Proposed Amendment House Joint Resolution 98, which would ban abortion permanently in the Missouri Constitution
Insists fetuses be afforded ‘constitutional protections’
That awkward moment when a male lawmaker lectures women that it his duty “as a former embryo” to strip abortion rights from women who don’t know any better.
Well, that’s precisely what Missouri State Rep. Mike Moon (R) argued this week while debating House Joint Resolution 98, which would ban abortion by affording constitutional protections for “unborn human children,” smugly arguing “as a former embryo myself, I would like protection for all embryos.”
The statements were made at the Missouri Capitol Tuesday afternoon, amid a throng of Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion groups advocating on behalf of a proposed amendment before the House Committee on Children and Families.
House Joint Resolution 98 would permanently mandate in the Missouri Constitution a right to life for “unborn human children at every stage of biological development” effectively outlawing the practice of abortion at any stage of pregnancy throughout the state.
As with all joint resolutions from both the House and Senate, the Constitution can be changed only upon a successful public referendum, which is still quite far away.
This is before even considering the unlikelihood of the legality of such an amendment, as it, of course, directly contradicts Roe V Wade, which specifically grants women the fundamental right to an abortion before the third trimester of a pregnancy.
That did not stop Moon from going to great lengths to get his point across, opening the hearing by showing a video of an unborn fetus on a display monitor. The fetus was developed enough to make out certain physical human characteristics. “A precious sight, I think most of us would agree,” Moon said referring to the video, “The more you look at that, the more you have to realize that that is a human being.”
He then continued his argument by describing the protection of unborn life as a moral crisis akin to the country’s abolition of slavery.
Rep. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, another committee member, also shared his thoughts during the
testimonies, supporting Moon and reiterating the bizarre comparison of reproductive rights to the abolition of slavery. “I think it’s pretty sad that as a nation we haven’t learned from history,” Brattin said.
At the time, he told Mother Jones that while the bill would have exceptions for rape
victims and to protect the life of the mother, women in domestic violence situations are not exempt from having to ask the father’s permission because “what does that have to do with the child’s life? Just because it was an abusive relationship, does that mean the child should die?”
Ed Weisbart, a family physician in St. Louis, was the first to formally testify against the bill, saying “I know there’s nothing I can say today that will alter your opinion about when life begins. But I am hopeful I can convince you that unlike what we’ve heard recently, this is just an opinion and not a scientific fact.”
He added added further that the bill would have disastrous effects on a pregnant woman’s legal right to determine her own best interests while in the same breath doing “absolutely nothing” to protect the health of women.
As of Tuesday night, House Joint Resolution 98 was not yet scheduled for any further action.
Yet further proof that the Democrats need to not only produce strong showings in national elections this November, but statewide ones, too.