The Safe Act bans puberty blockers, hormones & transgender surgery in Missouri kids under 18.
It's pretty straightforward in my mind. You?
A couple weeks ago there was a whistleblower that came out with information about the Washington University transgender clinic. It's horrific.
The week after, The Safe Act had a public hearing in the Missouri Senate. I was at the hearing and also had the opportunity to spend time that day with Scott Newgent, Luka Hein and Chloe Cole. Scott is a trans-man who founded an organization called TreVoices. Luka & Chloe are both young women were victimized by leftist counselors and doctors. They all came in to testify at the committee hearing.
If you aren't familiar with the details of this issue, I truly encourage you to click on the links and learn more about these precious people and the issues our children are facing.
o'laughlin lays it over
Yesterday, Monday, February 28th, SB 49 came up on the Senate floor for debate and perfection. However, the Majority Floor Leader, Cindy O'Laughlin, and President Pro Tem, Caleb Rowden, don't want to deal with the bill. Honestly, I don't think Rowden wants the bill to pass at all. Maybe Cindy does, but she seems to be cow-towing to Rowden so it doesn't really matter. She's not helping.
Of course, Washington University doesn't want it to pass. Big pharma doesn't want it to pass. The medical lobby doesn't want it to pass. We know that. And they have the dollars to back it up.
The trustees and heavy hitters from Wash U have been gunning for the conservatives for a while now. It was about this time last year that they created a PAC called RightPath and raised over $2 million to fight senate conservatives. That's in addition to the other two PACS Wash U funds. There are too many PACs from the medical and big pharm industries to name.
Caleb has tons of donations from all these special interests and I'm sure he's got more on the way. Probably, Cindy does, too, and my guess is these senators who won't commit to a yes have taken more than a few dollars as well. Maybe I'll take some time to find those MEC reports later on.
One of her jobs is to bring bills up to the floor but she just doesn't think it's a good time to bring The Safe Act forward. Hmm....I'm wondering why.
Other than special interest dark money influence, leadership often likes to hold bills hostage as leverage to get the things they want. And then....at the end of session when they accomplish their disgusting priority, things like the gas tax or PDMP, they'll give you a tiny token of something you want and carry it home like a 1st place trophy. You'll sing their praises and they won't tell you the whole truth about the way they sold you down the river a thousand different times.
I guess it could be that they know this bill might be divisive among the body because things might be uncomfortable in the hallways and office relations may be tense for a bit. As far as I'm concerned, suck it up buttercup. That's part of the job description.
I'm honestly not sure why she doesn't want to deal with it right now. But she doesn't.
Back to The Safe Act.
SENATE LEADERSHIP
Rumor has it that Senator O'Laughlin has promised that SB 49 will come up for perfection next Tuesday. We'll see. But why next Tuesday? I have no idea. Why not today? Why not yesterday? It's all such a dog & pony show.
Get it done, Cindy. GET. IT. DONE.
If you are holding our kids ransom for GOP establishment priorities - then just stop. Your voters are sick of these games you all play with our lives & the lives of our children.
If you're worried about upsetting your Senate buddies just suck it up. From what I understand, we've even got some democrat support on this bill so even if they vote no, there's a fair chance they actually agree with the bill at heart.
CALL TO ACTION: Call and email leadership to let them know that protecting Missouri kids is your priority and you want to see SB 49 on the floor, perfected AND passed BEFORE spring break.
Senate President & Lt Governor, Mike Kehoe. 573.751.4727
Senate President Pro Tem, Caleb Rowden. caleb.rowden@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.1141
Senate Majority Floor Leader, Cindy O'Laughlin. cindy.olaughlin@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.7985
yes, no or undecided?
Today, I was in every Republican senate office in the building with a friend of mine. We asked the question, "Is the senator a yes, no or undecided on The Safe Act?" Here are the answers we got and the contact information you need to reach out to these so-called Republicans.
Of course, no Republican would say they are a no. But we did get a surprising amount of 'Undecided' responses that were, frankly, mostly rude and condescending staffers who were giving us their token response. Frankly, on this issue, if you are undecided - you're a no. If you can't commit to a yes on this issue - you're a problem.
And just so you know, this bill has been on the informal calendar for over week. It has been a hot topic in the press and in the building. There is no excuse for ANY staffer or senator to NOT know their position at this point. It was literally supposed to be perfected on the floor yesterday. They should've already read the bill - not acted like they hadn't even seen it before.
The question stated was, "If SB 49 came to the floor TODAY as it is TODAY are you a yes or a no?"
Their excuses are just that. EXCUSES. Even the excuse regarding possible amendments is a joke. If you are undecided - that means you aren't committing to a yes and that's a no as far as I'm concerned.
list of "undecided" votes on the safe act
ACTION: Please call this list of senators and let them know what you think. If I hear that their position changes, I'll update the list and let you know. These are all Republican senators.
Senator Rusty Black - rusty.black@senate.mo.gov 573.751.1415
Senator Karla Eslinger - karla.eslinger@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.1882
Senator Jason Bean - jason.bean@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.4843
Senator Caleb Rowden - caleb.rowden@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.3931
Senator Elaine Gannon - elaine.gannon@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.4008
Senator Tony Luetkemeyer - tony.luetkemeyer@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.2183
Senator Mike Bernskoetter - mike.bernskoetter@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.2076
Senator Lincoln Hough - lincoln.hough@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.1311
Senator Justin Brown - justin.brown@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.5713
Senator Holly Rehder - holly.rehder@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.2459
Senator Mike Cierpiot - mike.cierpiot@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.1464
Note: Senator Sandy Crawford is absent this week. We were unable to get a response from her office.
Safe act champions
These senators have committed to a yes on SB 49. Simple as that. We asked the question and they immediately responded, "Yes!" In a lot of cases, they said things like, "Is that a real question?" or "You have to ask?" They had zero hesitation in committing to protecting our kids and supporting SB 49.
ACTION: Please call them and let them know you appreciate their support of SB 49 and request them to use every ounce of their influence with leadership to get SB 49 to the floor for perfection and a vote for passage BEFORE spring break.
Senator Mike Moon, Bill Sponsor. mike.moon@senate.mo.gov 573.751.1480
Senator Jill Carter, jill.carter@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.2173
Senator Rick Brattin, rick.brattin@senate.mo.gov 573.751.2108
Senator Bill Eigel, bill.eigel@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.1141
Senator Ben Brown, ben.brown@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.3678
Senator Andrew Koenig, andrew.koenig@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.5568
Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman, maryelizabeth.coleman@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.2459
Senator Curtis Trent, curtis.trent@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.1503
Senator Nick Schroer, nick.schroer@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.1282
Senator Denny Hoskins, denny.hoskins@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.4302
Senator Travis Fitzwater, travis.fitzwater@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.2757
Be sure to subscribe to the blog and I'll keep you posted.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE BLOG
the problem with "parent's rights" Acts
I know the masses love the idea of "parent's rights." But I don't like it.
When you define something in statute, you then have to abide by it. If the definition isn't written correctly - you've got big problems and unintended consequences down the road.
In regard to parent's rights, the truth is that parents ALREADY possess the rights. ALL of them. Trying to enumerate or define them is inviting trouble because undoubtedly - even if they are trying to do a good thing - the legislature will likely mess it up. They will miss something, include something they shouldn't or use language they shouldn't- and we'll be worse off instead of better.
For that reason alone, I don't like most of the Parent's Rights legislation we're seeing right now. I do understand parents need transparency from their schools, but it needs to be written correctly.
Personally, I like Senator Eigel's "Empowering Missouri Parents Act." In his bill, he begins by saying, "Missouri school districts shall NOT..." I know it's a slight change in the language but it makes a huge difference. Senator Eigel puts the school in their place vs trying to give parents everything they are due. Senator Eigel's bill, SB 318, has not been referred to committee at this time.
Here's one clue Senator Eigel's bill is better. Eigel's is 2 pages. Koenig's is 33.
Senator Koenig's Parent's Rights Act has already been through committee and it was perfected on the senate floor this past week. That means the senate can no longer make any changes to it. They'll vote on the perfected bill the first part of the week.
koenig's bill is protecting schools not kids
we aren't guaranteed access to proprietary materials
Did you know that publishers of curriculum, even third party contractors that come into schools to teach various topics - including sex ed & mental health - often have agreements with schools that the materials will not be sharable with parents and sometimes even board members and admin?
For example, Missouri's MAP test is proprietary. No administrators, teachers, or parents ever see the exact test that students take. In fact, they are told many times not to even look over students' shoulders. Seeing the test is off limits.
This isn't transparency. I don't know about you, but I don't like it. When the kids had books, we could all see the pages when the kid brought them home or when we went to school at conference time. Now that most curriculum is online - we have no access and we don't have a clue what the kids are actually learning.
Senator Koenig's SB 4 does not guarantee parents will be able to see curriculum if it is proprietary. Copyrights and proprietary materials are mentioned a few other times in the bill in addition to this one on page 8.
This is taken from an email between a school board member and third party contracted to provide education to students, but unwilling to share curriculum materials because of the copyright. This is a problem.
penalties for schools is $25K
In the case of copyrighted, proprietary materials schools can be fined $25,000 per incident if they are found in violation. This disincentivizes schools to be transparent and allows for the excuse of copyright infringement for nearly any materials request. In most cases, a parent wouldn't know whether or not materials were proprietary, copyrighted or not. This is found on page 14.
allows CRT
This part is a little bit tricky, because if you don't read all the way through you'd think everything is A-OK. But no. Essentially, he says that, "You can't do all this CRT stuff" but then he turns around in the next section and says, "This shall not be seen as prohibiting...all the things that might be CRT."
So CRT is not prohibited IF...
- You are exercising your 1st Amendment right to free speech
- You go to the CRT filled teacher training because you choose to
- You provide access to CRT filled sources for the purpose of individual research
- You discuss or assign CRT filled assignments as long as you make it clear this is not the school's belief or position
- You discuss it in the context of history
- Concepts are related to the history of racial groups
- Concepts are related to current events
Here's a quote from page 30:
"This section shall also not be construed to prohibit teachers or students from discussing public policy issues, current events, or ideas that individuals might find unwelcome, disagreeable, or offensive." - pg 30 line 74-77
I'm sorry, Senator, but we'd be better off if you just delete this entire section. Let's not try to define CRT in detail and then try to give back the same list. You've basically just codified CRT!
We would TRULY be better off without ANY of this.
incentivizes homeless/immigrant students
Senator Koenig also decided to pull the school funding formula into this Parent's Rights bill.
- He increased the rate schools are paid on each child who receives a free or reduced priced lunch
- He added money for every homeless student.
Why? I believe there are a couple of possibilities.
PREPARING FOR IMMIGRANTS
Several of our schools have already had large influxes of immigrants over the last couple of years and unless our current Presidential administration changes something about our immigration policy, we are likely to have many more.
These students put a big toll on our public schools. They often times have no experience with English, they are living in hard situations and it costs our schools, teachers and our students a lot.
They are a burden to our already struggling system.
HIS SCHOOL CHOICE SUCCESS
It could also be that Senator Koenig wanted to incentivize schools for opting in to his open enrollment program and accepting students who qualify for free & reduced lunches or are homeless.
His open enrollment bill, SB 5, is about ready to be perfected on the senate floor and we can probably expect it will pass in the House quickly as well.
I could be wrong, But it's possible.
Call To Action
1. Call & email your Senator and let them know what your concerns are with this bill. Ask for a no vote. Senator Eigel has a better option! Nothing at all is better than this. Legislator Lookup Tool
2. Copy the link to this post & send it to a conservative friend!
I hear often that our freedoms and our rights are eroding away. How can that be?
The Constitution hasn't changed. The actual Bill of Rights hasn't changed.
Technically, in most ways, nothing has changed in so far as what our government sees as "inalienable rights."
And yet...things are changing. Government is getting bigger and it feels like the voices of the majority of "We The People" are getting weaker.
Several things are happening, but one of the issues that is happening behind the scenes and unbeknownst to nearly everyone is a shift in our statutes regarding civil liability.
Civil Liability:
If you intentionally or even mistakenly injure someone physically or damage someone's property, you could end up being responsible for paying the other person's losses. This is known as civil liability.
The Tool
If our founding documents and our legislative process spell out your inalienable rights and add them to our statutes, then it is the court system that is the tool used to implement those rights when they have been infringed upon. After all, if you aren't able to exercise your rights or protect them, then you don't really have them, do you?
The courts are where grievances of all types are redressed.
The definition of redress is: 1) to set right. Remedy. 2) to make up for. Compensate.
You have a right of redress when someone has harmed you in some way. The legal way this is done is through the civil court system. The one who harms you is held liable for the damages. This is civil liability.
When the legislature begins to remove your ability to redress your grievances through the court system, they are infringing on your ability to set things right or be compensated for your loss.
The courts are the tool we use to enforce MANY of our individual liberties if we have been harmed by another person.
you're losing your right to sue someone who has harmed you
The Missouri legislators are quietly removing your rights to redress grievances. It's been happening for a while.
In 2021, the Missouri legislature passed SB 51, a Covid Liability bill. I worked throughout that session against the bill and we gave it a good fight but the medical lobby won in the end.
I know it's not the fault of one player when a team loses, but I will forever remember the one representative who brought the bill up again in a rules committee with a procedural maneuver and then another flipped his no vote to a yes, which was the lynch pin holding it back. Within a day, maybe less, it was a done deal and headed to the Governor's office.
That bill in '21 gave hospitals, nursing homes, pharmacists, and big business total immunity from liability with anything at all related to Covid. But guess what? Not you. You aren't immune. Small businesses aren't immune. Churches aren't immune. But if your elderly mom was neglected in a nursing home when you couldn't get in to see her - you're out of luck and your mom is probably dead.
They call it "tort reform" and say that they are trying to unburden our courts.
But what does that actually do? It creates two tiers. The ones who have no accountability & the ones who do.
If you have no accountability and can't be held liable, you are free to cut corners, do whatever you want and potentially do harm without any consequences.
However, if you aren't in that group that is immune then guess what? You'd better mind your P's and Q's. You might find yourself paying out big.
Sound fair?? Not to me, it doesn't.
sb 117 by Senator tony luetkemeyer
SB 117 is dangerous. There are 3 parts to this bill and you need to understand them.
1. Reduces the statute of limitations from 5 years to 2 years for personal liability regarding...
"An action for any injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract and not otherwise provided for by law, including actions for personal injury or bodily injury"
This means instead of having 5 years to sue someone for harm, you only have 2. Maybe in some cases that works. But for many, it doesn't.
- What if you had a wreck, suffered horrible physical injuries that left you jobless, enduring surgeries, therapies, etc.
- What if your children were hurt and. you were dealing with their recovery, therapies, etc?
- What if you just didn't realize you were sick or it took more than two years to get a diagnosis that was the result of a chemical or toxic exposure?
There are a lot of situations where you would be under an incredible amount of stress, occupied with health matters, etc. No one in these circumstances wants to take up a law suit and deal with the legal system when they are just trying to survive the trauma of what was done to them.
2. Reduces the statute of limitation in regard to uninsured and underinsured motorists from 10 years to 2 years.
"An action against an insurer relating to uninsured motorist coverage or underinsured motorist coverage, including any action to enforce such coverage."
This means you only have 2 years to redress your grievances with your insurance company if there's a problem. Interesting. They love to protect the insurance companies.
I don't hate insurance companies. My husband works for one and has for 30+ years. But let me assure you, the insurance companies are reinsured to the hilt and decreasing your ability to hold them accountable by 8 years isn't what's best for the people. Have you ever had insurance issues drag out for months or years at a time?? It can happen.
Maybe 10 years is too long. But 2? Hmm... that's a little extreme when the ones you are protecting are multi-million and billion dollar companies.
Also, this might very well cause the court system to clog up faster than it does now because it might actually force people to file suit when with more time for mediation it might have settled out of court.
3. Gives SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY to ALL 3rd party PRIVATE contractors of PUBLIC ENTITIES!
I can't scream this loud enough!! Take to heart the red print and all caps because I mean it!
Sovereign Immunity: Sovereign immunity refers to the fact that the government cannot be sued without its consent.
Lines 47 - 52 of Luetkemeyer's SB 117 say this:
"When acting within the scope of a government contract, private contractors of a public entity, excluding those private contractors provided for in section 210.114 shall have sovereign or governmental tort immunity to the same extent as a public entity, including any limitation on awards for liability provided for in section 537.610."
According the US Code, the definition of public entity is:
who would be immune?
This means that ANY private contractor working for any government entity, the public school system, the State University system, fire/police/EMS departments, public transportation systems, etc. The actual list would be miles long. It would be so far reaching that there's no way to even truly comprehend how far this actually goes.
But here are a few examples:
- The State of Missouri
- Highway contractors...think road construction
- Database systems contractors.... think data leaks and security breaches including ERIC...VOTER REGISTRATION INFORMATION
- Classroom Wallet...the contracted provider for disbursing funds through the Treasurer's office for the ESA program.
- Equipment contractors... think faulty ANYTHING from sprinkler systems to voting machines to the food in the Truman Building cafeteria
- Universities in the Missouri State System
- University of Missouri Hospital systems - NO DOCTOR contracted through MU could be held liable for ANY issue of malpractice.
- Real Example: A knee replacement surgery was done on over 15 patients at University Hospital. The knee was defective. If this law passes, neither the surgeons or the manufacturer would be liable for those cases or be required to repair the damage done.
- Every other contract doing business with the universities. EVERY. CONTRACTOR.
- Missouri Public Schools
- Playground equipment providers
- DATA
- SOFTWARE providers
- Bus drivers & transportation services
- Food services
- County & City Governments
- Equipment and gear for public safety workers...thing oxygen tanks for firefighters, police equipment, ambulance services, etc etc.
- DATA
- Construction crews
the problem
Other than the obvious, the fact that you can't sue for something done wrong to you in all these different situations, the bigger problem is that they are continuing to separate us. There are different rules for different groups of people.
The government & anyone doing business with the government in ANY way - NO ACCOUNTABILITY.
The people, small businesses, churches, etc. - SORRY CHARLIE. YOU'RE OUT OF LUCK.
Not only are you out of luck as far as being held accountable for your own actions and following a different set of rules, but the government and their partners can now cut corners, be deceitful, and plan their business dealings with you knowing that they have ZERO accountability for ANYTHING.
Now, how you do think that's gonna work out???
current status of sb 117
SB 117 has passed committee in the Missouri Senate. It's on the calendar to be heard on the Senate floor. I'm hopeful we have senators willing to stand and fight for us. I've been reassured that is the case. However, at the first moment I see otherwise, I'll be sending out an SOS and begging you to help me fight against this UN-AMERICAN piece of junk!!
take action
Call & email your own senator and let them know how you feel about this. Their phones need to be ringing off the hook! Be sure to ask them how they plan to vote. If they tell you, let me know the response you get. I'd love to know! Email me at jodi@jodigrace.com
In hopes of consolidating our Calls To Action and hot topics for the upcoming week, I'm going to link the Senate info here and I'll do my best to update you as the week progresses. These aren't the only items we are watching and as you know legislation is an every changing beast so I'll keep you posted as best I can.
monday, feb 6th
senate hearings
Local Government & Elections Committee
2:00 pm in Senate Committee Room 2
SB 16 by Cierpiot - OPPOSE. Weighted voting in our Central Committees. It's BAD!
SJR 30 by Ben Brown - SUPPORT. Bans rank choice voting via ballot measure.
1. Come testify in person
2. Call and email the committee members:
Senator Elaine Gannon, Chair - elaine.gannon@senate.mo.gov 573.751.4008
Senator Sandy Crawford, Vice Chair - sandy.crawford@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.8793
Senator Jill Carter - jill.carter@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.2173
Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman - maryelizabeth.coleman@senate.mo.gov 573.751.1492
Senator Andrew Koenig - andrew.koenig@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.5568
Senator John Rizzo - john.rizzo@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.3074
Senator Barbara Washington - barbara.washington@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.3158
Senate Formal Calendar**
Bills on the formal calendar will be brought to the floor for debate & perfection, but there's no way to know when. They won't all make it to the floor Monday, but it will depend on how quickly things move as to when they do arrive this week or maybe even next week. There will also be additions as time passes. These are the bills I've been watching closely, but there are a few others as well.
SB 5 by Koenig - School Choice. OPPOSE. Can't support as currently written.
SB 81 by Coleman - Voucher/School Choice & Tax Credit for Home Schools. OPPOSE. Can't support as currently written. The playing field is unequal between public & private schools. Either push DESE back out of public schools or the only fair thing to do is push DESE requirement in to private and although we don't want that, it will likely happen. The Treasurer's office will create the rules around the flow of money. It won't end well. Private schools need to be protected and public schools need to be free.
SB 100 by Eigel - Gold & Silver. SUPPORT
SB 39 by Rehder - Boys in Girl's Sports. SUPPORT w/Amendments to strike DESE & Title 9 language. Change the language regarding birth certificates due to Cierpiot's birth certificate bill. She needs to use Moon's language in regard to identification of biological boys.
SB 117 by Leutkemeyer - Torte Reform & Sovereign Immunity. OPPOSE. This is a HORRIBLE bill. I can't express how bad & far reaching it will be. This bill needs to die quickly!!
SB 45 by Gannon - Expanding Medicaid. OPPOSE. Why are Republicans expanding medicaid?? The only way we can support this is if they add the pro-life language to it that would exclude post abortion care. We might see a filibuster over this one.
senate resolutions
SCR 4 by Eigel - Commends Israel from its cordial and mutually beneficial relationship with Missouri and the United States, supports Israel's right to exist and recognizes Jerusalem as the eternal capitol of Israel. I LOVE BILL EIGEL FOR THIS!!
tuesday
senate hearings
Education & Workforce Development
8:15am in the Senate Lounge
SB 134 by Moon. SUPPORT. Bans school personnel from speaking with students about gender identity without prior permission from a parent.
1. Testify in person. Arrive by 7:15 or even earlier. Doors should open at 7:45 am. Limited seating. Overflow stands in hallway.
2. Call & Email Committee Members
Andrew Koenig, Chair 573.751.5568
Rick Brattin, Vice-Chair. 573.751.2108
Lauren Arthur. 573.751.5282
Doug Beck. 573.751.0220
Elaine Gannon. 573.751.4008
Denny Hoskins. 573.751.4302
Greg Razer. 573.751.6607
Nick Schroer. 573.751.1282
Curtis Trent. 573.751.1503
Education Committee Emails: andrew.koenig@senate.mo.gov, rick.brattin@senate.mo.gov, lauren.arthur@senate.mo.gov, doug.beck@senate.mo.gov, elaine.gannon@senate.mo.gov, denny.hoskins@senate.mo.gov, greg.razer@senate.mo.gov, nick.schroer@senate.mo.gov, curtis.trent@senate.mo.gov
Senator Ben Brown's SJR 30, a resolution that would add a ban of rank choice voting to our ballot, has a hearing at 2:00 pm in the Senate Local Government and Elections Committee.
This bill also includes additional provisions to help improve election security such as enshrining in statute that only US citizens can vote in MO elections. It strengthens requirements on what kind of machines can be used and ensures permanent paper records for each vote are kept and preserved for use in any future election audit.
Multiple democrat groups are expected to show up and strongly oppose the bill. We need as much support as we can get to be physically present in the room!
If you believe in preserving the integrity of our elections please share this information and consider coming to the Capitol Monday to testify. Unfortunately, the Senate has decided they will not be accepting online witness forms.
call to action
1. Come to the Capitol Monday to testify if you are able.
Time: 2:00 pm
Place: Senate Committee Room 2
Plan to arrive around 1:00 pm. Doors will open at 1:30 pm
If you need help with information regarding your visit to Jefferson City, please reach out. I'm here to help!
2. Call and Email each of the committee members and express your SUPPORT of SJR 30. Ask for a yes vote and any other support they are able to give.
Senator Elaine Gannon, Chair - elaine.gannon@senate.mo.gov 573.751.4008
Senator Sandy Crawford, Vice Chair - sandy.crawfod@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.8793
Senator Jill Carter - jill.carter@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.2173
Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman - maryelizabeth.coleman@senate.mo.gov 573.751.1492
Senator Andrew Koenig - andrew.koenig@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.5568
Senator John Rizzo - john.rizzo@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.3074
Senator Barbara Washington - barbara.washington@senate.mo.gov. 573.751.3158
