By Dan Martin
Filed Monday, May 14, 2007 at 12:17 PM
A slick move by a Republican senator to pass his controversial legislation while even members of his own party weren't paying attention has left many of his colleagues red-faced and further harmed the integrity of the body. Labels: State_Senate
Last Thursday, the Missouri Senate and House voted on House Bill 818, a fairly ordinary document dealing with Health Insurance and Tax Credits. The bill had come back from committee recently, and the bill's handler in the Senate, West County Senator John Loudon, assured his fellow senators that the bill had only minor technical changes from its previous versions. The bill was quickly approved.
What his colleagues soon discovered, however, was that there had been changes to the bill that were neither minor nor technical.
Loudon, who in his failed bid for State Auditor last year billed himself as the honest "Taxpayers' Watchdog", had secretly slipped language from his own failed legislation, Senate Bill 303, into the document and lied to his colleagues about it.
Senate Bill 303 would have made major changes to laws regarding the practice of midwifery in Missouri, and was called by one senator "one of the most controversial bills of the session."
Between a section specifying dislaimers for informational documents on health insurance and a section renaming earlier sections of earlier legislation, Loudon slipped in the following language:
"Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any person who holds current ministerial or tocological certification by an organization accredited by the National Organization for Competency Assurance may provide services as defined in 42 U.S.C. 1396 r-6(b) (4) (E) (ii) (I)."
What is tocological certification? Well, "tocology" is the medical term for the practice of midwifery.
Senate and House colleagues have expressed degrees of disapproval with Loudon's deceit. "I'm really disappointed in the way this happened," said State Sen. Jeff Smith.
"This body operates on trust... there's clearly no way we can read over 2,000 bills word for word, and so when a Senator announces that his bill only has some minor technical changes, we all trust that," said Smith.
State Rep. Rachel Storch told PubDef that she voted against the measure in the House precisely because of the speed with which it was being pushed.
"They had added so many provisions and [State Rep.] Doug Ervin, who was handling the bill on the House floor, was not giving us time to discern the new language," said Storch.
Smith also indicated that Loudon's actions may very well impact the Senator's ability to pass future legislation, as many of his colleagues have been expressing a reluctance to work with Senator Loudon in the future.
"All we have is our word," said Smith.
UPDATE: Now really hear it "Loudon Clear". Click here to listen to the actual floor debate (link via nikkisimmons.com).
41 Comments:
Senator Loudon had basically no other choice because of the fillibustering antics of only a few such as this Sentator Jeff Smith and Chuck Graham. At least he knows how to get something done for the people instead of using just 1 technique- fillibustering and holding the hole session up. Missouri families WANT midwives anyway so what's the big deal?
5/14/2007 1:39 PM
And this is the group of people we trust to make decisions that micromanage the most basic services our state offers. I feel just great about my healthcare, my kids' education, and my tax dollars being managed by these guys. They think it's all a game.
5/14/2007 1:39 PM
Well Genny, it's a case of the ends not quite justifying the means.
Imagine this had occurred on an issue you opposed. Senators slip a single sentence into an unrelated bill and then tell their legislative co-workers that they have made only "minor technical changes."
Do we really want our lawmakers lying to one another? Bold faced lies and underhanded tactics are how bad bills get passed, regardless of the issues therin.
5/14/2007 2:07 PM
Women have the right to give birth in an environment and with a provider that makes her comfortable. As long as it is a normal birth and her safety is not at risk, no man or group should infringe her right deliver her baby how she wants.
The medical lobbyist are fighting this because they believe that women will choose midwives over ob/Gyns and thus take money out of the good old docs pockets. The medical doctors and their lobbyist have been lining the pockets of a great deal of senators and reps. They are putting a lot of money up to stop these women from being able to help other women give birth. If you talk about trust, the Public's trust is violated every time a legislator sells out his or her constituents for a buck on the campaign trail from special interest groups.
Link to pdf articles:
http://www.cfmidwifery.org/pdf/quotes.pdf
http://www.cfmidwifery.org/pdf/CPM2000.pdf
The only thing standing in the way of the midwifery bill passing was Graham who had an axe to grind with the midwives in his area (Columbia).It was not because of any legal or safety issues either. Midwives have been delivering babies since women started having them! Graham was angry because they embarrassed him on TV when he was taped slamming the door on a pregnant woman from his area trying to ask him to support midwifery. So, he filibustered their bill to get back at them. He was being silly and petty while women's rights were on the line.
Here is a link to the online petition for midwifery.
http://www.petitiononline.com/MOMW/petition.html
The last thing is that it is a legislators JOB to read legislation . The reason we are at war right now is because our representatives were too lazy to read the fine print of the patriot act! While they were having fine dinners with the doctors, they should have been reading the legislation that impacts Missourians. Don't complain now.
Mitt R.
5/14/2007 2:11 PM
Lying to accomplish your goals is never right...Loudon is no liar. He protected the "little guy" at the expense of all his political capitol and risked the smearing of his reputation to stand up to BIG MONEY.
We [homebirth supporters]have been told for three years that midwifery is "Such a little issue" it does not merit floor time, a PQ, or the Governor's attention. We were told at the end of last session while trying to amend onto various bills tweaking the licensure of manicurists, chiropractors, etc that those bills were too important to be bogged down by a bill removing midwives from being felons. So if it's been a "Little issue" for 3 years, why does it suddenly constitute major changes? Perhaps it is not Loudon who has lied, but some politicians whose support changes as it suits them.
Character is more important than anything, and I have been flabbergasted by the recent hostility of many of our "supporters" in the House and Senate. Has our "supportive majority" in both chambers been stringing us along for three years with no real intention of decriminalizing our midwives??????
Other questions beg answers...
Why did the House sponsor not ask Loudon if he had stuck in midwifery, when Loudon has been shouting to the world for a year that it's his highest priority?
Why did the insurance and medical lobbyists who had 20 hrs. to peruse their pet bill not check through it for such additions when they knew it had been in the midwifery advocate's hands?
Why is it that not one single person asked Loudon specifically if he'd included midwifery?
Why is a standard way of bypassing a filibuster suddenly "unethical" when a bunch of housewives learn the process and employ the procedure that is used without objection by all the lobbyists in the MO State Capitol?
5/14/2007 2:47 PM
Is Jeff Smith getting any money from Wash U Medical School? Doesn't he teach at Wash U? I may be wrong but I thought he was filibustering the bill with Chuck Graham. That may be why he is peeved.
5/14/2007 3:29 PM
Roy,
Interesting that you bring up the filibuster and PQ. I was just reading that it had only been used 7 times since 1970. Do you really think midwifery should use it? Nevermind, I'm sure that you do.
But I wonder if you'd been bothered to check into how many bills die due to a filibuster. Or if you had studied basic civics and realized that most bills do not, in fact, become laws (regardless of the song). I wonder if you knew what happened to the last chairman that mislead his peers.
Your defense that Senator Louden didn't lie is amusing. No really...I chuckled.
First he tries trickery in thrice bringing up a bill that he knows one Senator vehemently opposes. Why is this trickery? Perhaps when you coordinate an effort to bring up the bill and vote in 20 seconds? Or is the real trickery in moving so fast because the opposition is in a wheelchair and physically can't make it to the floor to state his opposition?
Next he states that it's mere technical changes. Hmmmm...changing a crime to accepted behavior is technical? Maybe he can do some work for NORML.
Personally, I don't see a problem with legalizing midwifery. But a Senator....hell, my kids know better.
5/14/2007 3:54 PM
...no man or group should infringe her right deliver her baby how she wants...
So, its okay to have women give birth without a doctor present...
If thats what you call freedom I suggest you go to Afganistan or Darfour for your medical tretment Freedom!
What about the Anti-Choice omnibus bill that makes any clinic that performs abortion have to have an operating room even if they just give RU486. That leaves only the clinic in St. Louis for the whole state of Missouri.
5/14/2007 5:15 PM
Too many times adults act just like children. Nanny, you are right. Filibustering something so simplistic as midwifery is a waste of time and an abuse of power. But, he did it for several years to defend only his ego. You also do not need to feel so much pity for Graham. He handles his handicap quite well. Graham actually takes advantage of his handicap with the filibuster because traditional rules require that they stand the entire time. Since Graham cannot stand, he is able to filibuster for weeks while sitting whereas others can only do this for a short time. None of it is fair but it is what it is.
The other childish thing is yelling foul play when they didn't do their homework. If a child does not do their reading assignment, and there is a pop quiz the next day, that child will reap the consequences. Blaming the teacher for your not doing your homework is ridiculous. This was not an illegal tactic. It is done all of the time. Again, it is not fair, but it is what it is.
Filibusters are typically used when it has the votes to pass as the midwifery bill did. Graham was acting like a bully on the playground by not letting anyone else play. Why not just let the votes decide instead of playing politics? Now Louden played politics back and everyone is upset.
5/14/2007 5:31 PM
John Loudon has always been a phony Christian this just proves it. Off with his head!!!!
5/14/2007 5:50 PM
dear cynthia,
It's not 'playing politics'. I'm thankful that your argument holds no water, else the Democrats (and apparently all the Republicans) would have to scour every bill. Every sentence. Minimalize it all you want, but he lied. L. I. E. D.
"This version is just some technical changes (except for the legalizing illegal thing)."
"Yeah mom, there are chaperones (except at the hotel room)"
"No honey, she's just a friend (with benefits)"
"I'm not gay (but my girlfriend is)"
5/14/2007 6:01 PM
Loudon,like most politicians are lying anytime their lips are moving!
5/14/2007 6:22 PM
Jason, Err um women have given birth without doctors for hundreds of thousands of years. Humanity would not have made it this far without them. Historically, more babies have been delivered by midwives than doctors. It only became standard for doctors to deliver babies in the last half of the 20th century.
It is the arrogance of a male dominated profession that thinks that it suddenly is superior to what women have been doing from the start.
In fact,the world health organization show that the United States is far behind the rest of the world as it relates to births.
We have a higher c- section rate and more episiotomies than most of the world. WHO also stated that no region in the world is justified as having a c- section rate higher than 10%. The US has a rate of 30%. Africa 20% and the average of the developing world is 12.5% Midwives have only a 2% rate. WHO also has stated that over half of the C-sections in the US are unnecessary. Why is it done? Because the doctor gets twice as much money doing a c-section over a normal vaginal birth. Let's face it. It is a billion dollar industry doctors want to protect.
Reference: http://www.compleatmother.com/factsheet.htm
5/14/2007 6:30 PM
Nanny,
Yes, if Loudon called them "mere technical changes" that would be deceptive.
Does anyone have a transcript?
If so, please bring it forward.
If not, are we building a case on mere hearsay?
5/14/2007 6:40 PM
ROFLMAO. Seriously????
You are seriously defending his lie because he may not have said "Merely"?
Ok...your logic is obviously superior to mine. I give. You win.
No. You merely win.
5/14/2007 7:02 PM
Chuck Graham filibustered the original midwifery bill, but Jeff Smith did not. Doesn't mean he supported the bill, but it's an important distinction nonetheless
5/14/2007 7:14 PM
Ummmm......
This isn't about the relative merits of midwives and home births versus physicians and hospitals. Its about lying to ome's colleagues in the legislature.
t
5/14/2007 8:00 PM
Mitt-
When my wife and I choose to have a child I think having the option of choosing a midwife or a doctor will be wonderful.
If she wants to have a c-section, epidural or give birth in a pool the choice will be great.
But to say that doctors are some how a detrimental factor in all childbirth I would like to point out at least one fact.
...lifetime risks of pregnant women dying in Africa is 1 in 16 while the lifetime risks of pregnant women in North America is 1 in 3,700.
I like the odd of my wife being able to see our child at 3,699 in 3,700 rather than 15 in 16.
http://www.unfpa.org/adolescents/
future_generations/
actions_mortality.htm
Oh and on the point of mail dominated industries and childbirth. Loudon has been given thousands of dollars by insurance (male dominated) companies. These men want to save money by paying midwives instead of doctors.
But, what do you do if your company wont pay for a doctor assisted delivery and will only pay for midwife deliveries?
5/14/2007 9:01 PM
Nanny,
I am not debating the use of the word "merely". I am asking where the quote "mere technical changes" comes from. This is a very important question, because you are using this quote to condemn Loudon. Tom Leith says, this discussion is not about the relative safety of homebirth. It's all about a senator lying to his colleagues.
We are not debating whether Loudon should have attached the midwifery language to the bill (because his colleagues are as we speak using the same technique to push through various issues, and are not being scrutinized or even questioned)...we are deciding that he has changed from a man of integrity to a liar because of three words...and we have not even proved that he said them.
You all know how smear campaigns work? Someone discredits an individual, and the story explodes in the news. In cases like this, there is perhaps no way of proving exactly what happened, but that individual's name is always linked with scandal in the mind of the public. And even if he's proven innocent, the character assassination has already been done.
5/14/2007 9:44 PM
Listening to the recording of the conversation shows that Loudon did *not* lie. Senator Graham was asking him about *Ridgeway's* amendment, which was just a technical change and contained nothing about midwifery. Loudon's own amendment was never debated. He couldn't have lied about it, because no one asked him about it.
5/14/2007 10:54 PM
> we are deciding that he has
> changed from a man of integrity
> to a liar because of three words
Maybe you are, I'm not.
It does not matter whether the word "mere" appears anywhere. This is not a technical change, it is a substantive change. According to this reportage he misled his colleagues about its nature when he said "some technical changes are in order" and introduced his amendments. That they had 20 hours to discover it after being misled is beside the point.
Even a proponent of what he did admits deception:
Laurel Walter-Baumstark, a Hermann physician who is an advocate for midwifery, said the move was a way to get around Graham’s filibuster.
“It’s a reasonable way to bypass one senator who refuses to let the rest of the elected body vote on an issue,” she said. “But it’s a shame, it doesn’t seem like a very above-board way to do it. You know, whatever it takes to get us up to date with the rest of the country is worth doing.”
No, its not worth doing whatever it takes, and deception is not reasonable—quite the opposite. To deceive is wrong to do regardless of how many other people do the same wrong thing.
If the reportage is not correct, we may be witnessing a character assasination.
t
5/14/2007 11:33 PM
Never fails, talk about someone and you get a lot of postings. Such a shame.
5/15/2007 12:09 AM
Is there a transcript?
5/15/2007 5:49 AM
I personally have not seen a transcript of what transpired on the Senate floor. However, I heard from both Republicans and Democrats that I talked to that Loudon had made statements that the changes were "minor" and "technical." It has also been reported as such in many other places.
Part of what is shameful about this event is indeed that no one looked. One senator I talked to noted that "The burden to spot things like this and prevent lies like this is on the opposition."
At the same time, however, there are over 2,000 bills between the House and the Senate that could potentially be considered this week. Many of these can be up to 100 pages long. Do we want our legislators passing laws, or stagnant while reading 200,000 pages of legalese?
5/15/2007 10:11 AM
What is more disturbing is when legislators are captured by a certain St. Charles Developer, Paul McKee Jr.. Meanwhile, a certain critic of the local Media has not done one story, when ironically that same "perpetually sleeping watch dog" is on the ball! I wonder if Turf explains the lack of coverage?
5/15/2007 10:54 AM
I certainly agree that it is shameful that no one read this and noticed the amendment. Indeed, it is almost funny, because Sen Loudon made it no secret that he was planning to insert an amendment somewhere. Sen Graham even referred to this during the floor debate. Those opposed knew darn well that they needed to pay close attention to anything Sen Loudon touched, and yet for whatever reason, they didn't. Oops.
5/15/2007 10:58 AM
Wow! A white make being held acountable for his actions! Will wonders never cease.
In a perfect world, the Mayor of St. Louis and his staff would be removed for setting race relations back in this town. Pity it isn't a perfect world.
5/15/2007 2:20 PM
Doug Duckworth said...
What is more disturbing is when legislators are captured by a certain St. Charles Developer, Paul McKee Jr.. Meanwhile, a certain critic of the local Media has not done one story, when ironically that same "perpetually sleeping watch dog" is on the ball! I wonder if Turf explains the lack of coverage?
5/15/2007 10:54 AM
I tried to follow this post---wandering from one link to another. I am lost. I usually get things wrong, because I am over-focused on issues which are more important to me than they seem to be to others.
Tell me how far off I am.
Antonio has a different point of view lately---related to the success of Reed in the recent election.
Callow has been a key figure in the slps takeover. I wondered if he has been an intimidating figure regarding the pathetic coverage of the Tim Bacon murder.
5/15/2007 2:37 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
5/15/2007 4:16 PM
There are many theories as to why Antonio French has remained silent on Blairmont.
If by "success of Reed" you mean he doesn't want to anger Reed's campaign financiers, thus lose Reed's support, then maybe. Reed might find Antonio's criticism "anti-business." Also, "radical reporting" might interfere with the many services provided by AD French and Associates.
I simply find it ironic that the horrible St. Louis media has done coverage whereas the "Game Hater" has not covered this conspiracy to destroy sections of the North Side. Collusion is omnipresent so one would expect something.
I am obviously baiting him for an answer.
Not that it matters. This late in the Game, I fear even the most scathing report would have little impact.
5/15/2007 4:19 PM
The seven-minute audio clip of Senate discussion and vote on HB818 is now available at http://www.nikkisimmons.com/HB818.htm By the way, I just went and checked something: According to the "print preview" for my HP printer, HB818 went from 55 pages in the Senate Committee Substitute to the Senate Substitute of 131 pages. The midwifery language is not the only thing that some of the legislators voted for without reading first.
5/15/2007 9:06 PM
Well God forbid should someone try and redevelop the north side of the city.
If we have to remove a few boarded up buildings to gain population, I'm all for it.
Botanical Heights has gone far in bring up that part of Mid-Town.
But it is different when one doesn't live in a crime infested, drug zone.
5/15/2007 9:46 PM
Could someone explain in a sentence or two what is the controversial part of the midwifery part of the bill, please?
5/15/2007 10:44 PM
Dan, please listen to the audio clip here http://www.nikkisimmons.com/HB818.htm and tell me how Sen. Loudon lied.
5/16/2007 9:30 AM
The controversial part of the midwifery bill basically boils down to the fact that doctors do not thing Certified Professional Midwives are qualified enough to attend to a woman at home. They want a collaborative practice agreement in place even though none of them are willing to work in conjunction with a midwife.
5/16/2007 9:31 AM
Certified Professional Midwives do not want collaborative practices because it keeps the docs in control of the midwives and the profession. (ie: the money) CPMs want to take full responsibility for their actions as midwives and are willing to take the same legal responsibility that docs take with their patients.
CPM's are required to attend 40 births and learn extensive skills before they acquire certification and they have to undergo an 8 hour exam demonstrating their skills and knowledge of the birthing process.
Basically, the midwives had the votes. Chuck Graham just had a personal grudge against the midwives and filibustered so that the vote would not take place. He has done this several years already. The incident with Loundon putting it in another bill was an attempt to bypass Graham's filibuster yet another year.
In the meantime, it is considered a felony for a midwife to deliver a baby in Missouri.
5/16/2007 10:18 AM
Sorry to ruin all of the conspiracy theories about PubDef, but we've been working on a big Blairmont story Video Report since last weekend. We've just finished shooting video and interview footage for it.
5/16/2007 1:46 PM
Excellent to hear. Look forward to seeing the video.
5/16/2007 3:15 PM
Back to the matter at hand ministerial or tocological Birth aid is not the real battle that is being fought on this bill.
The real battle is that Democrat's issues are being screwed with.
For example Louden ond the Republicans are attacking womens choice in reproductive rigts. They want clinics that provide Gynological exams and STD tests along with distributing RU$486 (an abortion pill) to have operating room capabilitys.
Under that logic midwives should only work in buildings with Operating rooms.
Repblicans made a bill that would take $1.17 an hour away from tiped workers. And take away the 3% cost of living (COLA) raise in the minnimum wage ballot iniative. 76% of Missourians thought the COLA and raise for tiped worker oas OK in November.
Lets not forget that Loudan and other Republicans took away health care from over 100,000 of the most vunerable missourians whaen they ended the Medicade helthcare system.
Midwife supporters please understand that Loudan is playing games with you. Louden want to take away income away from tiped employees and a womans choice in reproductive health.
Louden is a two faced jerk, ultimatly he will not help the poorest pople in missouri make a decent wage or have health care.
Justask him
(573)751-9763
(314)522-3379
5/17/2007 12:38 AM
Jason
Personally I don't determine whether I will support someone based on if they are democrat or republican. To do so discounts who they are as people. It is no different than judging someone based on race, gender, economic status, the colors they wear, gang affiliation, etc. I determine whether I will support someone based on the issue at hand and where they stand on it.
That gives me freedom to accept some ideas I believe will be good for the community while rejecting others. Neither party has all of the solutions to all of the issues that face our world.
Political parties function like children with gangs and cliques on the school yard. "Oh I don't like that person so I will not help them even if it is beneficial to the community." Or, "he is a Crip or Blood Republican or democrat. He wears a blue pin or a red pin so I will not do anything with them because they attacked us last year. " It is a childish game played at the expense of the American public.
That said, I support Loundon's support of Midwifery. I didn't support taking away health care for Missourians. People aren't strictly divided into good or evil. All people have made good decisions and poor ones.
5/17/2007 10:20 AM
Cynthia
- Political parties function like children with gangs and cliques on the schoolyard.
That is just ridiculous... How can you on one hand say that you vote for the best person and not a party, and on the other say that the party a person belongs to is a gang that behaves badly?
The only thing we have as voters is our self-interest. If you place midwifes over affordable healthcare that’s your business.
If you think home birth is more important than having decent paying jobs for your family and neighbors that’s your choice.
Together we will see what happens to our society when the approximately 20 midwives in Missouri have the freedom to practice while hundreds of thousands of Missourians have low paying jobs and no healthcare.
5/17/2007 11:52 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home