Missouri Legislature Overturns Nixon's Veto on Anti-Contraception Bill

gynecology-stirrups.jpg
Government so small, it fits in your uterus.

It's official: In Missouri, employers, insurance companies or anyone else involved in a woman's health care can legally refuse to cover the Pill.

In a not-so-surprising move, both houses of the Missouri Legislature voted to override Governor Jay Nixon's veto of Senate Bill 749.

SB 749 gives any "employer, health plan provider, health plan sponsor, health care provider, or any other person or entity" the ability to refuse to provide coverage for contraception, abortion, or sterilization. Naturally, SB 749 does not allow employers or insurers to deny coverage of male sterilization (because there ain't nothin' in the Bible about vasectomies).

Nixon had vetoed the bill in July on the grounds that opt-outs exist under current law for employers who don't want to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. This bill though, Nixon said, gives insurance companies the unprecedented power to deny coverage to people, even when they and their employers want it.

"The bill would shift authority to make decisions about access to contraceptive coverage away from Missouri women, families and employers - and put that power in the hands of insurance companies," Nixon said in July. "That would be a step backward for Missouri."

The St. Louis Archdiocese--one of the bill's biggest supporters--released a statement celebrating the legislature's narrow 2/3 majority vote.

"Today's override is a powerful pro-life statement, one that gives us hope that conscience rights will be extended to all U.S. citizens," the statement read. "We thank the people of Missouri for your prayers and for your tireless efforts to protect our first, most-cherished freedom."

The House secured the override with not a vote to spare: 109-45, an exact 2/3 majority.

Seven Democrats crossed party lines to vote in favor of the override. STL blogger @MO_Snark made a handy chart:

pwned.jpeg

In case you didn't notice, they are all white males with various degrees of greying hair/hairline recession.

The ever-clever Richard Callow, of the public relations firm Public Eye, had a helpful suggestion for the bill's most vocal opponent, Rep. Stacey Newman.

richard callow.JPG

Identifying a woman's uterus on a chart might be easier said than done for 80 percent of the Missouri legislature. Of the 197 members of the House and Senate, only 46 are women.


My Voice Nation Help
9 comments
joaowens
joaowens

I have two thoughts: First, because our health insurance is tied to our employers, our health care choices are limited by our employers. Universal Health Care would eliminate this issue. Second, to avoid discrimination, I hereby call for the Catholic Church and the Republican legislature to begin fighting for a ban on the sale of condoms.

JamesMadison
JamesMadison topcommenter

I find it funny that the RFT singles out the democrats voting to overturn the veto. It is like the RFT wants to say these men are not worthy of being democrats. The Big Tent is getting smaller, and is closed to opposing views.

JamesMadison
JamesMadison topcommenter

"gives insurance companies the unprecedented power to deny coverage to people, even when they and their employers want it" - huh? what? how? The employer can decide which health insurance company to buy their policies. So unless every insurer in the state opts out, the employers can still find coverage.

danny6114
danny6114

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... except when forcing one on the citizens of Missouri.

smdrpepper
smdrpepper topcommenter

Love how they want to limit government, to make it smaller..unless your a women or gay.  Cant have those people running around doing anything.

lgreenbaum1214
lgreenbaum1214

 @base212assm true. I just pulled the one graphic I found on the roll call.  that said, an image of 102 republicans wouldn't have really fit in this post. 

joaowens
joaowens

 @danny6114 Or forcing them to abide by the beliefs of a religion they are not part of.

JamesMadison
JamesMadison topcommenter

 @danny6114 , how is this establishing a religion? Because some people refer to the Bible in making the law? If that is the sum total of your argument, than murder is also an extension of religious beliefs since my bible tells me, "Thou Shalt Not Murder." What this is is a means to control healthcare costs. A woman on the pill is a recurring expense. Unless her rates are higher than mine, I am subsidizing her elective decision to use the pill. The article mentions vasectomies are covered, but does not mention whether getting tubes tied is a covered expense or not, just the pill and abortion. Vasectomies do not require recurring expenses, and they do not kill unborn babies. Neither would tube tying.

JamesMadison
JamesMadison topcommenter

 @smdrpepper , women and gays can run around and do whatever men and straights can do. Including getting married or seeking and paying for insurance policies that cover whatever they want. Yes, gays can get married in the State of Missouri. Gays just will not have a piece of paper from the State. A Civil Union can bestowed all rights to a partner without needing the State to print a piece of paper.

Now Trending

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...