Posted 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.

The Budget Committee had approved expenditures on screenings for breast and cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, infertility treatments and contraception.

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.

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.”

He drew support from Rep. Rob Schaaf, a St. Joseph Republican and a family doctor. Schaaf said contraceptives were a basic part of medical care and should be covered.

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

The House then took up Phillips’ amendment. Rep. Melba Curls, a Kansas City Democrat, asked how Republicans could vote to block access to contraceptives after last year’s dramatic cuts in Medicaid and other social services. “Not all the low-income women who will get pregnant will have abortions,” Curls said. “If you have the baby, you’re still low-income. And if you’re poor and you have a baby, who takes care of the baby? The state of Missouri. You’re setting up poor women once more not to have services.”

Rep. Kate Meiners, a Kansas City Democrat and an abortion opponent, said Phillips intended her amendment to be a statement against abortion. But Meiners said she feared it would have the opposite effect by creating more unplanned pregnancies.

But Phillips said she was comfortable with the change because the group Missouri Right to Life and the Missouri Catholic Conference supported it.
The House held a voice vote and the amendment appeared to fail. But supporters quickly called for a roll call to put each lawmaker on record supporting or opposing Missouri Right to Life. The amendment was approved 96-59.

The contraceptive services banned were an effort to jump-start a family-planning program that had been cut in 2003 because of the state’s severe budget crunch.

Rep. Rachel Storch, a St. Louis Democrat, pointed to a study that found the teenage birth rate in Missouri dropped 32 percent from 1991 to 2002. The drop was attributed to wider availability of contraceptives.

Should they fund Viagra for people on welfare with taxes? If its not an elective medication, than they should pay for it, but if its elective, then why should the tax payer foot the bill?

Well, I for one do not see how this bill is encouraging people to have irresponsible sex. But if you say so B.

It's not. But it is preventing them from having responsible sex.

No it's not. It's not preventing shit. Even the lowest of the lower class can afford to get birth control if they really want to fuck that bad. It's not that expensive. And it shouldn't be on my dollar PERIOD! You wanna fuck? Pay for it, just like me.

I don't see how anyone can condone people who need government assistance to obtain contraception in order to fuck, to fuck, anyway. Boggles my mind. These people can't "afford" contraception, but you're doing nothing more than giving them a licence to create unwanted, unplanned pregnancies.

Ah yes. Another grand band-aid in this awesome society we've got over here.

No it's not. It's not preventing shit. Even the lowest of the lower class can afford to get birth control if they really want to fuck that bad. It's not that expensive. And it shouldn't be on my dollar PERIOD! You wanna fuck? Pay for it, just like me.

I don't see how anyone can condone people who need government assistance to obtain contraception in order to fuck, to fuck, anyway. Boggles my mind. These people can't "afford" contraception, but you're doing nothing more than giving them a licence to create unwanted, unplanned pregnancies.

Ah yes. Another grand band-aid in this awesome society we've got over here.

Do you honestly believe laws like this one will force poor people to not have sex??

Providing people with contraceptives is a hell of a lot cheaper than providing health care for more unplanned children.
.

Sounds like they need Ryan's (aka Broken Iris) plan for slowing the growth of low-income populations.

Offer $75k tax free dollars to be permAnenTly sterilized.

Woodburn'd!

No it's not. It's not preventing shit. Even the lowest of the lower class can afford to get birth control if they really want to fuck that bad. It's not that expensive. And it shouldn't be on my dollar PERIOD! You wanna fuck? Pay for it, just like me.

I don't see how anyone can condone people who need government assistance to obtain contraception in order to fuck, to fuck, anyway. Boggles my mind. These people can't "afford" contraception, but you're doing nothing more than giving them a licence to create unwanted, unplanned pregnancies.

Ah yes. Another grand band-aid in this awesome society we've got over here.

Of all the pointless shit the government spends our money on, this seems like a...curious... place to draw the line...of course none of the state senators in Missouri are complaining about this.

WTF is wrong with you? Contraception is NOT cheap. Condoms are expensive when you have to buy them. Birth control pills are more expensive, and requires expensive HARD TO GET appointments with a doctor. (Seriously. A GYN appointment schedules between 8 to 12 months out around here, unless you're preggo or have an emergency).

Jesus. Do you tell all the people over in Africa that they're too poor to raise their kids, so they should stop fucking? Aren't there programs over THERE, (um - funded by our tax dollars, btw) to provide sex education and contraception to help stop the spread of AIDS, etc? What's the difference? Other than the typical republican smoke screen : we pretend to do good over in other contries when it serves or interests, but when it comes to taking care of our own, it's immoral or we can't afford it.

Fucking Bullshit.

I dunno...it just seems to me like, if you can't afford the consequences or what you need to do something safely...don't do it, or do it at your own risk. Why should anyone else have to pay for other people's stupidity? Yes, condoms prevent the spread of diseases and all that. But you know what else does?

NOT HAVING SEX.

If you REALLY have to do it that bad, oral works...you may still get a disease, but there wouldn't be pregnancy, and if worse comes to worse... *gasp*... take matters "into your own hands."

Masturbating usually, for me at least, feels a hell of a lot better than sex because I know exactly what I like and how to do it, and I don't have bullshit cuddling and all that afterwards. Plus: no risk of disease or pregnancy.