An attempt to reinstate state spending on birth control was rejected by Missouri House members Wednesday by a 96-59 vote.
The funding was in the budget until about four years ago when Republicans gained control of the Missouri General Assembly. While I understand the argument that providing birth control to the poor would be writing a blank check for promiscuous sex, I can't help but wonder if it would not also reduce the number of abortions in the state and meet the goals set by pro-life legislators. The legislation would have avoided doing this through Planned Parenthood, which as my old readers from The Carthage Press and the Lamar Democrat will recall, has always been one of my favorite punching bags. Instead, the birth control items would have been distributed through county health departments.
Among those voting against the funding were area legislators Ed Emery, R-Lamar, Steve Hunter, R-Joplin, Ron Richard, R-Joplin, Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin, Bryan Stevenson, R-Webb City, and Kevin Wilson, R-Neosho.
5 comments:
This is insane. We have a bunch of extremist politicians running (or is that ruining?) the state. I don't care if its religion or extremist political philosophy driving what they've been doing, it is insane. They appear to have attacked just about anyone and everyone in the state either directly or indirectly.
Need I remind these republican politicians that the poor, the elderly, the sick, and the disabled who they seem to enjoy beating up on do NOT live in a vaccuum by themselves? They have family and friends who love them and see what is being done to them and I don't think they're likely to forget this by the next election.
randy
just because people are poor does not make them promisicous. this is truly a stupid comment. you can do better
The last comment does not make sense. Not anywhere in my post did I say that poor people were promiscuous. I said I understood the argument being made by the legislators. It is a faulty one and I disagree it, something which most readers will find fairly obvious.
Supplying free birth control does not promote nor condon promiscuous sex. It simply prevents unwanted pregnancies for people who are having sex. The kind of backwards thinking that our current legislature has put forward throws us into the ranks of those who run third world countries. Let those who can not afford birth control, get pregnant. Then they will have children they can not afford. Then they go on medicaid or other state assistance. Then, the government ends up paying more in the long run. I can't imagine that in the 21st century, the government still thinks they can legislate morality. Go ahead and let 15 and 16 year olds get pregnant and have abortions or unwanted children. What kind of cycle does that start? Young parents who may not finish high school. Young parents living on government purse strings. Young parents who will, according to most statistics, never rise above the poverty level. GREAT PLAN...DON'T PAY FOR BIRTH CONTROL.
anonymous no.2:
Just because people are poor does not make them too stupid to understand sarcasm. You can do better.
Post a Comment