What can we do about this Anti-Contraception Bill in Missouri?

[Nikki Stone 1]

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

"House OKs Birth Control Funding Ban



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."...


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....



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.....

[murielm99]

1. "We don't need to pay for contraception with taxpayer funds."

So we will end up paying for all sorts of services for unwanted children born to low-income mothers.

How penny-wise, pound-foolish and meddlesome. I wonder how she would like someone else making her private decisions for her.

[Nikki Stone 1]

2. I get the impression that they don't want to pay for unwanted children

either.

[SeattleGirl]

3. You got that right!

They are not "pro-life". They are "pro-birth". Once you're born, it's fuck you and the horse you rode in on!

[radfringe]

4. actually there is some twisted logic here

:sarcasm: ahead

the current budget deficit breaks down to a $30,000 "bill" per American, based on current population numbers

if we stop people from receiving contraceptives, the population will increase thereby decreasing the "bill". (if we double the population we will only owe $15,00 each)

[cornermouse]

6. One little problem.

I suspect statistics will show that a larger percentage of these babies are more likely to spend time in prison and prisons are expensive. Being poor and unwanted is not a healthy environment to grow up in.

[SeattleGirl]

8. It sure as hell isn't!

But hey, what the hell do the Bushie's care about that? After all, if you are poor, it's all your fault anyway. You're nothing but a lazy, system-using whore, or you will grow up to be one. :sarcasm:

[NMMNG]

5. What a profound display of ignorance

From the article:

Rep. Kate Meiners, a Kansas City Democrat and an abortion opponent, said Phillips intended her amendment to be a statement against abortion.

How does eliminating funding for birth control, which will certainly lead to more unwanted pregnancies, hence the need for more abortions, add up to a statement against abortion? :crazy:


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.


No, don't listen to reason and facts. Just stick to your guns because bigoted anti-choice groups support you. :eyes:

[radfringe]

9. Baby Production Down

Compassionate Conservatism at Work Dept:
MakeThemAccountable.com

Perhaps some of you were skeptical when I wrote last November that Republicans are concerned about baby production in the U.S., and had a number of proposals to increase it (“Warning: Baby Production Down, http://makethemaccountable.com/caro/Comment_051121_WarningBabyProductionDown.htm ) because of the danger to the country if there aren’t enough employees to feed the economic machine.

If you thought I was too harsh on Republicans by daring to think their concern for the birth rate has more to do with economic needs than moral requirements, then I must point you to the words of  a Georgia Republican state senator, speaking (http://www.thehartwellsun.com/articles/2006/03/15/opinions/opinions03.txt )on the subject of illegal immigration.

… Big employers may get the benefit of cheap labor, but the U.S. taxpayer will pay for their healthcare, food stamps, schooling for children, and income tax credits.

I am convinced it is a consequence to the almost 50 million children we have put to death in their mother's womb through abortion. The large unfilled job market in Georgia would not be a problem if the almost 50 million Americans were here filling many of those jobs…

[NMMNG]

11. Do they really think that forcing American women to have unwanted babies,

rather than allowing "illegal immigrants" into the country is going to change anything? Many of the children who otherwise would be aborted are going to be born to poor women, who will then require the very government aid the Republicans like the one you quoted are denoucing. Do these people think that a woman who can't afford a baby is going to pull the hundreds of thousands required to raise it out of a hat just because they force her to have it? :eyes:

[Skeptor]

7. How a State shot itself in the foot.......

[Minnesota_Lib]

10. They need low-income kids for cheap labor and the military...that's it.