Banner 2 no message
Missouri Family E-NewsJanuary 24, 2011


Missouri Rated Most Improved State in Protecting Human Life


The state of Missouri is receiving high marks from a national pro-life legal organization for its efforts to protect innocent human life.


Americans United for Life has released its annual Life List ranking all 50 states on the nature of their laws dealing with a variety of pro-life issues. The 2011 ranking report finds that Missouri and Arizona were the most improved states in their efforts to safeguard the sanctity of human life.


Missouri jumped back into the "Top Ten" at #7 as a result of the comprehensive informed consent bill enacted by the Legislature last year and spearheaded by the Missouri Family Policy Council.  Missouri's previous ranking was #11.


"After dropping in the ranking following the 2006 approval of a ballot initiative permitting human cloning and sanctioning destructive embryo research, Missouri returned to the 'Top Ten' after adopting informed consent requirements, a reflection period for abortion, an ultrasound requirement, a requirement to counsel on fetal pain, and coerced abortion prevention measures," the report states.


Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life, says the pro-life movement is benefitting from momentum on the state level all across the country.  "We are seeing a cultural shift toward protecting life and rolling back the tide of unrestricted abortion that Roe v. Wade produced.  The state rankings reveal that legislative action at the state level is turning the tide toward life with strategic refinement of the law."


Oklahoma took over from Louisiana as the state with the strongest set of laws protecting innocent human life.  The state of Washington was tagged with the unfortunate distinction of being the least "life friendly" state.


You can read more about the 2011 Life List of Americans United for Life by using this link:

AUL State Rankings




Marriott Inns Pulling Plug on Hotel Porn


The Marriott hotel chain has made the decision to eliminate pornographic movies from the video entertainment
choices in any new hotel rooms being built in the future.  A Marriott spokesman says the hotel corporation will also be removing so-called "adult" programming from its "pay-per-view" systems in existing hotels "over the next few years."


"We are working with entertainment providers and technology vendors to transition to the next generation of in-room entertainment," the company says in a prepared statement.  "The new platform of Internet-based video-on-demand will facilitate our exit from traditional video systems that included adult content in the menu selection."


Marriott and other hotel chains have been under fire from pro-family groups for the last several years for making considerable profits from the marketing and sale of sexually explicit hardcore pornography in their hotel properties.  The Missouri Family Policy Council joined 46 other pro-family groups in April 2008 in urging Marriott Vice Chairman John W. Marriott III to pull the plug on in-room porn at his corporation's hotels. 


While one would hope that Marriott made their decision in a moment of corporate conscience, there is little doubt that economic reasons have influenced their decision.  Pay-per-view movies have become a declining source of revenue as hotel guests use their laptops, iPads, or mobile phones to access entertainment.  Hotels now generate 40% less income from pay-per-view movies than they did ten years ago.


The Marriott decision is a major welcome setback to LodgeNet, the nation's leading provider of hardcore pornography to the hotel industry.  Marriott has been one of LodgeNet's two largest customers, along with the Hilton hotel chain.


You can let the folks at Marriott know of your appreciation for their decision, as well as urge them to phase out existing hotel porn on an expedited basis.  You can e-mail Marriott corporate through this link:

Marriott Hotels


 Repeal of Pro-Abortion Health Care Law

Backed by Missouri Congressmen


Six members of Missouri's Congressional delegation joined their colleagues in voting to repeal President Obama's federal health care legislation adopted by Congress last year.  Known as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," the law has been vigorously opposed by the pro-life community because of its authorization of federal financing of abortion.


The repeal measure was approved on a 245-189 vote.  Congressmen Todd Akin, Sam Graves, Blaine Luetkemeyer, and Billy Long, and Congresswomen Jo Ann Emerson and Vicky Hartzler voted to scuttle the pro-abortion health care bill.  Congressmen Emmanuel Cleaver, Russ Carnahan, and William "Lacy" Clay voted to maintain the new federal health care law and its mandates.


Marjorie Dannensfelder, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, cheered the action by the U.S. House of Representatives.  "[This] vote to repeal the pro-abortion health care law is the first step in rescinding the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.  We must avail ourselves of every opportunity to protect American taxpayers from being complicit in abortion.  This is the first step in righting a grave wrong."


Kristan Hawkins, President of Students for Life, echoed those sentiments.  "President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was the most pro-abortion piece of legislation in American history.  [This] vote is a step forward in the direction of life.  While all Americans are in need of quality and affordable health care, that need should not be valued over the lives of innocent preborn Americans."


The new health care bill includes a number of alarming

provisions in which taxpayers would be underwriting abortions in health care policies offered through newly established health insurance exchanges. These provisions will primarily take effect in the year 2014. 


The federal health care law will provide direct subsidies and "cost-sharing reductions" to "low to moderate income" individuals to purchase health insurance which can include abortion coverage.  Tax credits will be made available to insurance companies who provide abortion coverage.  Individuals who purchase health insurance through an exchange from a company that offers abortion coverage will be required to pay an abortion surcharge.  This monthly abortion premium will be charged to all enrollees whether they wanted abortion coverage or not, regardless of their age, sex, or family status.


One of the major concerns about "Obamacare" is the authority granted to federal bureaucrats to intensify the new relationship between the abortion industry and the federal government.  The law authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (rabidly pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius) to define the "basis benefits package" to be included in policies included in the health insurance exchanges.  The law also includes language mandating that "women's preventative care" be included in health insurance plans.  The sponsor of that language, pro-abortion Senator Barbara Mikulski, said it would encompass so-called "reproductive health care," and would include "services" offered at Planned Parenthood clinics.


The Missouri General Assembly acted last year to limit the involvement of Missouri taxpayers in supporting the destruction of unborn children.  The Legislature took advantage of an "abortion opt-out" provision in the federal health care bill.  The state law, sponsored by Senator Scott Rupp of Wentzville, specifies that no federal health insurance exchange established in Missouri "shall offer health insurance contracts, plans, or policies that provide for elective abortions."  While that law shields Missouri taxpayers from paying for abortions in our state, it does not protect them from underwriting abortions in other states where plans are subsidized through "Obamacare."


The bill to repeal the federal health care law adopted by the U.S. House now moves to the U.S. Senate, where its prospects for passage are poor.  Even if the Senate were to concur in the House action, such legislation would face a certain veto from President Obama.  It would appear that there is little to no chance that either legislative chamber would be able to override a presidential veto.


The most promising strategy for reversing the pro-abortion federal health care law is a challenge to its constitutionality in the federal courts.  The state of Florida is leading a multi-state lawsuit against "Obamacare," taking primary aim at the mandate that individuals must obtain health insurance coverage or face federal penalties.  Twenty states are party to the lawsuit, and six more are asking to be included as plaintiffs.  A federal judge in Virginia recently ruled that the "individual mandate" requirement of the law is unconstitutional.


Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster has not chosen to seek the inclusion of the State of Missouri in the multi-state challenge to the health care law.  The Missouri House and Senate have passed resolutions calling on Koster to join the lawsuit.  The House passed its resolution, sponsored by Representative Ward Franz of West Plains, by a vote of 115-46.  The Senate passed its resolution, sponsored by Senator Jane Cunningham, on a voice vote.


"Missouri was the first state in the nation to give its citizens the right to vote on this issue," Senator Cunningham said during the debate.  "We received from our voters an overwhelming 71 percent majority.  They sent a megaphone message to Washington that we want to make our own health care decisions.  We do not want them controlled by the federal government."


We encourage you to share your views with your federal representatives on the repeal of the pro-abortion health care law.


You can contact Senator Claire McCaskill by using this link:

Senator McCaskill


You can contact Senator Roy Blunt through this link:

Senator Blunt


You can contact your U. S . Representative by clicking this link:

Your Congressman




Joe's Signature