Missouri not offering birth control in public clinics

Sheesh. Barbarians.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - An attempt to resume state spending on birth control got shot down Wednesday by House members who argued it would have amounted to an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles.

Missouri stopped providing money for family planning and certain women’s health services when Republicans gained control of both chambers of the Legislature in 2003.

But a Democratic lawmaker, in a little-noticed committee amendment, had successfully inserted language into the proposed budget for the fiscal year starting July 1 that would have allowed part of the $9.2 million intended for “core public health functions” to go to contraception provided through public health clinics.

The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending.

“If you hand out contraception to single women, we’re saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that,” Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.

The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending.

Does someone want to explain to me why anti-abortion groups would be opposed to this? Is it not completely obvious that easier access to birth control leads to fewer unwanted pregnancies which then results in fewer abortions performed?

Or is this one of those ridiculous radical religious right “everyone has to have exactly the same morality as me, and that means no pre-marital sex” things?

That’s democracy for you. This isn’t some tyranny being imposed on the majority, in the midwest this sort of stuff is what the majority wants.

Yep. There is a significant chunk of the midwest population that still embraces the traditional American puritanical ideal that sex=bad. That line of reasoning leads to the thought that anything that encourages sex or removes the risks of sex is therefore not in the public interest. So public funding for contraception, sex education that teaches anything other abstinence, and abortion are all unpopular ideas in this neck of the woods.

Sex = bad. That’s what makes is so good!

Missouri Right to Life said it was concerned with the contraception language because it was loosely written and could have included emergency contraception - often referred to as the morning-after pill.

I don’t know whether this bothers me more or less than concerns over “promoting pre-marital sex.” It’s 2006 and we still seem to be debating whether fertilized eggs are tiny little homunculi.

Because they hate anything that interferes with a fundamentalist conception of what sex is for and how it should all be done. Contraception interferes with “nature”

Depends which part of the midwest. In MN we’re all about ‘do what you will, and deal with the consequences.’ If people want birth control they should be able to have it, because we do NOT want more kids running around who have no value to anyone just because nobody had any time for them when they were younger.

<shrug> Can’t say I speak for all of MN, of course…just all the people I’ve ever met.

Well if Garrison Keillor is the voice of Minnesota then it seems to be a pretty common sensical state…

MO going ‘officially’ Christian?
http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/state/14057513.htm

I don’t have access to a post I wrote on another board about this story, but I can pretty much re-write it from memory, but I don’tt have the links that back me up. I try to get them as soon as I can.

First off, this is a resolution. Whereas a bill becomes law, resolutions become toilet paper. They’re pretty much feel good bullshit. Then, if you actually read the resolution, it doesn’t actually make anything the official anything of anywhere. All it says is that the state legislature doesn’t think voluntary school prayer and religious displays on public property consititutes a violation of the seperation of church and state. Whoop dee do. I think I’m a fantastic vocalist, and I have a piece of toilet paper that backs me up on that. Screw Simon Cowell anyway.

Now, I’m still pretty much against this resolution, it’s potentially offensive and doesn’t do anything, but it’s hardly anything to get your panties in a twist over. Since resolutions don’t really have any weight, it’s hard to see how this would get brought before a court, but it somehow does, I’d bet Simon^H^H^H^H^Hthe judge would justly chastize the idiots that passed it.

Ah, yes, the old “America was founded on ‘Christian principles’” chestnut. Do any of these people ever read a history book?

Start with The Federalist Papers. Even the most religiously fervent of the Founders didn’t want the state to be tied to religion in any way, considering English history.

There’s a difference between separation of church and state (from an administrative authority standpoint) and separation of state and religious principles.

Yep. There is a significant chunk of the midwest population that still embraces the traditional American puritanical ideal that sex=bad.

Technically, with regard to heterosexual sex, it’s only premarital sex and adultery that carry that stigma. I don’t know anyone who believes that sex, in and of itself, is a bad thing, though I know it’s often considered fun to characterize conservative religious people as believing that way.

Tying church together with state is not, itself, a Christian principle. Therefore not tying them together has nothing to do with Christian principles. Not that most of the activists Christians that get on the news these days know much about Christian principles anyway.

Plus it isn’t Evangelical Christians who are against preventative birth control; that’s the Catholic Church. The nuts are only against post-fertilization birth control.

I’d have to disagree. The American conscience has a lingering idea that all sex that is bad. Sex in wedlock is a necessary evil, but still evil. Why do you think we as a country will allow horrific violence in our entertainment but have a big scandal and freak out fit over a wardrobe malfunction in the super bowl?

So if it’s only the catholics that are against birth control, how come Bush and a lot of non-catholic republicans push abstinence education as an alternative to teaching about birth control?

Because abstinence is fornication-control, not birth control.

That’s because sex is a “forbidden” thing when it comes to discussing it publicly in some quarters, especially if it’s in a situation where children can be exposed to it. But “forbidden” does not mean “bad”. Think of it more as a form of Victorian etiquette. I’ve known evangelical Christians who were excited about marriage in part because it meant they’d finally get to have sex. It was definitely something they were looking forward to. Doesn’t sound like a “sex is bad” mentality to me.

If it’s forbidden because it’s bad, then why?

Does to me.