House OKs birth control funding ban

on Thu, Mar. 16, 2006
Low-income women would be affected
House OKs birth control funding ban

By KIT WAGAR
The Star’s Jefferson City correspondent

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri House voted Wednesday to ban state funding of contraceptives for low-income women and to prohibit state-funded programs from referring those women to other programs.

Critics jumped on the proposal, saying it would lead to more abortions and more unwanted children on welfare.
But the proposal’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Susan Phillips of Kansas City, said contraceptive services were an inappropriate use of tax dollars. “If doctors want to give contraception privately or personally, they can,” Phillips said. “But we don’t need to pay for contraception with taxpayer funds.”


The change was the most controversial amendment adopted during the second day of debate on next year’s state budget. The Republican majority also turned back several efforts to boost funding for health-care programs by trimming farm and agribusiness subsidies.

Phillips’ amendment did not save the state money. Instead, it imposed restrictions on how state agencies could spend $9.23 million earmarked for public-health programs, mainly for people who are poor but make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.
(snip/…)

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/14109047.htm

will not have sex.

This country is doomed to live under the oppression of the radical clerics.

We need some one besides old white men in Congress.

:wtf:

Men and women are statistically nearly identical on abortion.

This legislation was put forth by a woman.

We have a representative democracy - the problem is not in the congress but in the electorate.

could you please show where men and women are statistically nearly identical on abortion.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=253



You'll note that men exceed women a bit on abortion being "more limited" but women actually exceed men on abortion being "never permitted".

I shared this previously - but as I recall you had quite a few deleted posts in that thread so you may have been too busy to notice.

Women support abortion at about 59%, while men oppose it at about 59%

Jan 23, 2006.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews2.dbm?ID=1060

Pew's survey had a smaller sample size (1500 compared to 5600) and a larger margin of error (+/- 3% versus +/- 1.3%)

Zogby is the data that Washington is probably using this month, not a report from 6 months ago.

How completely stupid. I suppose it's better to use taxpayers money to pay for unwanted children....much MORE money!

These people are so completely transparent with their judgmental, thinly veiled religious agenda. Ick.

economy. They neglect common sense in favor of thier narrow-minded and idiotic religious "sensibilities."

I think all of them should just be aborted - no matter that they are already out of the womb.

and grow up to be problems to society

receive ANY money from the state once they are born??? The whole point of cutting taxes and ending reproductive choice is to permanently impoverish and then virtually enslave the masses. They will grow up in near-starvation, with no public education if these nuts get their way.

Is the only expensive result of this ridiculous measure. Considering Missouri legally requires any infant born with vital life signs (regardless of their health condition) to be fully resuscitated and held on life support, this measure WILL likely cost Missouri far more money than it realizes.

And their proposed ban of abortions a la South Dakota will only add to the population of unplanned pregnancies amongst the poorer and working class folks there. Talk about short sighted actions... But then, I wouldn't be surprised if next on the agenda is withdrawing funding from those pesky disabled and/or medically fragile kids needing public assistance for their medical care. Shouldn't those kids know better than to survive futile intensive care and then demand further care on the public dole? :eyes:

Don't you know that the Lord helps those who help themselves? Why should they worry about those poor people? It's their own fault they're poor, doncha know.

this is all about punishing women for having sex outside of marriage, and about treating the resulting baby (if any) as that punishment. Far from being supportive of life or "pro" anything, these people see only a bunch of sinful sluts who need to be taught a lesson.

And, since one of gawwwwd's commands is to not have sex outside marriage, well, we can't let them get away with doing so without consequences, and one of gaaaawwwwwd's consequences is to bear a child. Sorry, ladies- these people will make sure you don't thwart the will of gaaawwwwd.

They are opposed to the HPV vaccine for the exact same reasons.

Bingo. You're right on the money.

I was pregnant when I graduated from high school and my mother and stepfather railroaded me into marriage with my baby's father - I was still 16 at the time so it never occurred to me that I could say no. It wasn't that they were concerned about my welfare and that of my unborn child; it was all about punishing me for having sex. You know, the old "you made your bed, now lie in it" thing.

Of course the marriage didn't last long after my daughter was born, but things worked out for us in the end and we've had happy lives, although I spent years being skittish about marriage and relationships. (If you want to see a sad wedding, go to one where both the bride and groom would rather not be there...)

As you might expect, I never felt the same way about my parents again once I realized they were so hellbent on punishing me instead of helping me get through a traumatic time. One of the unintended consequences of their pushing me into a shotgun marriage as a way of making me atone for my "sin" was that I became fiercely independent and unwilling to let anyone - including my parents and my husband (for the short time he held that role) - decide what I should do with my life.

Edit: grammar

....how Republican.

This is going to save $ - how? More unplanned pregnancies will cost a hella lot more than bc. Do they cover Viagra? Why?

You would think the business side of these morons would kick in.

They won't pay for contraceptives to prevent low income people from having more babies which will most likely end up on the welfare roles.

Which is cheaper, the pill or 18 years of paying for the welfare of a child? DUH!

If I owned an insurance company or ran welfare, I would rather pay for the pill or a pack of condoms than 18 years of child care.

You know, I would just love to see women of the state rise up and refuse sex to any man who supports this crap or supports any idiot politician who supports this crap. No funding for contraception? No sex for YOU, buddy-boy.

a whole lot cheaper.
Low income woman who can not afford the pill will now cost the state a whole lot more.
Any complications, and childbirth can easily climb to 30,000 per birth.
Lets see, 1000 women who can not get the pill, give birth next year. 15,000.00 X 1000. = 15,000,000.00.
Wow, I hope they can afford this?

very good, :)

Right! But I bet we pay for contraception for all the wives and daughters of our elected officials on the hill.

Man these people are stupid!

What's with the 'pukes and birth control? Shrub won't fund AIDS clinics in Africa that provide it and now these fools think it's a good idea in Missouri. Hint to ladies in MO: get yourself one of those illegal Tennessee devices and plenty of batteries, then cut off all contact with the opposite sex until they come to their senses.

"more abortions" - they're planning to outlaw it, remember?

As for unwanted children - well - when they finish getting rid of all those "illegal aliens" - who do you think will be here to do all the scut work they are *too good* to do, eh?

The poor, poorly educated, and disenfranchised. . .

great idea... NOT!

won't be a very bad idea in the long run. They're standing in a pool of gasoline playing with matches.

What a bunch of fucking assholes.

HOW?!

Feminists here have been warning people that behind the fight against abortion would come an assault on contraception. A lot of people pooh-poohed that notion, despite the fact that the feminists knew what they were talking about.

Now people seem surprised. The only surprise (to me) is how QUICKLY they're ganging on. They're not even waiting to kill abortion, they're piling onto the contraception issue NOW.

This is going to end up being another of those situations that apply to poor people and not to those who can afford it ("it" in this case being birth control). There's no way anyone will convince me that your average Republican woman (not including fundies, because they're insane) is against using contraception. They want it for themselves, they just don't like the idea of funding it for anyone else.

As usual, it's an "it's OK for me to have it" thing, because Republicans only think about themselves - society as a whole can go to hell as far as they're concerned.

I guess they believe people whose annual income is below a certain level should just stop having sex.

with depression.

Will this bill prevent that from happening?

They'll see new highs in child neglect and abuse, but, hey, Ms Phillips is spreading the 'word' and stuffing it in the wombs of those she has power over.


"Phillips’ amendment eliminated infertility treatments and contraception, and substituted alternatives to abortion and prenatal care for the purpose of giving birth. It also prohibited spending on any treatment and referrals for any treatment not spelled out in the budget."

She won't spend the money on preventing unwanted pregnancies, but will spend it on forcing women to carry those pregnancies to term. This is an appropriate use of tax dollars? It's appropriate to declare that low income women should not have a right to birth control, and that the money that would have been spent on birth control for them will now be spent on their prenatal care and abortion alternatives?

How could any intelligent person not see this as incredibly stupid and short sighted?

It's more about control and male domination than just unwanted kids.

I realize there are some men that are not into this. But this is about christian males feeling they should have the right to be in charge of women, via Biblical word.

And don't imagine there are all that many men here at DU who wouldn't relish the advantages of having women once again barefoot and pregnant and out of the way -- out of the workforce, out of power, out of sight and out of mind. Lotta sexism here; lotta appreciation for that ole white male privilege each of them enjoys. I've noticed that even support for such things as abortion is really support from their point of view: gee, it'd be awful if I got someone pregnant and we didn't have access to abortion.

I don't have a very positive experience or view of DU men re their support of women. They basically don't. Period. Nor do the DU admin, really.

But remember on those threads, you can count the same mysognists over and over, and most of the men here don't even seem to post on them.

So yes, I've had the same experience, but look who we're dealing with.

Unfortunately, in the general population, I'm sure there's no shortage of the men that can't see someone rights unless it benefits them personally. But I think there's plenty more that can.

Let her know how you feel about her care and compassion :sarcasm:

http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/member/mem032.htm

573-751-2071
Capitol Fax: 573-522-8622

E-Mail: Susan.Phillips@house.mo.gov

their anti abortion claptrap to get to the SCOTUS before taking the next steps to eliminate birth control.

--IMM

Still waiting for the Dems to get a clue where the battle lines really are... (and always have been).

They apparently have gone into hibernation

What follows getting rid of abortion, is getting rid of birth control. Then you get a society who rules sex is bad.

AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE A DOUBLE STANDARD WHERE WOMEN HAVING SEX IS BAD.

The guy however will likely walk scott free and the women will be persecuted as pariahs in our socitey if shes had sex outside of marriage.

Soon Divorce will also be made a lot harder.

It's all part of the same mentality. Christian man running house. How dare women be allowed to have sex outside of marriage. How dare women decide if they want to bare a child or end a marriage.

And that Christian mentality is no different than the taliban or any other supressing religious views men want to subject women to.

The woman supporting it is an enabler. It's like Blacks for Bush. We'll always have mascochists and people who want to be "slaves", black or white.

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

Do they even consider that an unwanted child might suffer physical and emotional harm? That they might end up in the foster care system? Another clueless Republican shit head. What is even more disturbing is that she is a woman. Pro-life as long as it is a fetus - giving a shit once the child is born.

Thank God I moved to California.

lots of cheap labor!

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/america/statisticsDisplay.asp?ID=3&sID=18&sort=rank

and 38 states have lower divorce rates
http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html

Those legislators wouldn't know a family value if it bit them.

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

Niemoller. (This version, one of several, is described as "original" on Wikipedia.)

When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

When they came for the anti-war activists,
I remained silent;
I was not an anti-war activist.

When they legislated against the homosexuals,
I remained silent;
I was not a homosexual.

When they ignored the plight of the poor,
I did not speak out;
I was not poor.

When they came against the rights of women,
I remained silent;
I was not a woman.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE:

Rep. Bob Johnson, a Lee’s Summit Republican, offered an amendment that deleted infertility treatments, but reinstated contraceptives. Most of the money, he said, would go to county health departments serving women with no alternatives to obtain health care. “If we don’t allow for contraception for low-income women, we will have more unplanned pregnancies and more pregnancies ended by abortion,” Johnson said. “No one here wants more abortions.”

snip:
Johnson’s proposal was defeated 100-53, with nearly all Republicans and a handful of Democrats voting against the change.

So, we have a MALE REPUBLICAN trying to reinstate the provision for contraceptives, back into the bill. And then we have 'a handful of Democrats voting against the change' to the bill (i.e. voting AGAINST the provision for contraception). What on earth is going on with the Democrats??? Why can't we get on the same page, listen to the PEOPLE for once, and make some headway? We just keep shooting ourselves in the foot. I don't think anyone in Washington, or anywhere else for that matter, is LISTENING to their constituents. I think the majority of people 'out there' want contraception provided by whatever means. This just infuriates me. (sorry for the rant)

Do you know what the realpolitik is going on here?

t!

t!

Even those who see women as "chalices" instead of free people often say, "I favor birth control, but abortion should not be for 'birth control.'"

:grr:

Keep 'em pregnant and ignornat. STUPID STUPID STUPID.

running amok!:wow:

These sick, sick, sick, people would totally OUTLAW birth control if they could!!!
I have heard about this a lot lately!!!

This Over-Zealous-Religious-Fundamentalist Crap is getting so out of hand lately
in this entire country that they have become dangerous!

Personally, I think that every woman should get sterilized in protest.
No sick fuck is going to ever force me to give birth!!!

FUCK YOU!

We fucking warned you contraception was next. This is part of their plan.

Thanks for nothing.

:applause:

whats better to boost future recruiting?

many poor children with no options than the army...whats next? state run "orphanies" as pre-recruiting facilities?

make and keep 'em produce them - we'll waste 'em.

:sarcasm:

It will last at least 40 years. Don't you love the way the Republicans always think ahead?

then take away their birth control.

Then, you can keep them pregnant, and out of the work force, and subservient, and lowly, because if a woman can't have control over her own body, then she's got control over nothing.

major issue I agree, they will get a BACKLASH from married couples. Just because you have a wedding band on your finger, does NOT mean that you want to be a breeding FACTORY. "Faithfulness in Marriage" is not a substitute for BIRTH CONTROL. How many couples want to be breeding machines for the Government? Will government PAY for these extra mouths to feed? Of course not. This sounds like Nazism to me. I can tell you even 30 years ago when I got married, my husband and I decided BEFORE we married how many kids we wanted. We used birth control to achieve that number and when we were done, he got sterilized. There was nothing haphazard about our having children. We not only have sex organs, but BRAINS, and used our brains to control our bodies. As it SHOULD BE.

What will happen? You will see more and more couples opting for sterilization as their means of birth control once they have their 2.1 children and these Fundes ban chemical and barrier methods of birth control.

hospitals...I'll just bet...

Isn't the whole rethuglican point to make sure that there are FEWER black babies rather than more? I would have expected those racist bastards to have put forward a bill proposing mandatory sterilization....

Many women are on the pill to control bleeding, or pain of endometriosis. What about those women? Will they be denied the medicine they need to improve or save their lives? Of course, the fundies probably think that is just an excuse to take birth control pills.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/03/missouri_house.html

Missouri House bans contraception for poor women

The Missouri House voted yesterday to ban contraceptive funding for low-income women, and to prohibit state-funded programs from referring those women to other programs. The sponsor of the proposal, Rep. Susan Phillips, declared contraceptive services an "inappropriate use of tax dollars."

According to the Kansas City Star, the proposal does not save Missouri any money. Rather, it restricts how state agencies can spend $9.23 million set aside for public health programs for people with low incomes who do not qualify for Medicaid.

Phillips says that both Missouri Right to Life and the Missouri Catholic Conference supports her proposal. Opponents repeatedly pointed out that eliminating contraception paves the way for increased abortions, but Republicans and a couple of Democrats voted for passage.

Posted by Diane E. Dees on 03/16/06 at 06:51 AM | E-mail | Print

After all, we wouldn't want people to have more resources than they've already got, ya know.

Next stop for these freaks: get Griswald vs. Connecticut overturned.

They claim to want to stop abortion, then they don't like contraception.

Their real agenda is to outlaw even contraception. As another poster said in this thread they want to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut. Listen to rabid Ranger Rick Sanitarium some time, he rails against the notion that we have a right to privacy that the Constitition secures, as Griswold recognized that we do. These radical 13th century true believers think that it is inherently immoral to practice contraception as it stops life from being created. After that well heck they may even go after masturbation since it kills all those potential human beings. There is simply no end to how far they will push their radical agenda to make their private moral beliefs the supreme law of the land.

make these people leave Missouri and utilize services in other states. Disgusting.

:banghead:

refered to that particular state as "Misery."

These crazies need to be put back under the rocks they crawled out from.

:grr: :puke: :mad: :puke: :grr:

not just abortion.

It's about CONTROL, not babies.

.

Sane thinking in America will cherish -- deeply cherish -- when these idiot uber-social-conservative religion-into-law zealots will disappear into the sunset. This political cycle in America will soon end it is hoped. Thirty or so or more years is all too much. Much too much.

Be gone government into religion.
Be gone religion into government.
Be gone government bribes to religious institutions.
Be gone government of subjective personal "moral values."
Be gone government in the bedroom.
Be gone government pushing women as breeders.
Be gone ignorant, isolated, unsophisticated, unworldly government.
Be gone the terror of the minority upon the population of the majority in America.


.

is to make the US look like many places in South America. People starving, living in boxes, obscenely rich, obscenely poor, a degeneration of the human condition. One of their tools to get this, besides war and religion, is overpopulation. I wish all people saw the endgame, those assholes really need a beating

arising from unwanted pregnancies, they will provide a ready supply of cheap labor once we eliminate those hopelessly idealistic Child Labor Laws.

Did anyone remember the infamous Nicolai Ceaucescu of Romania? During his so-called leadership, he had banned abortion and I think contraception was hard to find there, in his attempt to populate the country.

Ceaucescu and his wife was arrested in a coup and he and his wife were executed on Christmas Day 1989. Only then did the world see all those orphanages where thousands of abandoned kids were living, and no doubt from the unwanted pregnancies through the years.

My point is -- we are slowly going down that treacherous road where Romania once was. If the child protective services are overloaded with the caseloads they have, once contraception and abortion services are gone, they are going to be even more strapped than before...

You know how I love to throw these nutjobs for a loop? Remind them how abortion was at it's lowest rate under Bill Clinton?

Hello?! Human beings have sex!!! Rich, poor, young, old. Without birth control babies are made. This is a health issue, not a "moral issue". It's about once again using YOUR religious beliefs to control other people. :banghead:

Encourage so many people who can't afford them to have children? How do they think they are going to pay for them!? WELFARE!!
Idiots.
:eyes: