Missouri Senate Debates Cost of Death Penalty

In a short debate this week the Senate considered SB 61, a bill that would require the State Auditor to examine the cost of the death penalty compared to alternative sentences.  

Sponsored by Senator Joe Keaveny (D-St. Louis), the original bill would have required that the state pay the costs of the financial review; however, in Senate committee, the language was changed so that the cost (about $150,000) would need to come from private sources.  In floor debate, Senator Keaveny offered the original language as a floor substitute.

Several senators spoke in support of the private funding, noting that private groups were the only ones concerned about cost. Some acknowledged that the death penalty likely costs more, but that the cost doesn't matter. The debate was eventually ended without a vote on the substitute language.

The MCC is disappointed that Missouri lawmakers do not recognize their fiscal responsibility when it comes to the death penalty. Capital punishment has been law in Missouri since 1977, but no study of its cost has ever been done. The State of Missouri has paid for fiscal reviews of other state programs, it should be no different when it comes to the public policy of the death penalty.

At this time it is unclear if the bill will be brought up again for debate.

Francis of Assisi

"As you know, there are various reasons why I chose the name of Francis of Assisi, a familiar figure far beyond the borders of Italy and Europe, even among those who do not profess the Catholic faith. One of the first reasons was Francis' love for the poor. How many poor people there still are in the world! And what great suffering they have to endure! After the example of Francis of Assisi, the Church in every corner of the globe has always tried to care for and look after those who suffer from want, and I think that in many of your countries you can attest to the generous activity of Christians who dedicate themselves to helping the sick, orphans, the homeless and all the marginalized, thus striving to make society more humane and more just.

But there is another form of poverty! It is the spiritual poverty of our time, which afflicts the so-called richer countries particularly seriously. It is what my much-loved predecessor, Benedict XVI, called the 'tyranny of relativism', which makes everyone his own criterion and endangers the coexistence of peoples. And that brings me to a second reason for my name. Francis of Assisi tells us we should work to build peace. But there is no true peace without truth! There cannot be true peace if everyone is his own criterion, if everyone can always claim exclusively his own rights, without at the same time caring for the good of others, of everyone, on the basis of the nature that unites every human being on this earth."

State Representative Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City), a young Catholic attorney, is proposing a different kind of Medicaid bill that reforms the program and includes strong pro-life provisions. HB 700 will be voted on next week in the House Committee on Government Oversight and Accountability. The MCC is supporting HB 700 and has sent an alert to network members who have legislators serving on this committee. Click here to read the alert.

HB 700 prohibits funding of abortions, except to save the life of the mother. The bill provides Medicaid health coverage for uninsured pregnant women and their unborn children. HB 700 also establishes a new program - the Show-Me Healthy Babies Program - that will offer health coverage when the traditional Medicaid program doesn't.

The Show-Me Healthy Babies Program will make sure quality prenatal care is available to women who are uninsured. The Show-Me Healthy Babies Program enlists the help of pregnancy resource centers and maternity homes to identify pregnant women who need prenatal care but cannot afford it.

Prenatal care ensures healthy outcomes for both mother and child. By getting into family doctors or obstetricians/gynecologists early in their pregnancy, women learn more about the healthy lifestyle (good nutrition, no smoking or drinking of alcohol) that can lead to the delivery of a healthier baby. Also, prenatal care visits can lead to the discovery of conditions that can be treated by early intervention.

HB 700 embodies two basic principles of Catholic teaching. Subsidiarity declares that things that can be done on a more personal, family or local level should be done on that level. This principle calls for self-responsibility and strong family ties. Solidarity recognizes that individuals and families often need help from others with more resources and that all of us are to act as Good Samaritans and reach out to the least among us.

In regards to the principle of subsidiarity, HB 700 asks people to become active participants in their own healthcare. No government program, including Medicaid, can be effective if people themselves refuse to take some responsibility for their own healthcare.

HB 700 requires people to purchase health coverage through their employer or through an insurance exchange whenever it is affordable. Premium subsidies are offered for lower-income individuals. There are also incentives to encourage people to access health services prudently rather than using emergency rooms for minor illnesses that are best addressed by a family doctor.

Regarding the principle of solidarity, HB 700 ensures health coverage is made available to some of our poorest citizens. At present, a mother with two children is normally not eligible for Medicaid health coverage if her annual income exceeds $4,584. HB 700 raises the eligibility level to the federal poverty line, or $19,530 annually for that mother with two children.

What will this mean? This will allow many working mothers for the first time to qualify for health coverage. At the present time, many of these mothers work two or more jobs and their employer either does not offer a health plan for them or they cannot afford it. HB 700, therefore, will reward work and uphold the dignity of all working people.

Most of the public is unaware of the financial crisis facing Missouri's smaller hospitals. Over the next several years, hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, will see major cuts in the federal funds they receive for providing uncompensated care to the indigent and uninsured.

Congress cut these funds under the assumption that expanded Medicaid would take up the slack; that is, more patients would be entering the hospital with Medicaid health coverage. But if Missouri refuses to expand Medicaid those federal Medicaid dollars will not be available to reimburse hospitals.

Missouri House Passes State Budget 

This week the Missouri House gave first-round approval to the state budget for FY 2014. The budget did not include any funds to expand Medicaid as requested by Governor Jay Nixon.  

During debate, several attempts were made by House Democrats to expand Medicaid, but all were defeated, mostly along party lines. In one amendment, Representative Jeff Roorda (D-Barnhart) asked that the budget be sent back to committee and add $940 million for Medicaid needs. Several Democrats noted the positive financial impact that expanding Medicaid would have in creating jobs and keeping rural hospitals financially stable.  

Republicans responded that it was foolish to spend money on a system that many see as broken. (The Medicaid reform bill, HB 700, is still in committee and has not yet been considered by the full House. Supporters of HB 700, including the MCC, are hoping the House will reconsider the funding of Medicaid if and when the body approves of HB 700.) 

The $26 billion state budget (representing state and federal funds) is expected to receive final House approval before the legislature breaks on Thursday for Easter. The budget will then be sent to the Senate for debate. By law the state budget must be completed by the general assembly and sent to the governor by the first Friday in May.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on two cases involving so-called "same-sex" marriage. The first case is Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case from California challenging Proposition 8, which California voters passed in 2008. Proposition 8 was a constitutional amendment that defined marriage for purposes of California law as the union of a man and a woman. Immediately upon its passage, it was challenged as being unconstitutional, a denial of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Federal trial and appellate courts in California struck down Prop 8,  but some are suggesting, based upon tenor of the oral arguments, that the U.S. Supreme Court may not rule on the matter at all, stating that they have no jurisdiction.    

What the court will ultimately do is anyone's guess.

The second case to be argued is United States v. Windsor, a case challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a statute passed in 1996 that defines marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of one man and one woman. With nine states and the District of Columbia now recognizing "same-sex" marriage, the fate of this statute is far from certain.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, marched in Washington, D.C., with thousands of supporters in support of traditional marriage. In a letter written in anticipation of the march, Archbishop Cordileone said:

"Every person has a mother and a father. Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to children born of their union," he added. "The intrinsic dignity of every human being must be affirmed, but this is not realized by redefining marriage to mean simply the public recognition of certain emotional bonds among adults. Marriage is rooted in the natural reality that men and women are different, and thereby complementary, and that children deserve both a mother and a father. Respecting this truth benefits everyone."

At the March rally, Archbishop Cordileone had this to say to the nine justices considering the Proposition 8 case, "...please, for the sake of the children, please, preserve the meaning of marriage in the law, a meaning common to every human society since the beginning of the human race. For the sake of the children, please."  

The Missouri Catholic Conference asks its network members to be in prayer for the Supreme Court as they deliberate on these most important issues.