Latest news with #TessaWeinberg
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Kansas abortion clinics could take on more patients in Missouri ban fallout
The Planned Parenthood office on June 24, 2022, in St. Louis. (Tessa Weinberg/Missouri Independent) TOPEKA — A total abortion ban is back in Missouri, and for Kansas clinics, that could mean added strain on a system that already serves as a regional safe haven. Two recent rulings from a lower court judge allowed Missourians to receive abortion care in major cities, blocking years of restrictions implemented by state lawmakers. Those rulings came after voter approval of a constitutional amendment in November enshrining reproductive freedom in the state constitution. All of that was undone in a two-page ruling Tuesday from Chief Justice Mary Russell of the Missouri Supreme Court, which ordered Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Jerri Zhang to vacate the December and February decisions and reevaluate the case, restoring a ban on abortions and facility licensing restrictions. Missourians have a constitutional right to reproductive freedom in name only, said Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Great Plains. She called the Tuesday ruling surprising but added that the organization is accustomed to having to pivot because of court cases and politics. Planned Parenthood Great Plains has clinics on both sides of the state line, so the impacts of the court's ruling are widespread for the organization. On the Missouri side, appointment times are being canceled, and care will become scarcer if the ruling remains in place, Wales said. On the Kansas side, the ruling means adding more appointment times and stretching providers to offer care to an entire region. Kansas abortion clinics serve mostly out-of-state patients, which has been attributed to its strong reproductive freedoms and its proximity to Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas, where residents must seek care away from home. 'Having so few providers to support an entire region is not a sustainable system,' Wales said. The ruling is a continuation of notoriously difficult-to-access care in Missouri, said Isabel Guarnieri, communications director for the Guttmacher Institute, a health policy research and advocacy organization. 'As of now, the total ban is back in effect, along with other restrictions that force patients to wait and receive counseling before obtaining an abortion and (targeted regulation of abortion providers) laws that make it difficult for clinics to operate,' Guarnieri said in a Wednesday press release. In 2023, with Missouri's ban in effect, almost 3,000 Missourians traveled to Kansas for an abortion. More than 8,700 traveled to Illinois. Wales said Planned Parenthood had been hopeful that Missouri's restoration of access to abortion could have offered Kansas clinics breathing room. 'We know that the demand for the region outpaces what we can provide,' she said. And that only applies to those who can access care. Without local abortion access, Wales said, people without the ability to travel for care will be left behind. Missouri lawmakers intend to put another ballot measure before voters, likely in the 2026 general election, that would overturn the November amendment establishing reproductive freedom in the state constitution. Kansas Republicans have taken a more roundabout approach in presenting to voters an August 2026 referendum on the state Supreme Court justice selection process. Electing state Supreme Court justices by popular vote could give the majority a conservative tilt, paving the way for the reversal of decisions that protect abortion, public school funding and legislative districts, among others. Attorneys general from Kansas, Missouri and Idaho are involved in a federal lawsuit seeking to rewrite federal prescribing guidelines for medication abortions. The Trump administration has asked the court to dismiss the suit.
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Missouri lawmakers on the cusp of legalizing housing discrimination
The Missouri Capitol in Jefferson City (Tessa Weinberg/Missouri Independent). This week, the Missouri Senate passed legislation moving us one step closer to enshrining discrimination against the state's poorest tenants into state law. If this bill becomes law, the state will prevent municipalities in Missouri from enacting source of income discrimination bans, and will void bans already in place in St. Louis, Webster Groves, Columbia and Clayton, along with a portion of Kansas City. Source of income discrimination bans are designed to prevent landlords from refusing to rent to potential tenants based solely on the kind of income that they have available to them. Many landlords will only consider W-2 wages when evaluating potential tenants, but this helps to prevent many of the poorest among us from being able to access safe, stable housing. A single mother may have child support payments as her primary source of income, but a landlord isn't bound to consider that when she applies for tenancy. A bus driver who has suffered repetitive stress injuries and now receives Social Security Disability Insurance may also struggle to find a landlord who is willing to rent to them. However, the most common form of source of income discrimination is a refusal to accept Housing Choice Vouchers, also known as Section 8, a federal housing program that has been addressing homelessness in the U.S. since 1974. Despite being chronically underfunded by the federal government, these vouchers have been proven to lift people out of poverty, improve mental and physical health outcomes, and decrease homelessness. Seventy-five percent of HCV holders have extremely low incomes, defined as less than 30% of the federal poverty line (currently $32,150 for a family of four) or less than 30% of the local area median income. These folks do not earn enough money to qualify for tenancy on their own; the section 8 program allows these families to pay 30% of their income in rent while the government pays the balance. The legislation, which has cleared the House and Senate in differing forms, would make it extremely difficult for these low-income renters, the majority of whom have already experienced chronic homelessness, to find housing. It's like finally finding a golden ticket after years of searching and then having it snatched away. A 2018 study showed that over 67% of landlords refused to rent to voucher-holders in cities without source of income anti-discrimination laws. In comparison, less than 31% of landlords refused to rent to voucher holders in cities with source of income discrimination bans in place. This demonstrates that source of income discrimination bans are effective local public policy and should not be preempted by our state government. This legislation is being framed as a protection for landlords, seeking to prevent them from being 'forced' to participate in a federal program. They say that this is government infringement on the property rights of landlords. They say that it's too hard to comply with government regulations for landlords who participate in the section 8 program. This is utter and complete nonsense. To participate as a landlord, property owners simply have to submit to an annual inspection and ensure that their rental rates are in compliance with federal Fair Market Rent standards, which are typically very generous. Inspection protocols have recently been revised to only consider key health and safety factors rather than cosmetic issues. And, quite frankly, in listening to legislative committee discussion on this issue over the last two years, it seems like the concerns of landlords are actually centered on a prejudiced belief that poor renters are bad tenants. Federal data shows that renters using housing vouchers are actually excellent tenants who stay in a unit for an average of 7 to 8 years, despite the fact that landlords are free to evict them for breaking the terms of their rental agreement. This is because of the program's smooth transitions in employment status of renters, adjusting the amount paid by the government based on fluctuations in the income of the renter. Voucher holders are also typically assigned a case manager that helps renters to understand the terms of their lease and comply with landlord regulations. Over 86% of rental units in the country are owned by for-profit entities. If we allow these landlords to opt-out of renting to single parents living on child support, individuals with disabilities that prevent them from working full-time, and seniors and other low-income families utilizing these federal vouchers, where do we envision they will go? We are a nation that abhors the homeless, but we continue to pass policies that exacerbate homelessness. Time and time again, Missouri legislators prioritize the perceived 'rights' of business owners over ensuring the basic needs of Missourians. Our state motto, 'salus populi suprema lex esto,' translates to 'the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.' Our legislators continue to defy this principle in favor of making it easier for business owners to make money. The highest profile example of this behavior this session is the legislature pushing to overturn the new requirement for business owners to provide paid sick leave to employees that was just approved by voters in November. If you can't afford to pay sick leave to your employees, you shouldn't be in business. And you shouldn't leave families living on the streets because you are unwilling to take part in a fifty-year-old safety net program designed to keep them safely housed.
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Missouri Senate approves tax cuts for capital gains, diapers and low-income seniors
The Missouri Capitol in Jefferson City (Tessa Weinberg/Missouri Independent). The Missouri Senate approved a proposed tax cut Monday despite questions about whether official estimates truly reflect how much it would reduce state revenue. By a 27-6 vote, with the 10 Democrats evenly split and all but one Republican in favor, the bill now heads back to the House, where its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Chad Perkins of Bowling Green, intends to bring it to a final vote. Earlier in the afternoon, the cost estimate for the bill exempting long-term capital gains — profits from property held more than a year — was approved by a party-line vote in the Senate Fiscal Oversight Committee. The bill would also increase income limits and credit amounts for the property tax relief program known as 'circuit breaker' as well as exempt diapers and feminine hygiene products from sales tax. Overall, the fiscal note for the bill states it is expected to reduce state revenue by almost $430 million in the fiscal year that starts July 1 and about $350 million annually thereafter. Democrats who voted against the bill said they were concerned about estimates from a left-leaning Washington tax institute, reported by The Independent, that the capital gains cut could reduce state general revenue by $600 million or more compared to the official estimate of $111 million. Missouri lawmakers set to pass capital gains tax cut with questions about its total cost The committee vote came after Democrats peppered state Department of Revenue economist Jean Hancock with questions about the wide difference in the estimates. 'My question would be how can we be off by half a billion dollars?' Senate Democratic Leader Doug Beck of Affton asked. The institute's estimate is based on IRS data from 2022 that showed $13.3 billion in long-term capital gains reported on returns from Missouri. Using the state's top tax rate of 4.7%, applied to taxable income more than $8,911, the institute estimated the revenue from that much income would be about $625 million. That is simple math that does not account for the other elements of Missouri's tax code, Hancock told the committee. 'We actually pull every single person's return in our model, and we run them and we pull out exactly what was claimed,' Hancock said.'So that's where our numbers come from. Whoever has something else. I don't know where they get them.' In an interview after the hearing, Hancock said there are a number of deductions allowed in Missouri law that reduce income below the amounts reported on federal returns. All income from Social Security payments and much of the income from pension benefits is not taxed, she noted, and many high-income earners purchase tax credits that eliminate part or all of their tax liability. Another reason the institute's estimate is off, Hancock argued, is because not all capital gains reported on a return from Missouri are taxable in Missouri. A capital gain for property located in another state, for example, would not result in a Missouri tax payment. 'The capital gains numbers we're providing are the ones that we believe are accurate,' Hancock said to the committee. Beck voted against the bill in committee and for it when it reached the floor. Under the bill, which Gov. Mike Kehoe has said is a priority for his first year in office, the capital gains exemption would take effect immediately for individual income tax filers and after revenue triggers are met for corporate income taxes. The circuit breaker is a refundable tax credit allowed for lower-income people over age 65 and those with disabilities to offset property taxes for their home. It is available to people who rent and people who own their own home. Because it is refundable, people eligible for a credit that exceeds their tax liability receive a check for the difference. The circuit breaker changes would increase the maximum credit for renters to $1,055. For homeowners, the maximum credit would be increased to $1,550. It would also increase the income limits for claiming the credit, to $38,200 for renters and $41,000 for homeowners, with slightly higher amounts allowed for married couples claiming the credit. With revenues falling in the current year and a budget plan that uses about $1 billion of accumulated surpluses, some Democrats are opposing all tax cuts. 'I am just very, very concerned about how we continue to reduce state revenue,' said state Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern of Kansas City, who voted against the bill, 'and the impact that that's going to have moving forward.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Missouri's ‘born alive' legislation is not what you think. It's worse
The Missouri Capitol in Jefferson City (Tessa Weinberg/Missouri Independent). Missouri legislators are once again pushing what they refer to as 'Born Alive Survivors Act,' a bill that feeds off myths and miseducation about abortion in order to punish people navigating a tragic fetal diagnosis. It targets a specific circumstance in a pregnancy involving the diagnosis of a fetus as 'incompatible with life — three horrific words families never want to hear from specialists. If the bill passes, the law would target an even more specific subset of people who face this heartbreaking scenario — those who choose to induce labor before their due date to end their pregnancies and say goodbye to their baby under neonatal hospice care in order to begin the process of healing and grieving. These bills deprive families of a birth plan for dying that would allow them privacy and comfort care in the last precious moments of their baby's life instead of fruitless interventions they do not want. For some patients, this course of care, sometimes called therapeutic induction of early labor, allows them to close an unthinkably difficult chapter on their own terms. Supporters of 'born alive' legislation want to ban comfort care in these circumstances and instead force aggressive interventions with no evidence that they would sustain life. While ending a pregnancy that is incompatible with life falls under the technical definition of abortion, it might not be the kind of abortion story we're accustomed to hearing about. Take for example the experience of Chrissy Tiegen, who first described her loss as 'a miscarriage' at 20 weeks of pregnancy. Later, she realized she had had an abortion in the medical and legal sense because providers induced with medication. Her doctors knew her pregnancy was non-viable, and her own health was quickly failing. Abortion was life-saving and her initial confusion over terminology is common and frankly wouldn't matter if anti-abortion politicians weren't twisting situations like hers for political gain. What anti-abortion politicians want you to believe in their 'born-alive' rhetoric is that they're addressing something that does not happen in modern day abortion care — accidental failed abortions that result in live births. In truth, they want people to stay pregnant on the government's timeline, even as their pregnancies grow riskier to their health. Those who choose to stay pregnant will be left unpunished under this proposed law. Those who end their nonviable pregnancies with safe medical intervention will be separated from their newborn and providers will be forced to apply aggressive, futile medical interventions. These bills were never about concern for a baby's life. If they were, they would not apply punishment to one set of families who face the same tragic outcomes as others. It's about punishing people for exercising their bodily autonomy. It's about politicians wrestling for control over our bodies. It's about placing ideologically driven timelines on pregnancy. When you hear about 'born-alive' bills, don't take the bait. This isn't about abortion or life. It's about the government's obsession with punishment and control over pregnant people. Our steadily increasing maternal mortality rates tell the real story. And it's about the hypocrisy and cruelty of anti-abortion policies and the people who uphold them.
Yahoo
17-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Missouri clinics will ‘immediately' offer abortion across the state after judge's ruling
The Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis on June 24, 2022. (Photo by Tessa Weinberg/Missouri Independent) A Missouri judge on Friday blocked a licensing requirement for abortion clinics that providers argued was a key obstacle to renewing access to the procedure across the state. Hours later, Planned Parenthood clinics announced they would begin offering abortion services in Missouri. 'Abortion care will be restored immediately,' said Emily Wales, President and CEO of Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains. 'The people voted, the court responded and we will do our part: serving Missourians in their home state.' In a three-page ruling issued late Friday afternoon, Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Jerri Zhang said the regulations mandate physicians to perform certain exams and testing that are 'unnecessary.' The licensing requirement is 'discriminatory,' Zhang wrote, ' because it does not treat services provided in abortion facilities the same as other types of similarly situated health care, including miscarriage care.' Planned Parenthood clinics had previously said it could begin taking walk-in medication abortion appointments in Kansas City, Columbia and St. Louis if the judge ruled in their favor. 'Our health center staff are quickly readying to restart this critical care in the coming days,' said Margot Riphagen, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers. Abortion Action Missouri announced Friday evening the expansion of its clinic escorts program to include the Planned Parenthood in St. Louis. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'Barely a year after launching the campaign to end Missouri's abortion ban, the court upheld the will of the people,' Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Abortion Action Missouri, said. 'With this change the landscape for Missourians and the entire Midwest region will be transformed,' she said, 'as patients will have greater access to abortion care than they have had in years.' Coalition Life also announced it would again gather outside the clinic in St. Louis and re-establish its sidewalk counseling efforts. 'This ruling reinforces the need for pro-life agencies and advocates to offer life-affirming alternatives to women,' said Brian Westbrook, the group's executive director. 'Coalition Life remains steadfast in our mission to provide resources, education, and support to women facing unexpected pregnancies.' Stephanie Bell, a spokeswoman with Missouri Stands with Women — one of several political action committees formed last year to defend the state's abortion ban — said the fight is not over. 'We will not stop fighting to protect both women and unborn children from reckless, profit-driven practices,' Bell said. 'No woman should suffer, and no innocent life should be taken, in the name of an industry that refuses to be held accountable.' The day after voters narrowly decided to overturn the state's near-total abortion ban and protect the right to an abortion in the state constitution, the ACLU of Missouri, Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers sued the state to strike down those statutes. Zhang previously blocked a number of 'targeted regulation of abortion provider' statutes, better known as TRAP laws, such as a 72-hour waiting period for an abortion and a requirement that physicians performing the procedure have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals were put on hold. But the licensing requirements have left clinics unable to offer abortion in Missouri. Friday's ruling will certainly be appealed by the state. A spokeswoman for Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey did not respond to a request for comment. A decade ago, more than 5,000 abortions were performed in Missouri, according to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. By 2020, when abortions were still legal, that number fell to 167, a drop that abortion providers attributed to the state's growing list of regulations. Missouri's trigger law banning all abortions with limited exceptions for medical emergencies went into effect the same day the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022. Last November, Missourians narrowly approved Amendment 3, which states, in part, that 'the right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, interfered with, delayed, or otherwise restricted unless the government demonstrates that such action is justifiable by a compelling governmental interest achieved by the least restrictive means.' The lawsuit seeking to strike down Missouri's remaining abortion restrictions was filed soon after. Efforts by the Republican legislative majority to repeal or modify the terms of the Amendment 3 have led to 17 bills and proposed constitutional amendments filed in the Missouri House, and another 19 in the state Senate. Organizers with 'What's Next,' a group of Missouri activists who have pressed for a constitutional amendment beyond what voters approved last year with no restrictions on abortion, said attempts to unravel Amendment 3 should make abortion rights advocates think twice before celebrating Friday's ruling. 'Today's temporary court ruling on abortion is progress, but a far cry from any sort of win,' the organization said in a statement to the media. 'What remains in our state is a constitutional right for government interference, and we expect no less from our hostile legislature.' The only House measure to receive a hearing so far is a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban abortions except in cases of medical emergency, rape or incest. Filed by state Rep. Melanie Stinnett, a Republican from Springfield, it would only allow abortions for rape or incest in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and only if a report has been filed with law enforcement. None of the Senate proposals have been scheduled for a hearing. The Independent's Rudi Keller and Anna Spoerre contributed to this story. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
