Skip to comments.

Posted on 10/17/2002 7:31:56 PM PDT by BOBWADE

-----Original Message----- From: Rep. Connie Cierpiot[mailto:repcierpiot@midamerica.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:20 PM To: Rep. Connie Cierpiot Cc: Cierpiot, Rep. Connie Subject: Proposition A - Tobacco Tax

A CLOSER LOOK AT PROPOSITION A

On November 5, 2002 voters will be voting on a very insidious Proposition. Proposition A will increase taxes on tobacco products to fund programs portrayed as improving society for the greater good. However, we need to take a closer look at Prop. A and its history and what the additional tax money could pay for if voters approve this Proposition.

A few years ago, nearly 40 states, including Missouri, joined together and filed class-action lawsuits against tobacco companies ostensibly to recover costs to the individual states of providing healthcare to uninsured smokers through public health programs such as Medicaid. At the end of 1998, Missouri signed a settlement agreement with the tobacco companies and has since received payments totaling $510,910,196. Missouri is also expecting to receive another payment of over $164 million this fiscal year which has been appropriated for various programs, including many of those programs specified in Prop. A.

Citizens for a Healthy Missouri is a coalition of private interests that joined together in 1999, with the help and support of then-Governor Carnahan, to push legislation dividing up the tobacco settlement money because they stood to benefit from the money. In 2000, legislation was introduced to split the money between healthcare programs, life science research, daycare programs, and smoking cessation programs. Then-Governor Carnahan and his Chief of Staff Brad Ketcher fought hard to keep any pro-life language from being included in the bill. (It is a well-known fact that the late Governor was a staunch supporter of abortion, up to and including, partial birth abortion.) They succeeded in blocking any pro-life language, therefore, pro-life legislators killed the bill. Brad Ketcher now works for Citizens for a Healthy Missouri.

Legislation was reintroduced in 2001 and the battle continued. Language was finally included in the bill to prohibit any tobacco money from being used for human cloning or using the organs or tissues of aborted babies for research. The bill defined a child and human life as being from conception on and forbid research on a child living or dead unless the parents of a deceased child gave their consent under the anatomical gifts law as long as the parent did not cause the death of the child. The bill also expressly prohibited using the tobacco money to fund abortions or for the development of drugs or chemicals intended to be used to induce an abortion. Unfortunately, this bill died on the last day of session in 2001.

So, Citizens for a Healthy Missouri circulated a initiative petition to bypass the legislative process and get their proposition on the ballot.

The language in their Prop. A is very similar to the bills which failed in the Legislature with one very important exception. The coalition omitted the pro-life language. Prop. A simply says that the new tax money can be spent "for medical, mental and other healthcare assistance coverage to low-income adults and children who may otherwise be uninsured; for initiatives to improve the health of women and minorities; and to fund costs for healthcare programs or services." It is also specifies that money can be used "to include but not be limited to health research in human development..." Under this broad definition, abortion, human cloning, and fetal tissue and organs research could all be eligible for taxpayer funding. Planned Parenthood could also be considered a healthcare provider. In fact, it is this language that provoked opposition from Missouri Right to Life and pro-life legislators in the past. A February, 2000 memo to legislators from Missouri Right to Life said, "While most types of "healthcare" and many types of "health sciences research" are acceptable to the public, under those broad headings can be included abortion services and research involving fetal tissue and fetal organs. This type of "healthcare" and "health sciences research" most assuredly is not acceptable to the public." I agree.

Missouri Right to Life has recently announced their opposition to Proposition A ( www.missourilife.org ). A recent press release from MRL says, "On November 5, an initiative that presents great danger to the pro-life cause will be on the Missouri ballot. Proposition A, billed in the secular media as a tobacco tax, does more than tax cigarettes; it puts the tax money to use for certain vague health purposes without needed pro-life controls. We urge pro-life supporters to vote it down." When Brad Ketcher, speaking for the coalition behind Prop. A, was asked about MRL's opposition he responded, "I'm stunned they would come to that conclusion. This proposition is about improving health and healthcare in the state. It's abortion-neutral." Abortion-neutral? Notice Mr. Ketcher did not deny that the money could be used to fund and promote abortions, even for minors. He changed the subject and said he was stunned. He shouldn't have been stunned since he has been involved in this issue since 1999.

I urge you to join me on November 5 and vote against this insidious, deceptive Proposition.

Rep. Connie J. Cierpiot Mo State Capitol - Room 135 A-A 201 West Capitol Ave Jefferson City, Mo 65101 Phone: 573-751-9759 Fax: 573-526-7617 Website: www.yourlaunchpad.com/connie E-Mail Address: repcierpiot@midamerica.net

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.