spouse under the terms of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program because of her sex or sexual orientation, and that the plans would violate their contracts with OPM by enrolling Ms. Golinski’s wife as a beneficiary. 

  4. The Office of Personnel Management shall cease at once its interference with the jurisdiction of this tribunal. Specifically, OPM shall not advise Ms. Golinski’s health plan, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan, that providing coverage for Ms. Golinski’s wife violates DOMA or any other federal law. Nor shall OPM interfere in any way with the delivery of health benefits to Ms. Golinski’s wife on the basis of her sex or sexual orientation.

  5. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan shall enroll Ms. Golinski’s wife within 30 days of receipt of the appropriate forms from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts without regard to her sex or sexual orientation.

  6. The Judge authorized Ms. Golinski to take appropriate action to secure compliance with this order, such as by petition for enforcement or mandamus. I trust, however, that such action will not be necessary.
 The Judge's order was appealed and Ms. Golinski filed suit. See, Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, No. 10-cv-00257-SBA (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 20, 2010).

The parties to the appeal filed a motion to stay the appeal pending resolution of Federal District Court Case. Judge Kozinski granted that motion. Stay tuned this case is worth watching.

Friday, July 30, 2010


Bartlett & Co., formerly # on the list of contributors for Lynn Jenkins, has fallen off her list. A review of Bartlett & Co. on Open Secrets shows only that they are the top contributor for these five politicians:

Mission, Kansas' James B. Hebenstreit, Bartlett & Co. President, is reported as having given $30,400 to the National Republican Congressional Committee [NRCC]. Among his other contributions are three contributions of $2,400 each to Lynn Jenkins [6/30/09, 6/30/09, 12/31/09]. Marilyn Hebenstreit has given Lynn Jenkins $4,400.
• Bartlett & Co. to Christopher "Kit" Bond (R) in 2010
• Bartlett & Co. to Sam Brownback (R) in 2010
• Bartlett & Co. to David Dreier (R) in 2008
• Bartlett & Co. to Jerry Moran (R) in 2008
• Bartlett & Co. to Sam Graves (R) in 2006
The NRCC is reporting having raised $75,531,984 for the 2010 election cycle. The Democrats counterpart to the NRCC is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, [DCCC] and they have raised $93,706,323 to date according to Open Secrets.

Mr. Hebenstreit and his firm, Bartlett & Co. certainly appear to have given enough money to Lynn Jenkins to remain included on the list of her largest donors.

The Credit Union National Association donation to Lynn Jenkins is now up to $10,000, up from $6,400. The Credit Union National Association has given a total of $326,510 to Members of the House Committee on Financial Services, Lynn Jenkins' committee.

Legg Mason is a PAC for Security Brokers and Investment Companies. In the data gap that occurs between reporting cycles Legg Mason is reported as having not made any candidate expenditures for 2010, through 6/30/10. Yet the latest report on Lynn Jenkins, 7/11/10, shows Legg Mason has given Lynn Jenkins $9,600. That's the same amount Bartlett & Co. gave Lynn Jenkins. Is this a data entry error? What happened to Bartlett & Co. and when did Legg Mason's money get reported?

The American Bankers Association have given Lynn Jenkins another $2,000. She has now taken $10,000 from them. Gosh, no wonder she votes against eliminating Golden Parachutes.

A new entry to Lynn Jenkins' heavy hitter hit parade now shows up with $7,000 in hand for her. Accounting giant Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu . From Open Secrets comes this summary of this Big Four Accounting Firm:

Now you see $7,000 more reasons why Lynn Jenkins voted against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act twice. She voted against regulating the culprits that brought down our economy on 12/11/09 during roll call 968. She voted against the bill again on 6/30/10 during roll call 41. The new law, Public Law 111-203, permits recovery of exorbitant executive compensation, including Golden Parachutes, from Fat Cats at failed financial firms. Lynn Jenkins talks against Golden Parachutes but votes to keep Golden Parachutes.
Deloitte & Touche is one of the remaining Big Four accounting firms and once offered its clients one-stop shopping for accounting, consulting and other financial services. But the collapse of Enron and its resulting fallout for the accounting industry forced the firm to rethink its business strategy. In spring 2002, Deloitte & Touche announced it would spin its consulting business into a separate company. Like other firms, however, the company has continued to lobby against bills that would strengthen oversight of the industry and further restrict the auditing/consulting relationship between firms and their clients. Yet the industry’s troubles continue to mount. In September 2002, federal investigators began to probe Deloitte & Touche for its role in a bookkeeping scandal at Adelphia Communications, one of the firm’s biggest clients.

More new donors make their appearance with the new reporting cycle. The National Association of Realtors chip in with $5,000 in PAC money for Lynn Jenkins. Burlington Northern Santa Fe's PAC also gives Lynn Jenkins $5,000. American Crystal Sugar's Pac gives Lynn Jenkins $5,000. The American Association of Orthodontists PAC gives Lynn Jenkins $5,000. The National Association of Home Builders PAC gives Lynn Jenkins $5,000. The Majority Committee PAC, a PAC that gets its money from other PACs, gives Lynn Jenkins $5,000.

Fat Cat money just keeps oozing Lynn Jenkins way.

Thursday, July 29, 2010


House Minority Leader John Boehner

John Boehner covets the office of Speaker of the House. No other explanation will suffice as he throws dignity overboard and begins the big hustle being touted as the Cash-for-Speaker Program. News of this dubious promotion was broken by Politico's Jonathan Martin,

The shameless selling of access Congressional power makes Harlem's Democratic Representatives shortcomings look inconsequential. And Charlie Rangel's neck deep in hot water.

Wikipedia's reference to "pay to play" says: In politics, pay to play refers to a system, akin to payola in the music industry, by which one pays (or must pay) money to become a player,.

Boehner's promise to Fat Cats is that they will have special access to him, as Speaker of the House, when they give all they can legally give to Boehner and other Republican interests. Whether you are the person giving the cash or the rainmaker delivering the Fat Cats to Boehner and the GOP you get:
Typically, the payer (an individual, business, or organization) makes campaign contributions to public officials, officials, or parties themselves, and receives political or pecuniary benefit such as no-bid government contracts, influence over legislation, political appointments or nominations, special access or other favors. The contributions, less frequently, may be to nonprofit or institutional entities, or may take the form of some benefit to a third party, such as a family member of a governmental official.

The phrase, almost always used in criticism, also refers to the increasing cost of elections and the "price of admission" to even run and the concern "that one candidate can far outspend his opponents, essentially buying the election."

While the direct exchange of campaign contributions for contracts is the most visible form of Pay to Play, the greater concern is the central role of money in politics, and its skewing both the composition and the policies of government. Thus, those who can pay the price of admission, such as to a $1000/plate dinner or $25,000 "breakout session," gain access to power and/or its spoils, to the exclusion of those who cannot or will not pay: "giving certain people advantages that other[s] don't have because they donated to your campaign." Good-government advocates consider this an outrage because "political fundraising should have no relationship to policy recommendations." Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington called the "Pay-to-Play Congress" one of the top 10 scandals of 2008

Incumbent candidates and their political organizations are typically the greatest beneficiaries of Pay-to-Play. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have been criticized for the practice. Many seeking to ban or restrict the practice characterize pay-to-play as legalized corruption.

The opposite of a pay-to-play system is one that is "fair and open"; the New Jersey Pay to Play Act specifically sets out bid processes that are or are not considered fair and open, depending upon who has contributed what to whom.

  • Conference Calls with Guest Speakers*
  • Password protected Website access for political updates and insider briefings*
  • A direct line to a personal contact at the "Boehner for Speaker" campaign*
  • Access to national meetings with elected officials and policy experts*
  • Access to regional and small group events with Republican VIPs**
  • Calls from senior level staffers to personally update you and provide information on Republican activities***
  • VIP access to all events, including roundtables, briefings, breakout discussions, and interactive panel discussions***
  • Meetings with Leader Boehner, and much more***
* Denotes Benefits for $15,000 Contributors or Those Who Help Raise $50,000+
** Denotes Benefits for $25,000 Contributors or Those Who Help Raise $75,000+
*** Denotes Benefits for $37,800 Contributors or Those Who Help Raise $100,000+

See the document for yourself at

All of these nice GOP/Tea Party candidates are running around Kansas and the other 49 States telling us how they plan to get rid of the Democratic Party's debt-ridden and job-killing agenda.

They brazenly omit that it is they, the Republicans, who squandered a budget surplus into record budget deficits, waged two wars off the books, eliminated critical regulatory safeguards leading to the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression, and wasted two years saying no to America's Economic Recovery. The Democrats inherited debt and joblessness from these Republicans and they think the American voters will just forget who caused our national trauma?  Rant on Republicans Rant on!

A pig in a poke

If you think Boehner, this Cash-for-Speaker Raw Deal, and his Republican cohorts are going to establish a limited government approach by selling the richest of the rich access to power, then go look in the mirror. Does the reflection remind you of someone who just bought pig in a poke? It should.


Yesterday House Republicans, including Lynn Jenkins, voted en masse not to consider H.R. 1559. Roll call 476 provided for consideration of the appropriations bill for military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The vote was 243 to 178. Not one Republican voted to bring the bill to the floor to fund military constructions and the Department of Veterans Affairs, NOT ONE!

The bill passed, the bill passed overwhelmingly. Republicans are obstructionists but they are not stupid. Voting no on H.R. 1559 is political suicide. Voting no on roll call 476 was consistent with the arrogance of not governing. Saying no is not governing.

The Associated Press reports this morning that the measure advanced on a vote of 411 to 6. That information is not available on Thomas, The House must have been working late last night.

Minority Leader John Boehner offered the only amendment to the bill. He wanted to gut funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs. That's your GOP/Tea Party supporting the troops. NOT! Actually, Boehner does not like the V.A's, lobbying office. How dare them folks who served come back and want to be heard by the Congress. Don't they know they're competing with FAT CATS like the Big Banks, the Insurance Lobby, and the Military-Industrial Complex.

Yeah Boehner, Ms. Jenkins' leader, doesn't have time to hear from the troops. Of course he has led the Party of No into a conundrum. Their demagoguery on spending has consequences. They, who wasted a budget surplus while running up record budget deficits, they who waged two wars off the books, they who removed critical regulations from the financial sector resulting in the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, and they who have misspent the past two years obstructing the Economic Recovery, it is they who have suddenly found Jesus and can't borrow a dime more to keep this nation afloat.

I think the GOP/Tea Party won't be able to sell this manure come November. In the meantime expect them to rant on.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Preliminary Injunction Issued Against Arizona's SB 1070

Federal District Judge Susan Bolton

Federal District Court Susan Bolton is hearing the matter of the United States v. Arizona, et al. Today she blocked key portions of Arizona's "papers please" SB 1070 law written by Kansas' candidate for Secretary of State Kris Kobach. On Kansas City's local FOX affiliate, WDAF, Kobach downplays the significance of Judge Bolton's ruling. He should not.

Preliminary Injunctions are not issued at the drop of a hat. They belong to a class of Equitable Remedies known as Injunctions. A Preliminary Injunction does not always blossom into a Permanent Injunction. Neither is overturning a Preliminary Injunction a slam-dunk.

Four elements must be established before a court will issue a Preliminary Injunction. First the Plaintiff must show a reasonable likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of the case. Second, irreparable harm will occur absent the order. Third is a balancing test where the judge must find that less harm will accrue to the Defendants if the Preliminary Injunction is issued compared to more harm accruing to the Plaintiffs if the Preliminary Injunction does not issue. Finally, that the public interest weighs in favor of the Plaintiff.

Here is what early reports are saying about Judge Bolton's ruling. The New York Times is reporting:

The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there’s reasonable suspicion they’re in the country illegally.

The Tucson Citizen gives a more detailed report of Judge Bolton's actions, reporting that these key features of SB 1070 will not be going into effect next week:

The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there’s reasonable suspicion they’re in the country illegally.

• The portion that creates a crime of failure to apply for or carry “alien-registration papers.”

• The portion that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. (This does not include the section on day laborers.)

• The portion that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.
The Tucson Citizen says other parts of SB 1070 will not be enjoined:

The ruling says that law enforcement still must enforce federal immigration laws to the fullest extent of the law when SB 1070 goes into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday. Individuals will still be able to sue an agency if they adopt a policy that restricts such enforcement.

Bolton did not halt the part of the law that creates misdemeanors crimes for harboring and transporting illegal immigrants.

Bolton’s ruling followed hearings on three of seven federal lawsuits challenging SB 1070. Plaintiffs include the U.S. Department of Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, Phoenix and Tucson police officers, municipalities, illegal immigrants and non-profit groups.

She denied legal requests by Gov. Jan Brewer, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and several other defendants seeking to have the lawsuits dismissed because, they argued, the plaintiffs did not prove that they would be harmed by the law if it went into effect.

Judge Bolton did not enjoin §1 of SB 1070, providing for the intent of the bill; Portions of §2 of SB 1070.
From Judge Bolton's Order, these are the enjoined sections:

Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following Sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:

Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person

Section 3 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work Section 6 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

The Court also finds that the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of S.B. 1070 and that the balance of equities tips in the United States’ favor considering the public interest. The Court therefore issues a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the portion of Section 2 creating

A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), Section 3 creating A.R.S. § 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), and Section 6 creating A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5).

The Preliminary Injunction has the effect of freezing the status quo, the enjoined parts of SB 1070 will not go into effect. Expect a full trial on the merits of the case with the United States asking for a Permanent Injunction.

This case is far from over.

Radical Hospitality, SB 1070, & Kris Kobach

The Kansas City Star published the following letter to the editor in their Wednesday, July 28th paper.

Kobach cover-up

Kris Kobach isn’t the first politician to employ racially neutral laws that violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. He reminds me of former Mississippi governor J.P. Coleman.

Coleman, like Kobach, was a bright legal technician who drafted his policies in racially-neutral terms in hopes of thwarting the civil rights of African-Americans. Jim Crow laws were often written in racially-neutral terms. Despite Kobach’s protestations, I doubt S.B. 1070 will survive legal challenges based on either the supremacy clause or the equal protection clause.

My chief complaint against Kobach’s legislation is not based on constitutional theory. It violates a spiritual value known as “radical hospitality,” which calls for extending welcome beyond the boundaries, beyond places of worship, into every corner of society.

I am reminded that but for the grace of God, any of us could be in the place of economic refugees. American citizens of Hispanic descent should not be burdened by Kobach’s law. Kansas can do better than electing Kris Kobach.

Michael Box
For reference purposes, I wrote that letter, J.P. Coleman was a Federal Judge and Mississippi Governor, and Kris Kobach is running for Kansas' Secretary of State.  Michigan's Democratic Representative to Congress once referred to Coleman as the "thinking man's segregationist."  Here's what these folks look like.

J.P. Coleman

John Conyers

Kris Kobach

Those who support Arizona's SB 1070 claim that it mirrors America's immigration law.  While the Arizona statute parrots federal immigration law, it is significantly different in that the stated purpose of the Arizona statute is attrition through enforcement.

Kris Kobach's statute makes an attempt to usurp authority granted to the Congress by the Constitution.  What Kobach didn't think of, or fails to mention, is that the Congress has the authority to enact laws to enforce federal power.  Immigration is a federal power.

U.S. Constitution Article I §8 cl. 18

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Kobach would have the States exercise the elastic nature of the Necessary and Proper Clause in contravention of the Constitution of the United States.

Much has been written and much is being practiced when it comes to Radical Hospitality.  A fine distillation of this core spiritual value is found in a short poem by Edwin Markham.


He drew a circle that shut me out —
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in!

Tuesday, July 27, 2010


This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us

Five years ago America's Gulf Coast faced Hurricane Katrina, one the five deadliest storms and the costliest natural disaster the nation has ever known. We all remember the immediate aftermath of that storm. The suffering in the streets of New Orleans and the chaos at the Superdome are permanently etched in our memories.

Hurricane Katrina

What we ignore and tend to forget is that thousands and thousands of homes were battered by hurricane force winds for hours before any storm surge finished them off. That means that thousands and thousands of homeowners and their families with adequate, or more than adequate, insurance expected their homeowner's insurance policies to make good on their losses.

Insurance Claims were Denied

Didn't happen. Katrina left us with a prime example of what I mean when I say that corporations don't have a butt to kick or a soul to save. The insurance adjusters claimed the loss came by water not from the wind. Why is that important? A water loss is a flood loss and the taxpayers pick up the tab. A wind loss is a covered hazard and the insurance company picks up the tab.

Representative Gene Taylor [D -Ms] at podium

Bottom line, the insurance industry refused to pay what they owed. Then, State by State, they pulled their business lines out of the Gulf Coast States. Here's an example provided by Mississippi's Democratic Representative from the floor of the House during consideration of H.R. 1264, the MULTIPLE PERIL INSURANCE ACT OF 2009:

Madam Speaker, if I was a shill for the insurance industry, and apparently we have our share on the floor today, I would do everything but talk about what the insurance industry did to south Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina. I would forget, if I was a member of the Rules Committee, the 12 years that they controlled the floor of the House of Representatives, the 12 years that they could have cut the Amtrak subsidy had they wanted to, but they didn't.

So let's get back to what we are going to talk about today. And, again, I thank the leadership for bringing this to the floor.

If you had visited south Mississippi in August of late 2005, gone to a little town called Bay St. Louis, you could have driven down the street and seen this house. It belonged to some folks named Corky and Molly Hadden. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit south Mississippi. So the Haddens left this because their Nation warned them that a bad storm was coming, and came home to this.

Corky is a financial manager; he is a smart guy. He had lot of insurance, he thought. As a matter of fact, Corky had $650,000 worth of insurance on that house. The problem was under the rules of the National Flood Insurance Program that Mr. Sessions agrees needs changing, and I am trying to change today, we paid the private sector, State Farm, All State, Nationwide, we pay them to sell the policy; they get a premium. We pay them to adjust the claim.

The problem is no one bothered to think that wait a minute, we are letting that claims adjuster decide he is playing God. He can say the wind did it, which means his company has to pay, State Farm, Nationwide or All State; or he can say the water did it, which means the taxpayers have to pay.

You are right, Mr. Sessions, we should not have paid that $18 billion. The reason we paid that $18 billion is a bad set of rules that allowed companies like State Farm, All State, Nationwide to stick the taxpayers with their bills. So 18 months after this event, Mr. Hadden, who had $650,000 worth of insurance on that nice house, was paid nothing by his insurer, State Farm Insurance Company.

Again, if you are a defender of the insurance industry, if they are helping you with your campaigns, you sure as heck don't want to talk about that, do you?

The next house, if you had gone a little bit further down the same street, you would have seen one of the oldest houses in Bay St. Louis, built around 1800. So from 1800 to 2005, no telling how many hurricanes it survived. It belonged to the Benvenutti family, a pretty old house.

This is what it looked like when they left because their Nation told them to get the heck out of there, there is a bad storm coming. Let's see what they came home to. This is what they came home to.

You know, for most people, including Mississippians, your house is your biggest investment. It is, to a large extent, an extension of yourself. So the Benvenuttis, realizing that that house meant a lot to them, had a lot of insurance, or so they thought, $586,000. When they filed their claim, for almost 24 months they were paid nothing on their wind insurance.

Now why is this significant? Well, NOAA, the Navy Oceanographic Lab and others went back and looked at the events that were called Hurricane Katrina, and NOAA tells us that for 4 hours before the storm surge arrived in south Mississippi, that house, the house before it, was subjected to hurricane-force winds for 4 hours before the water ever got there. Yet the insurance companies wanted to turn around and blame everything on the water. Why?

Because they could stick the taxpayers with the bill.

The next house is a more typical home, more modest home. This one is about a mile inland, about a mile inland, pretty good ways from the water. Beautiful home. This is what the folks who lived there, when they left, looked at last.

This is what they came home to.

It's not just three houses; it's not 30 houses. It was 30,000 houses that this happened to. So, again, these folks, knowing this was a big part of their lives, had $249,000 worth of insurance. Their insurance company was slightly more generous than the previous two times and offered them $10,000.

Now, Mr. Sessions points out that, incorrectly, that maybe government shouldn't be doing this. Well, maybe he doesn't talk to his folks in his State capital often enough because if he had he would know that his State is already doing this.

In the aftermath of Katrina, on a State-by-State basis, the insurance industry pulled out, left a vacuum. People had to have some form of wind insurance; and so on a State-by-State basis, the State picked up that obligation.

The Republican Minority is playing a shell game. They inherited a budget surplus from former Democratic President Bill Clinton. They and Republican President George Bush ran up record deficits, waged two wars off the books, gave the richest Americans huge tax breaks, and removed critical financial regulations leading to the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression. Now these same wastrels who squandered the budget surplus have misspent these past two years obstructing the Economic Recovery and serving the interests of Wall Street, Big Banks, and the Insurance Lobby.

H.R. 1264, the MULTIPLE PERIL INSURANCE ACT OF 2009 passed the house on roll call 466, by a margin of 228 to 183. Lynn Jenkins, champion of Fat Cats, Big Banks, Insurance Companies & people so rich they have more dollars than sense again showed her true colors by voting against regular people.

Monday, July 26, 2010


This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us

Tracking corporate cash in Congressional politics is mindboggling. So far there is a four-way tie for third place on who's given Lynn Jenkins' the most money for the 2010 race for reelection. The Every Republican is Crucial PAC, Honeywell International, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, and another Republican PAC the Freedom Project have each given Lynn Jenkins $10,000.

George Orwell, author of Animal Farm

The Every Republican is Crucial PAC only gives money to Republicans. Paraphrasing George Orwell's sentiment in Animal Farm, some Republicans are more crucial than others. Open Secrets reports that the newest Republican Member, Hawaii's Charles Djou, is the most crucial. He got $15,000. Lynn Jenkins, and about fifty other GOP Representatives each took $10,000. There's a handful of Republican legislators who are minimally crucial, getting only $208. But the strangest entry has to go to New York's Vito Fossella. He's listed as receiving a gift of a -$5,000. How's that work? Do they send him a bill? Read it for yourself at

Charles Djou, the Most Crucial Republican

Vito Fossella, the Least Crucial Republican

So where did all that money come from? They came from Big Business, and Lynn Jenkins is no stranger to these folks. Here is the list from Open Secrets:
Rank Contributor Total Indivs PACs

1 Altria Group $42,250 $32,250 $10,000

2 SAC Capital Advisors $31,500 $31,500 $0

3 NorPAC $26,020 $26,020 $0

4 Paulson & Co $22,750 $22,750 $0

5 Blackstone Group $21,700 $19,200 $2,500

6 KKR & Co $20,000 $20,000 $0

7 MacAndrews & Forbes $16,000 $16,000 $0

8 Pfizer Inc $15,250 $250 $15,000

9 Crocs Inc $15,000 $15,000 $0

9 Dominion Resources $15,000 $5,000 $10,000

9 East West Partners $15,000 $15,000 $0

12 Monness, Crespi et al $13,000 $13,000 $0

13 Blue Cross/Blue Shield $12,500 $0 $12,500

13 Mortgage Bankers Assn $12,500 $2,500 $10,000

15 Merck & Co $10,500 $500 $10,000

16 Fidelity Investments $10,250 $250 $10,000

16 PricewaterhouseCoopers $10,250 $250 $10,000

18 Abbott Laboratories $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Aetna Inc $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 America's Health Insurance Plans $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 American Airlines $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 American Assn of Orthopaedic Surgeons $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 American Bankers Assn $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 American Express $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 American Health Care Assn $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 American Institute of CPAs $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Associated Builders & Contractors $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 AT&T Inc $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Automotive Free International Trade PAC $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Bank of America $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 BASF Corp $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Boston Scientific Corp $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Capital One Financial $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 CCA Industries $10,000 $10,000 $0

18 Chicago Mercantile Exchange $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Comcast Corp $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Credit Suisse Securities $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 CVS/Caremark Corp $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Ernst & Young $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Federal Express Corp $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Food Marketing Institute $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 General Services Co $10,000 $10,000 $0

18 Genworth Financial $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Home Depot $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Indep Insurance Agents & Brokers/America $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 International Council of Shopping Cntrs $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Koch Industries $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Microsoft Corp $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 National Assn of Convenience Stores $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 National Assn of Health Underwriters $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 National Assn of Home Builders $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 National Assn/Mutual Insurance Companies $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 National Beer Wholesalers Assn $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 National Restaurant Assn $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Northrop Grumman $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Northwestern Mutual Life $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Printing Industries of America $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Raytheon Co $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Reynolds Development $10,000 $10,000 $0

18 Royall & Co $10,000 $10,000 $0

18 Union Pacific Corp $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 United Parcel Service $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 USAA $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Verizon Communications $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 Weinstein Properties $10,000 $10,000 $0

18 Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America $10,000 $0 $10,000

18 World Wrestling Entertainment $10,000 $10,000 $0

The Altria Group gave Lynn Jenkins $1,500. The Mortgage Bankers Association gave Lynn Jenkins $3,000. Pricewaterhouse Coopers gave Lynn Jenkins $10,000, remember that four-way tie for third? The American Bankers Association gave Lynn Jenkins $8,000. The American Association of CPA's gave Lynn Jenkins $1,499. Associated Builders & Contractors gave Lynn Jenkins $5,000. AT&T Inc, gave Lynn Jenkins $11,500. Bank of America gave Lynn Jenkins $1,000. Capital One Financial gave Lynn Jenkins $3,000. Comcast Corp. gave Lynn Jenkins $5,000. Credit Suisse Securities gave Lynn Jenkins $1,000. Ernst & Young gave Lynn Jenkins $6,000. Home Depot gave Lynn Jenkins $2,500. Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers/America gave Lynn Jenkins $6,000. International Council of Shopping Centers gave Lynn Jenkins $2,500. Koch Industries gave Lynn Jenkins $5,500. National Association of Convenience Stores gave Lynn Jenkins $1,000. National Association of Home Builders gave Lynn Jenkins $5,000. National Association/Mutual Insurance Companies gave Lynn Jenkins $3,000. National Beer Wholesalers Association gave Lynn Jenkins $3,000. Union Pacific Corporation gave Lynn Jenkins $1,000. United Parcel Service gave Lynn Jenkins $3,000. Verizon Communications gave Lynn Jenkins $1,000.

It's time to take the Pigs to task

Money flow through Washington like water through a sieve. Corporations give money directly to Members of Congress. Then they throw money at those same Members of Congress by supporting the partisan PAC's which oozes money in their direction. It is not a Republican problem. It is not a Democratic problem. It is an American problem.

Corporations don't have a butt to kick or a soul to save. They are not persons eligible to vote. Their voice in the affairs of state carries too much weight. There is a spending problem in Washington alright, but it is the money spent on buying access to power that's the problem. Lynn Jenkins is in her first term in Congress and already she's up to her neck in the muck and slime of business as ususal.

Sunday, July 25, 2010


This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us

Lynn Jenkins is doing business as usual with AT&T, Inc. AT&T, Inc. is the former nationwide phone company broken up by federal Anti-Trust litigation. They were a monopoly, I suspect they'd really like to be one again. That's why it's a sure bet that if you're a Member of Congress they'll give you $5,000.

Lynn Jenkins didn't get $5,000 she got $11,500 from AT&T, Inc's PAC. Open Secrets reports that the average gift to a Member of Congress from AT&T, Inc. is $4,791 for Democrats and $5,973 for Republicans. What makes Lynn Jenkins such an attractive buy for this PAC?

Part of the corporate largesse being spread for Lynn Jenkins comes by virtue of her assignment to the House Financial Services Committee. That's not the number one recipient of AT&T, Inc's cash, but they're high on the list.

Energy and Commerce was first with $345,250. The Transportation Committee came in second getting $341,350. Third was Financial Services taking a combined $318,500. Number four or AT&T, Inc's hit parade of House Committees was Armed Services which raked in $258,275. Rounding out the top five was Agriculture harvesting $240,000.

AT&T is buying Members of Congress

Talk about the top five, here's another. The top five rankings [it takes 12 names because of ties] for Members of Congress taking AT&T, Inc.'s cash:

#1. Nevada's Democratic Senator Harry Reid, $29,550,  ranked #1

#2. Florida's Republican CANDIDATE Charlie Crist* $21,600, ranked #2

#3. Missouri's Republican Representative Roy Blunt $11,500, ranked #3

#4. Kansas' Republican Representative Lynn Jenkins $11,500, ranked #3

#5. California's Democratic Representative Jerry McNerney $11,500, ranked #3

#6. Texas' Republican Representative John Carter $11,000,  ranked #4

#7. Texas' Republican Representative Jeb Hensarling $11,000, ranked #4

#8. Maryland's Democratic Representative Steny Hoyer $11,000, ranked #4

#9. Ohio's Republican CANDIDATE Rob Portman* $11,000, ranked #4

#10. Virginia's Republican Representative Eric Cantor $10,500, ranked #5

#11. Massachusetts's Democratic CANDIDATE Martha Coakley* $10,500, ranked #5

#12. Georgia's Republican Representative Tom Price $10,500, ranked #5

*Governor Crist is running for the U.S. Senate as an Independent in Florida, Rob Portman is running for the vacated seat of Senator Voinovich in Ohio, and Martha Coakley lost to Senator Scott Brown in the special election to fill the seat of Senator Kennedy after his death.

An example of why AT&T is spending lots of cash on Congress is H.R. 3125, the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act. One way to ease the gnarling gridlock in D.C. is to lubricate our Representatives and Senators with money. H.R. 3125 required a 2/3 majority to pass the House on roll call 201. It passed by a margin of 394 to 18!

Open Secrets reports that AT&T, Inc. had 14 specific reports or issues with H.R.3125. To see the list of legislation AT&T, Inc. is interested in right now link to Open Secrets at The data was compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Ma Bell made Big Bucks in Long Distance

AT&T, Inc. whom we used to call MA BELL, was purchased by SBC, formerly Southwest Bell, one of the baby bells FOR $16 BILLION. According to Open Secrets they want to become MA BROADBAND. Here is Open Secrets summary on AT&T, Inc.:

After being broken up in the mid-1980s in a landmark antitrust case, this telecommunications icon re-formed in 2005, and became the nation’s largest phone company when SBC Communications bought AT&T Corp. for $16 billion. As SBC, the company led the fight to allow the Baby Bells to enter the long-distance market, where they hope to offer profitable broadband Internet services. Cingular, which bought AT&T Wireless for $14 billion in 2004 and was part of SBC, is now in AT&T’s fold. Cingular -- ultimately renamed AT&T again -- is the leading U.S. wireless carrier, with more than 54 million subscribers. And AT&T’s growth continues. In 2006, AT&T agreed to buy southern Baby Bell BellSouth in a deal valued at more than $65 billion. Although the company has historically favored Republicans in its political giving, people and political action committees associated with AT&T have generally split their contributions between Democrats and the GOP since the 2008 election cycle.

If you are sick and tired of business as usual politics then you've got to be sick and tired of Lynn Jenkins.

It's time to take Congress back from the Fat Cats

Saturday, July 24, 2010


This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us

Need a loan? Lynn Jenkins doesn't. Her biggest contributor is QC Holdings. During the 2010 cycle they have given her more money than any other contributor. That's $12,500 from individuals associated with QC Holdings and $5,000 from their PAC. Why would QC Holdings want to give so much?

Maybe it's because they got their proverbial teat in the ringer back in 2007 and they need all the leverage they could get. Back in '07 several banks had to give the Pay Day Rip Off Company, QC Holdings a BAILOUT.

Yuppie Scum owners of QC Holdings, Jill & Darrin Andersen

When a business can't pay its bills and is needing to avoid a default on their loans and the banks RESTRUCTURE the debt, that's a private BAILOUT. That is something the people who are forced to use the legalized loan sharking business QC Holdings offers can't get from a bank.

QC Holdings is a Legalized Loan Sharking Enterprise

Back in '07, the Kansas City Business Journal reported that several banks reached an agreement with the legalized loan sharks to keep them from going belly up on a $45MILLION credit line.

Those banks were, Bank Midwest, Enterprise Bank & Trust, Bank of Oklahoma, and the National City Bank. Well, if a working slob can't get enough of a loan from one of these banks to see him or her to the next paycheck then why are these banks lending money to the legalized loan shark perpetuating the pain of working your keister off and not being able to make ends meet. Don't do business with these banks! They support evil.

How Evil, you ask? Corporate Crime Daily,  reports that QC Holdings was sued by the Arizona Attorney General. Here's their press release:

Phoenix, Ariz. - December 4, 2009) Attorney General Terry Goddard today filed a lawsuit alleging deceptive business and debt litigation practices against national payday lender Quik Cash (QC Holdings, Inc., and subsidiary QC Financial Services, Inc.).

The lawsuit seeks up to $5 million in restitution, asks the court to set aside hundreds of deceptively obtained court judgments against Arizona payday loan borrowers and seeks to stop the company from doing business in Arizona.

The suit, filed in Pima County Superior Court, alleges that Quik Cash engaged in a pattern of deceptive business and debt collection litigation practices against hundreds of Arizonans from across the state from 2007 through 2009. The Attorney General requested a Temporary Restraining Order to stop the payday lender from violating Arizona law by deceptively suing debtors in improper court venues.

“The deceptive business and debt litigation practices alleged in the complaint are outrageous and make a mockery of Arizona’s Justice Court system,” Goddard said. “The practices alleged in the complaint allowed the company to obtain a veritable assembly line of default judgments against borrowers who could not pay off their payday loans.”

Quik Cash is one of the largest publicly traded payday lenders in the country with 585 stores nationwide as of last year. Quik Cash has about 38 locations in 12 Arizona counties. In 2008, QC Holdings reportedly originated some $1.35 billion in payday loans and posted revenues of approximately $180 million in payday loan fees. In 2008, profit from its Arizona branches represented nearly 8 percent of its total revenues.

The complaint alleges that from 2007 through 2009, Quik Cash entered into payday loan agreements with consumers from across the state, promising that the agreements would be governed by Arizona law. However, the company then engaged in a widespread deceptive practice of suing hundreds of Arizona payday loan customers from outside of Pima County in the distant forum of Pima County Justice Court. These court filings were far from where the consumers lived or where the loans occurred in alleged violation of state law.

The complaint alleges that Quik Cash’s pattern of deceptive litigation tactics benefited the company by reducing its costs and making it more likely to obtain default judgments against Arizona consumers. After filing suit in the wrong court and county, Quik Cash pursued default judgments and wage garnishment actions in the same distant court venue.

The suit further alleges that Quik Cash deceptively advertised and represented that it follows “mandatory” industry standards requiring lawful methods of debt collection. The suit contends that Quik Cash began aggressive new collection strategies to counter the company’s increasing losses and decreasing collections.

The suit states that at least one Justice of the Peace in Pima County issued orders in several Quik Cash debt collection cases informing the company that it had sued in the wrong court and/or ordering the company to file in the correct county. Quik Cash even sued Nevada customers in Pima County, even though the customers had obtained their payday loans in Bullhead City, Ariz.

Arizona law requires lawsuits on small claims ($10,000 or less) to be filed in Justice Court and in the Justice Court precinct where the defendant lives or where the transaction occurred.

The lawsuit specifically alleges:

● Quik Cash misrepresented to customers that its payday loan agreements will be governed by Arizona law, when in fact the company knowingly violated Arizona law by filing debt collection lawsuits in the incorrect court venue.

● Quik Cash deceptively engaged in “distant forum abuse” by improperly filing lawsuits against Arizonans from across the state in Pima County Justice Court in violation of Arizona law, which increases the debt burden and makes it difficult for consumers to respond, thus increasing the likelihood of obtaining default judgments.

● Quik Cash deceptively filed related default judgments and garnishment actions against consumers in the same distant venue after having deprived consumers of their day in court at the outset of the debt collection litigation.

● Quik Cash deceptively advertised that it follows “mandatory” payday lender association standards requiring lawful collection methods.

The suit asks the Pima County Superior Court to:

Prohibit the defendants from engaging in deceptive or false business practices and advertising and from doing business in the State of Arizona.

Impose a penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, which could be up to $5 million in this case.

Set aside the deceptively obtained default judgments against consumers.

Require the defendants to reimburse the Attorney General for costs of the investigation and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Assistant Attorney General Vince Rabago is prosecuting this case. For more information, please contact Steve Wilson at (602) 542-8351.

If you believe you have been a victim of fraud, please contact the Attorney General’s Office in Phoenix at 602.542.5763, in Tucson at 520.628.6504 or outside the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas at 1.800.352.8431. To file a complaint in person, the Attorney General’s Office has satellite offices throughout Arizona with volunteers available to help. Locations and hours are posted on the Attorney General’s Web site, . An online complaint form is also posted on the Attorney General’s Web site.

So, when Lynn Jenkins says you need to grow up, pay your own bills, and fight your own battles, remind her that she takes more money from the sleaze at QC Holdings than from any other source.

Old Ben Franklin said it best: when you lay with dogs you get up with fleas. And baby that's an itch that 2,147% interest won't cure!

Tuesday, July 20, 2010


This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act in roll call 447 by a vote of 329 to 90. Lynn Jenkins, of course, voted no.  Details about H.R. 5114 were posted on this blog July 13th.

Arizona Republican Jeff Flake

Arizona's Republican Representative Jeff Flake introduced an Amendment mandating that no funds made available for grants under this bill may be used for earmarks. That Amendment passed 423 to 3.

New York Democrat Scott Murphy

New York's Democratic Representative Scott Murphy offered an Amendment requiring all funds authorized under the Act to be expended in a manner consistent with the manual on Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch. The Murphy Amendment passed 421 to 0.

This bill represents a major revamp of the Flood Insurance Program. The large margin of victory was driven by the fact that from A to Z this bill was driven by constituent concerns about improving Flood Insurance and making it more workable.

The trend continues, if government can do something to respond to the plight of ordinary people Lynn Jenkins is against it. Lynn Jenkins likes to tell us of her financial planning expertise. Really? Would you take financial planning advise from a person who tells you not to protect your assets through insurance? And neither would I. When it comes to flood insurance there is only one game in town. Lynn Jenkins just voted to let you and yours float downstream.

Monday, July 19, 2010


Missouri Senate Bill 793 is about to become the State's new Abortion Law. Governor Jay Nixon neither signed nor vetoed the bill.  Pursuant to Article III, § 31 of Missouri's Constitution, it becomes law on the Governor's inaction when the General Assembly is not in session. 

Missouri Senate Bill 793 is suspect legislation when viewed from the perspective of Supreme Court case law. The relentless adherence to a theological concept prohibits Missouri's General Assembly from conceiving their error or legislating in appropriate ways to avoid Constitutional conflict.

In a nutshell, abortion is not an unfettered right. A woman' decision to terminate her pregnancy during the previability phase, generally the first trimester, is protected by the Constitution. This protection stems from the Liberty Interest, as described in the Fourteenth Amendment, and resulting restrictions against state action. Another plausible source of this right to privacy, noted by the Supreme Court, is the Ninth Amendment.

Missouri's new law does not even tip its hat to the long line of cases that have upheld a woman's right to privacy with respect to her body; Not even a nod.

In the years since the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade medical science has moved forward. Available today is emergency contraception called Plan B. Available today is RU486, a medicine called the "abortion pill." The active ingredient in RU486 is mifepristone.

Since RU486 permits a woman to terminate her pregnancy well before viability Missouri realizes that they may not legislate as to mifepristone, right? Wrong.

The problem stems from Missouri's persistent abandonment of science in favor of violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. §1.205 Mo.Rev.Stat. makes it law in Missouri that life begins at conception.

§1.205 Mo.Rev.Stat.

Life begins at conception--unborn child, defined--failure to provide prenatal care, no cause of action for.

1. The general assembly of this state finds that:
(1) The life of each human being begins at conception;
(2) Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being;
(3) The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child. 2. Effective January 1, 1988, the laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court and specific provisions to the contrary in the statutes and constitution of this state. 3. As used in this section, the term "unborn children" or "unborn child" shall include all unborn child or children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development. 4. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.

Missouri Senate Bill 793 contains similar language.

§188.027.1(2) Mo.Rev.Stat. [New]

The physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or a
qualified professional has presented the woman, in person, printed
materials provided by the department, which describe the probable
anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two-week gestational increments from conception to full term, including color photographs or images of the developing unborn child at two-week gestational increments. Such descriptions shall include information about brain and heart functions, the presence of external members and internal organs during the applicable stages of development and information on when the unborn child is viable. The printed materials shall prominently display the following statement: "The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being."
§188.039 Mo.Rev.Stat.

1. For purposes of this section, "medical emergency" means a condition which, on the basis of the physician's good faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.
2. Except in the case of medical emergency, no person shall perform orinduce an abortion unless at least twenty-four hours prior thereto [a treating physician] the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or a qualified professional has conferred with the patient and discussed with her the indicators and contraindicators, and risk factors including any physical, psychological, or situational factors for the proposed procedure and the use of medications, including but not limited to mifepristone, in light of her medical history and medical condition. For an abortion performed or an abortion induced by a drug or drugs, such conference shall take place at least twenty-four hours prior to the writing or communication of the first prescription for such drug or drugs in connection with inducing an abortion. Only one such conference shall be required for each abortion.

3. The patient shall be evaluated by [a treating physician] the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or a qualified professional during the conference for indicators and contraindicators, risk factors including any physical, psychological, or situational factors which would predispose the patient to or increase the risk of experiencing one or more adverse physical, emotional, or other health reactions to the proposed procedure or drug or drugs in either the short or long term as compared with women who do not possess such risk factors.

4. At the end of the conference, and if the woman chooses to proceed with the abortion, [a treating physician] the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or a qualified professional shall sign and shall cause the patient to sign a written statement that the woman gave her informed consent freely and without coercion after the physician or qualified professional had discussed with her the indicators and contraindicators, and risk factors, including any physical, psychological, or situational factors. All such executed statements shall be maintained as part of the patient's medical file, subject to the confidentiality laws and rules of this state.
5. The director of the department of health and senior services shalldisseminate a model form that physicians or qualified professionals may use as the written statement required by this section, but any lack or unavailability of such a model form shall not affect the duties of the physician or qualified professional set forth in subsections 2 to 4 of this section.
6. As used in this section, the term "qualified professional" shall
refer to a physician, physician assistant, registered nurse, licensed
practical nurse, psychologist, licensed professional counselor, or
licensed social worker, licensed or registered under chapter 334, 335, or 337, acting under the supervision of the physician performing or inducing the abortion, and acting within the course and scope of his or her authority provided by law. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to in any way expand the authority otherwise provided by law relating to the licensure, registration, or scope of practice of any such qualified professional.
To be effective mifepristone needs to be administered within 49 days of conception. The woman first has to know she has conceived.  She then has to make an appointment with her physician.  Chances are that none of this is covered by insurance, so she will have to have funds available to see the health care provider and pay for the medicine.  Now Missouri wants to add to that equation that she must see the physician, be counseled according to the new law, go home, come back, get the prescription, and then enforce her difficult decision to terminate her pregnancy.  She has seven weeks to get all of this done.  Given the time it takes to notice that she missed her period and the time it takes to budget money for doctor and medicines, Missouri is effectively reducing the window of opportunity for this woman to have a safe non-surgical abortion, at a time when there is 0% probability that the gamete, zygote, or fetus is viable. 

The first question is whether this creates an undue burden on a Fundamental Right.  Where is the State's compelling interest in stopping a woman from making the decision to terminate her preganancy in the first 7 weeks?  Clearly the statute is not narrowly tailored to achieve the State's interest as it applies with equal force to previability cases as well as postviability circumstances. The next question is whether Missouri has violated the Establishment Clause by enforcing the religious dictum of some Christian churches that life begins at conception.

Well qualified plaintiffs need come forward to challenge this part of Missouri's new abortion law. A woman using Plan B must seek declaratory relief asking the court to exempt emergency contraceptives like Plan B from §188.027.1(2). Another woman, a pharmacist, and a physician must ask the court for declaratory relief that §188.027.1(2) places an undue burden on a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. These plaintiffs need to challenge that Missouri Senate Bill 793 as violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Suit must be filed in a Circuit Court in Missouri.

It is time for Missouri to put up evidence proving they have not violated the Establishment Clause. This issue went unresolved in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, a 1989 case. Associate Justice Stevens provided a lengthy discussion as to why Missouri cannot be permitted to legislate in this manner. Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion deferred deciding the issue until after Missouri Courts have interpreted §1.205 Mo.Rev.Stat. That is why suit must be brought in a Missouri Circuit Court.

Now it will be more difficult for Missouri to argue that this repetitious language is "precatory, and imposes no substantive restrictions on abortions." Precatory is a legal term of art meaning to make a wish or express a desire. Missouri shows its intent by moving the language from a statute's preamble into the substantive body of the abortion statute.

For his part, Associate Justice Stevens' opened his argument saying:

Indeed, I am persuaded that the absence of any secular purpose for the legislative declarations that life begins at conception and that conception occurs at fertilization makes the relevant portion of the preamble invalid under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution. This conclusion does not, and could not, rest on the fact that the statement happens to coincide with the tenets of certain religions, see McGowan v. Maryland; Harris v. McRae, or on the fact that the legislators who voted to enact it may have been motivated by religious considerations, see Washington v. Davis. Rather, it rests on the fact that the preamble, an unequivocal endorsement of a religious tenet of some, but by no means all, Christian faiths, serves no identifiable secular purpose. That fact alone compels a conclusion that the statute violates the Establishment Clause, [See,] Wallace v. Jaffree.