Kevin Elmer Archives - Missourinet

Nixon hints at veto of bill to triple abortion waiting period

May 15, 2014 By Mike Lear

Governor Jay Nixon (D) has offered a statement on the bill that would increase the waiting period for abortions in Missouri from one day to three.

Nixon writes, “House Bill 1307 will get the same comprehensive review given to all bills that reach my desk. However, it is clear that by failing to include an exception for rape and incest, this extreme proposal would separate Missouri from all but one other state in the nation. I have profound concerns about its impact on women and especially the victims of these heinous crimes.”

Nixon has let previous legislation placing restrictions on abortion become law without taking action on them.

The House voted Wednesday night to complete legislative passage of that bill to the governor.

Bill to triple abortion waiting period sent to Gov. Nixon

May 15, 2014 By Mike Lear

Missouri could become the third state in the nation to require a 72-hour wait for a woman wanting to have an abortion, under legislation that has been sent to Governor Jay Nixon (D). The bill, HB 1307, would triple the current 24-hour waiting period in Missouri.

The House voted 111-39 for the proposal, a strong enough vote to override a veto, but the Senate vote fell one short of the two-thirds majority.

Nixon has not said whether he would support the 72-hour waiting period, saying only that he has been consistent on such issues. In the past he has let other bills placing restrictions on abortion become law without his signature.

Proponents say the legislation isn’t about whether or not a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, but whether she gets all the information available and has time to consider that information.

“Lets get off the issue of whether there’s going to be an abortion or not,” argues Representative Jeanie Riddle (R-Mokane). “What we’re trying to do is get information to these women, we’re trying to give them healthy choices and we’re trying to lessen the suicide rate of women that are in turmoil.”

Representative Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City) argues 72-hours is not too long to wait before having a serious procedure.

“There is no more serious medical procedure than this,” says Barnes. “The last time we debated this bill we heard somebody get up and talk about how it took 6-months for her husband to decide whether he would get a knee surgery. A knee surgery, Mr. Speaker, and we’re talking about the ending of a human life.”

Opponents say the legislation is an attack on women’s ability to have an abortion led primarily by Republicans.

“The idea that a woman would not have taken this time already to take the time and have discussions with her doctor is insulting,” argues Representative Genise Montecillo (D-St. Louis). “You give them 72-this year … you’re going to be back for another day or two next year.”

The passage of the measure in the Senate came on a deal that saw that chamber’s Democrats end a filibuster of the bill in exchange for Republicans agreeing not to bring up bills on so-called “paycheck protection” and photo-ID.

House approves two abortion bills

March 11, 2014 By Mike Lear

The state House has sent to the Senate two bills that would change the laws governing abortion in Missouri.

One would triple the waiting period before a woman can have an abortion from 24 to 72 hours. In emotional and at times heated discussion, several House Democrats said the legislation would only make a woman wait longer to undergo a procedure she has already decided to have. Republicans argue that three days is not too long to ask a woman to wait to consider the procedure.

Sponsor Kevin Elmer (R-Nixa) says he and other supporters are acting on the belief that life begins at conception.

“It’s something that we feel very strongly about, just as those who believe that it happens at some other time feel very strongly about their side,” says Elmer.

The other bill would require the notification of both custodial parents or the guardian of a minor when that minor is seeking an abortion. Opponents like Representative Genise Montecillo (D-St. Louis) say that bill doesn’t fit for all families.

“What if that other parents … they’re not in that child’s life?” asks Montecillo. “Maybe they can’t get in contact with that person. What happens if they can’t reach … that parent has not been a part of their life for some time?”

Opponents argue the bill could create delays that would be harmful to the minor and could force a child to make contact with an abusive parent.

Backers say the bill will help minors get guidance and make good decisions.

Debate of the bills came hours after abortion opponents held a rally under the Capitol Dome.

House rejects teacher performance evaluation proposal

April 11, 2013 By Mike Lear

The House has strongly rejected a teacher evaluation bill that was a priority for the Majority Republican leadership.

Representative Kevin Elmer (R-Nixa) sponsored the proposal that would have created a teacher evaluation system.

“To say that the system is OK is offensive to me. To say that we’re doing all we can, I contend, is untrue. To say that we accept the status quo, I say ‘No.'”

The legislation would have tied teacher performance evaluations to student growth. More than 50 members of Elmer’s own party helped vote it down.

See the legislation, HB 631

Representative Genise Montecillo (D-St. Louis) also voted against it. She says the state is already evaluating performance.

“We have a new evaluation system that we had through the waiver process and I was concerned that this would interfere with that.”

Representative Mike Lair (R-Chillicothe), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee on Education, spoke against the bill on the floor. He said it reflects a concept that is a wrong approach to education.

“I don’t want our education legislation to be put forth on a business model. If education was a business we wouldn’t keep half of the students we have. We need to educate them all. To do so, you can’t use a business model.”

Following more than an hour-and-a-half of debate that wrapped up at almost midnight, the House failed to perfect the bill 55-102.

Proposed workplace discrimination law advances to Senate

March 1, 2013 By Mike Lear

The state House has passed a bill that would change the standard for proving workplace discrimination in Missouri.

Representative Kevin Elmer (photo courtesy; Missouri House Communications)

HB 320 would bring Missouri more in line with the federal standard. It would require a worker filing a discrimination suit against an employer to prove discrimination was a “motivating,” or primary factor in a dismissal or other action. The state standard now requires only that it be a “contributing” factor.

The legislation’s sponsor, Representative Kevin Elmer (R-Nixa), says it’s needed because of what he calls a “liberalization” happening in Missouri court rulings that’s keeping some businesses from coming here.

“It’s gotten to the point where that whenever attorneys are filing claims on behalf of their clients for these employment discrimination claims, they’re filing them in Missouri because the standard of review is much lower in Missouri. What that does is that precludes a summary judgement from really being reviewed and entered in a case, and the bar is so low on that, employers are being subject to a couple years of litigation, extensive cost, in order to prove that they’re not liable in these claims.”

Democrats like Representative Mike Colona (D-St. Louis City) argue the bill makes it easier for employers to discriminate for things like race, age or religious beliefs.

“If the main reason why you fired me is because you’re a racist, that’s bad, but you can be a little bit of a racist and it’s not a big deal, because it wasn’t the motivating factor.”

The bill also restricts whistleblower protections to individuals who report violations. Representative Stephen Webber (D-Columbia) says that’s too narrow.

“You see something dumped in a stream. You see chemicals that you know aren’t supposed to go into the stream. One person says, ‘Hey, I’m going to make a call about this.’ That person is protected … they make the call. The DNR comes and talks to the other four, they say, ‘Yeah I saw it,’ they didn’t report it – they’re not protected.”

The proposal now goes to the Senate.

Lawmakers debate so-called ‘Whistleblower Protection Act’

February 12, 2013 By Mike Lear

Lawmakers in a House committee have debated a bill its sponsor says would protect people Missouri who report when an employer does something illegal.

Representative Kevin Elmer (photo courtesy; Missouri House Communications)

House Bill 320 would create what its language calls the “Whistleblower Protection Act.” It would change the definition of who is a “protected person” under Missouri law to be someone who has reported employer wrondoing to a “proper authority,” defined as a “governmental or law enforcement agency or an officer or the employee’s human resources representative employed by the employer.”

Representative Stephen Webber (D-Columbia) says that definition would be too narrow.

“It seems to me that [under this legislation] a person can see the law being broken, they can report the law being broken to somebody that is not a proper authority, and if the law is not reported to a proper authority they’re not technically a protected, meaning they have zero coverage for whistleblower protection … therefore they can be terminated.”

The proposal’s sponsor, Representative Kevin Elmer (R-Nixa), says it makes sense to have a person only be protected if they take a report to the proper people.

“They could go out and report to anybody but that’s not the proper channel to report a wrongdoing. I mean, the intent is to stop the bad acts by the employer … and it’s not going to stop if it’s not being reported to the right people, because where is the enforcement going to come from?”

The proposal would also require workers who file lawsuits alleging discrimination was a factor in their dismissal prove that it was a motivating factor and not a contributing one, cap the amount of damages that can be awarded to an employee and eliminate individual liability in discrimination cases.

Similar bills have been vetoed in the last two years by Governor Nixon.

No vote has been taken on the legislation.