On the heels of the Missouri House debating a birth control resolution (HCR41) last week at length, yesterday (Wednesday) State Rep. Stacey Newman filed HB1853 which would prevent men from vasectomies unless needed to avert serious injury or death.
“I was one of the 'Silenced Seven,' seven progressive Democratic women, who stood at the microphones for over three hours last Wednesday and were not allowed to speak on a topic unique to females,” said Newman, who chairs the House Progressive Caucus. If we are going to seriously restrict access to birth control used by over 98% of Missouri women and widely used since 1960, then it’s only fair we legislate men’s access as well.”
The anti-vasectomy bill reads in part: “In determining whether a vasectomy is necessary, no regard shall be made to the desire of a man to father children, his economic situation, his age, the number of children he is currently responsible for, or any danger to his wife or partner in the event a child is conceived. A vasectomy shall only be performed to avert the death of the man or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the man. “
HB1853 was co-sponsored by Representatives Jones (63), McCreery, Nichols, Walton Gray, Oxford, Pace, Morgan and Spreng. No men were asked to co-sponsor a bill tailored specifically to men in response to the women not being allowed to speak on the resolution regarding women’s reproductive health. Noticeably HB1853 was not read aloud on the House floor Wednesday afternoon as other newly filed bills were first read.
Newman’s bill borrows language liberally from fellow Democrat colleague, Georgia State Rep. Yasmin Neal who filed a similar vasectomy bill last week after a severe anti-abortion bill was debated in the Georgia state legislature. Their efforts reflect a nationwide pushback to anti-birth control and restrictive reproductive efforts in legislatures and in Congress. In January, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell offered an amendment, requiring rectal exams for men before obtaining prescriptions such as Viagra, on an intrusive pregnancy ultrasound bill.
4 comments:
So you are buying into that whole Democrat line that the debate is about contraceptive access and legality, Randy? Or are you just participating in spreading the misinformation? I think the debate is about who should pay for them, not if they are legal or not. No one (as far as I have read) is saying contraceptives should be outlawed. People are arguing that they shouldn't be yet another entitlement provided by taxpayers. I don't buy Newman's 98 percent of women in Missouri figure either. It's not a battle over letting people use birth control or not, right. It's about making them pay for birth control if they want to use it (or getting for free from Planned Parenthood if they can't afford it).
Please, Anony 6:04 PM, contraception is surely far less-expensive for insurance companies than paying for pregnancies, deliveries and more serious female illnesses such as uterus or ovarian cancers, and if you're a man and honest, you'll admit that contraception is largely beneficial to most men, too. If you don't think this whole issue has become a GOP AGENDA (said 'agenda' includes elimination of 95-year-old Planned Parenthood), re-read how the Missouri House wouldn't even allow Newman's bill, totally sponsored by women, to be read on the floor Wednesday like other bills. If that isn't telling, you might be really naive. According to the always obnoxious darling Don Young, Congressman for All Alaskans Who Voted for Him recently, "You can teach a monkey to vote," or words to that effect.
That's the kind of emotional reaction that gets the argument no further down the road. Should her bill have been read just because it was "totally sponsored by women"? It is obviously a joke. Or rather an attempt to make a point. Or rather her copying the way a Georgia legislator tried to make a point. I am angry that we had that many elected officials in Missouri spending that much time on something that is really not serious. They obviously don't think vasectomy should be illegal. And frankly, I understand why it wasn't allowed to be read on the floor with other bills. It appears that the feeling sparked by this being framed by the left as a "women's health" issue is clouding the ability to think (especially in women). The woman who commented at 8:23 is a great example. So is Newman and her gang. If their side won't make taxpayers fund condoms and birth control pills for everyone, then our side is going to propose a law to make vasectomy surgery illegal? Bad logic there. And to say that insurance companies should be happy to pay for it because it's less expensive than pregnancies is a silly leftist argument too. First of all, it is not government's role to tell insurance companies how to manage their risk. Second, this is another crazy example of the left's belief that insurance companies (or companies in other industries) will simply just pay for these government mandates out of their profits rather than pass the cost along to customers. Maybe the government could buy helmets for everyone with taxpayer money. Surely it is less expensive for insurance companies to buy those that it is to treat head injuries. Oh wait. That's not a women's issue. Maybe the government could pay for everyone to buy healthy food because surely it's less expensive than paying for treatment related to obesity. Darn. That one is not a women's issue either.
Let's think about these issues rationally, and not get caught up in contraception as a "women's issue." This is an issue about not growing the government entitlement programs any further until we get our debt under control. When our kids and grandkids look back on what our elected officials did in 2012 to get us out of our debt mess, what will they think when they see that an argument against spending federal treasure on free birth control for all was met with a proposal to ban vasectomy? At least they won't find that little gem in the legislature's official business record.
Should I pay for your sex life? NO.
Should I pay for the birth of your child? NO.
Should you receive more public assistance for your decision to have more babies. NO
Should contreceptive access by available to all? It is.
Do you want a society of forced contraception. Move to China.
Post a Comment