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


Voting "yes" to override Nixon's veto were 102 Republicans and 7 Democrats in the House and 24 Republicans and 2 Democrats in the Senate.

Voting "no" (ie against overriding the veto) were 44 Democrats and 1 Independent in the House and 1 Republican and 5 Democrats in the Senate.

The deciding vote was cast by Republican Rep. Chris Molendorp--the only member of his party to vote against the legislation when it appeared before the House in May. According to reports, Molendorp, an insurance agent, was visibly upset after this vote and did not join his fellow Republicans for a celebratory press conference.

Not surprisingly, a majority of those opposed to the legislation were women:

Voting "yes" to override Nixon's veto were 18 women, and 117 men between both houses.

Voting "no" were 26 women and 25 men between both houses.

St. Louis' own State Senator Robin Wright-Jones was one of a handful of legislators who did not vote.


Nevertheless, Daily RFT was surprised by the number of women in the legislature who did support the override. Although the convenient national bra-burning narrative tells us male legislators across the country are making decisions to limit women's reproductive rights without their input, nearly as many women in the Missouri legislature supported SB 749 as opposed.

18 (Republican) ladies--about 40 percent of the female reps in MoLeg--didn't mind ceding their reproductive rights to the will of employers and insurance companies.

Some more reactions from across Twitter:

From Susan Montee, Peter Kinder's Democratic opponent for Lt. Governor.

montee tweet.JPG

From Peter Kinder, ever a friend to the ladies of St. Louis and East St. Louis alike.
peter kinder.jpg

Linda Black (one of three women to speak on the floor), chair of the Missouri Democrats Right to Life coalition:
linda black tweet.JPG

From labor activist and AFL-CIO field organizer @cathysherwin:
aflio tweet.JPG

Rep. Stacey Newman, on the floor via @ProgressMO:
stacey tweet.JPG

For continued coverage and commentary on employer opt-outs for vasectomies, follow Leah Greenbaum on Twitter @lgreenbaum1214.


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

St. Louis Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...