Posted: Wednesday, Oct 19, 2005 - 12:20:53 am CDT

Blunt to continue legal defense of inmate abortion policy
By DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press Writer



Gov. Matt Blunt's administration is pushing ahead with its legal defense of a new policy effectively prohibiting most inmate abortions, despite a Supreme Court decision specifically allowing one Missouri inmate to get an abortion.

A Blunt spokesman said Tuesday that the governor views the court decision as a starting point - not an end - to the legal battle over whether the Department of Corrections must spend time and money taking inmates to abortion clinics.

A recent policy change backed by Blunt deleted long-standing procedures for facilitating inmate abortions, leaving an exception only if a woman's life or health is endangered.

The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a preliminary injunction by U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple, who ordered the state to transport an unidentified inmate from her cell in Vandalia to an abortion clinic. Whipple gave the department until the end of this week to act.

Corrections Department Director Larry Crawford said the state would comply with the order but would “vigorously defend our policy” from being struck down. No schedule has been set yet for court arguments on a permanent injunction.

Blunt's administration could have chosen to drop its defense of the policy in light of the Supreme Court decision. But continuing the battle could help Blunt's efforts to patch up relationships with part of Missouri's powerful anti-abortion movement, some members of which have criticized Blunt for his support for early stem cell research.

“It puts him in a position where he can continue to earn the support of right-to-lifers, regardless of his position on stem cells,” said David Webber, a political scientist at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

The Senate's top Democrat, who supports abortion rights, accused Blunt's administration of dragging out the legal battle for political advantage.

“We just wrapped up a special session to particularly deal with abortion legislation, and this provides more of an opportunity for the governor and those who are against abortions to get some more play out of this issue,” said Sen. Maida Coleman, of St. Louis.

But Blunt spokesman Spence Jackson said “politics is not a consideration.”

“The Supreme Court did not rule on the policy itself, nor has any court heard any deliberation on the policy itself,” Jackson said. “We see that (preliminary injunction) as a starting point in this process and not as an ending.”

Crawford, a former Republican lawmaker who became department director this year, said politics had nothing to do with why he changed a policy that dated since at least 1992. He said he did so because the Senate appropriations committee chairman raised concerns about transporting inmates for abortions - something that had been done seven times since 1997.

A Missouri law prohibits public funds from being spent to perform or assist with an abortion, except to save a woman's life.

The new Department of Corrections policy officially took effect Sept. 5 - a day before lawmakers convened in a special session called by Blunt to enact other abortion restrictions.

Blunt called the session because similar abortion bills had faltered during the regular session that ended in May. That hang-up was due partly to a clash between Blunt and Missouri Right to Life, which had tried to ban a certain kind of embryonic stem cell research that Blunt supports.

Although Blunt and the anti-abortion lobby joined to support the special session legislation, their divisions were highlighted again last week when Blunt backed a proposed constitutional amendment specifically allowing the stem cell research that some anti-abortion activists want to ban.

(merged from an older thread)

Kansas City Star, Sept. 21, 2005

As I See It
Missouri is breaking adoption promises

By Pam Robinson

Special to The Star

Every child deserves to live in a safe and loving home. Unfortunately, in Missouri more than 11,000 children are in foster care today because of severe abuse or neglect in their own homes. Two thousand sit waiting for an adoptive family. The services necessary for these children to overcome the trauma of abuse are extensive and costly.

Prospective adoptive parents in Missouri sign contracts laying out their responsibilities to their newly adopted children. In return, Missouri offers subsidies in these contracts for child care, medical coverage and maintenance payments. Gov. Matt Blunt originally attempted to cut the child-care subsidy from all former foster children over the age of 5 but was stopped in conference committee at the end of the session. He has effectively ended the Medicaid program by January of 2008 with no plan to replace this coverage.

Monthly maintenance is intended to assist adoptive families with children’s special needs. The average rate is $250, or approximately $8.30 per day. This daily rate is lower than that paid for prisoners in Missouri and lower than that paid for animals in shelters in Missouri. All 50 states offer adoption subsidy, but Missouri’s “generous program” is the second lowest. Under the new law signed by Blunt, this contracted subsidy will be stopped, based on the parent’s income, with no consideration at all for the child’s needs. A family of four will be limited to an income of less than $48,400 a year to continue receiving this assistance despite any major medical, mental or emotional needs that the child may have.

Since Blunt has, in his own words, “no higher priority as governor than looking out for the well-being of all Missouri children,” we wonder how he can justify abandoning abused and neglected children. Not only will his changes hurt the program, they will hurt real children.

The governor needs to look at the facts. In the last six months with these changes pending, Missouri’s adoption rates have steadily declined.

While adoptive families are generous in spirit, abused children’s needs cannot be met by love alone. Adoption subsidies enable families to adopt children who desperately need them.

As Blunt said on Jan. 10, 2005, “Missourians deserve a government that promises no more than it can deliver and delivers everything it promises.” Missouri promised to assist families as they promised to raise abused children. The families are keeping their promises. The state needs to do the same.

www.kansascity.com

Editorial
August 17, 2005
Kansas City Star

FOSTER CHILDREN LET DOWN BY BLUNT

Gov. Matt Blunt put abused foster children with troubling emotional and physical problems at risk of never being adopted when he signed Senate Bill 539.

He and the legislature took away the state financial help that encourages middle-income families to adopt these children.

The governor also broke the state’s word to many parents. Those who have adopted children out of Missouri’s foster-care system have operated under state contracts that made the financial assistance available until their children reached 18.

Thousands of those parents are suddenly cut off. Others won’t be able to afford to adopt. Callous decisions like this contribute to the low approval rating that the governor received in one recent poll.

A lawsuit filed by children’s advocates in U.S. District Court in Kansas City this week challenges the new law, which takes effect Aug. 28. The lawsuit restores hope to families who have generously taken foster children, often including sibling groups, into their families.

Meanwhile, the Blunt administration tries to make these parents look like money grubbers. Spokesman Spence Jackson said Missouri has already been very generous to them. He cited health care and child-care coverage.

But people who lose adoption subsidies likely won’t qualify for state health-care coverage. The legislature, with Blunt’s blessing, also cut Medicaid benefits this year.

Missouri’s subsidies also aren’t all that generous. When compared to those in other states, they are low.

Adoption subsidies in Missouri start at $225 a month and go as high as $650 a month. The highest amounts help parents whose children have the greatest disabilities.

Rarely are perfect newborns available for adoption in foster care. Children who are wards of the state are likely to have suffered abuse or neglect. By the time they are eligible for adoption, they are often disturbed or physically scarred from mistreatment and emotional detachment.

Often these children arrive in their new families with difficult health problems. They need tutoring because they are far behind their peers in reading and math skills. They need counseling to overcome fears and to restore trust. Special therapies and interventions may be required.

Little of this is covered by insurance.

The state cannot make these children whole again; a loving family offers the best hope for them.

It’s time someone made the state stick by its promises to such families.

www.firedupmissouri.com

A NEW FORUM CALLED BLUNT'S BLUNDERS

Submitted by Roy Temple on Tue, 11/15/2005 - 10:57pm. Blunt Administration

A Fired Up! reader wrote in with the following suggestion:

Fired Up should set up a spot where readers could list all of the things they think Matt Blunt has done wrong. They could cite things like: Medicaid, the 65% plan, closing insurance records, Randa, running from disabled people at the Capitol, etc. etc.

So, I created a special new forum called, simply enough, Blunt's Blunders. Post your favorite/least favorite Blunt screwup there.



COMMENTS

Matt Blunt
Submitted on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 10:07pm.

I'd just like to know what the man has done right???? As I told everyone on here before, we were a medicaid transportation provider until November the 5th, Logisticare"s first day. We did try to negotiate with them but was not able to. They would not take out the "Liquidated Damages" clauses in their contract for the small vendors. They only did that for Oats and some of the larger vendors. It put the rest of us out of business overnight as we felt we could not do business with a company like them. Logisticare told my husband that they hardly ever use the Liquidated Damages so my husband said"Well, if you hardly ever use them, why can't you take them out." They still would not take them out so here we sit out of business. Thank You Matt Blunt! We had a excellent reputation and alot of people requested rides with us. Now I have 8 employees and ourselves out of work. I don't believe anyone did their homework on Logisticare. They did not have vendors in place as they said they did. If Matt Blunts office had checked Logisticare out better, they could have saved alot of people grief, especially the family that lost their family member because their ride did not show up. Isn't it strange that Matt Blunt's brother was a lobbyist for Logisticare??



How to choose?
Submitted on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 9:48pm.

Could it be First Steps? The rumor (among his own party) is that when he saw First Steps in the budget, Blunt didn’t know what it was. To research Blunt called a family friend who was a physician, the physician didn’t know what it was either. So Boy Blunder thought it couldn’t be that important and eliminated it. At least he later figured it out.

But it would be hard to beat the Trish Vincent’s DOR. Where "all fee offices all the time" have increased wait times and reduced taxpayer satisfaction. Where experienced managers have been forced out, and inexperienced, ineffective Division Directors have been appointed. Where employee morale is at all time low. Where a whining legislator can get a valid tax liability eliminated. Have you ever had to sit through a presentation by KL? Painful.