Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Missouri House OKs birth control funding ban

Old 03-17-06, 03:40 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
GreenMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,281
Missouri House OKs birth control funding ban

Didn't see a thread on this...

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...l/14109047.htm

— 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.
The Budget Committee had approved expenditures on screenings for breast and cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, infertility treatments and contraception.
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.



Coming from the anti-abortion Republicans this seems very strange.

Fits right in with the cold beer ban, I guess
GreenMonkey is offline  
Old 03-17-06, 06:52 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Lobstrosities
Posts: 10,300
Phillips’ amendment eliminated infertility treatments and contraception
Seems like a push to me.

J/K, this is stupid.
wmansir is offline  
Old 03-17-06, 07:57 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Nazgul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jayhawk Central, Kansas
Posts: 7,125
I fully support the state funding contraceptives for low-income women (and families), etc. However, I'm not too keen on the state funding infertility treatments.
Nazgul is offline  
Old 03-17-06, 08:27 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 18,882
Originally Posted by GreenMonkey
Coming from the anti-abortion Republicans this seems very strange.
I don't think it's strange at all. It fits right in with their moral crusader image.
Jason is offline  
Old 03-17-06, 09:31 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Lobstrosities
Posts: 10,300
Originally Posted by Nazgul
I fully support the state funding contraceptives for low-income women (and families), etc. However, I'm not too keen on the state funding infertility treatments.
I agree. If you read the full article you will see another Republican rep proposed an amendment that would strip infertility funding but keep contraceptive funding. It was rejected mostly along party lines.
wmansir is offline  
Old 03-17-06, 10:43 AM
  #6  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,988
I favor a ban on government funding of birth control.

I oppose a ban on private funding of birth control.
grundle is offline  
Old 03-17-06, 11:06 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,041
Originally Posted by grundle
I favor a ban on government funding of birth control.

I oppose a ban on private funding of birth control.
You'd rather pay the welfare costs of the unwanted babies and have the crime wave they'll cause when they grow up? Penny wise, pound dumb.
OldDude is offline  
Old 03-17-06, 12:30 PM
  #8  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 966
You'd rather pay the welfare costs of the unwanted babies

What welfare costs? They'll just cancel those programs and pretend like everything's just fantastic with all those "cute little kids" running around. After all, kids don't really need to be provided with anything once their born - they're all self-sufficient, you know.
shifrbv is offline  
Old 03-17-06, 12:31 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
government birth control funding - no problem

government funding of abortions - problem
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-17-06, 12:43 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,679
All states have programs that help pay for hospital bills of victims of violent crimes. I don't think anyone would oppose such a program, and I wouldn't have a problem if the government paid for the morning-after pill or abortion for rape victims. I think that would be my special exception.
Ranger is offline  
Old 03-17-06, 12:46 PM
  #11  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,272
Originally Posted by classicman2
government birth control funding - no problem

government funding of abortions - problem
I'm not all that happy about either, but I have to agree that <b>Old Dude</b>'s position has a lot of merit.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 03-17-06, 04:27 PM
  #12  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,988
Originally Posted by OldDude
You'd rather pay the welfare costs of the unwanted babies and have the crime wave they'll cause when they grow up? Penny wise, pound dumb.
I favor abolishing welfare.
grundle is offline  
Old 03-17-06, 04:29 PM
  #13  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,988
Originally Posted by Ranger
All states have programs that help pay for hospital bills of victims of violent crimes. I don't think anyone would oppose such a program, and I wouldn't have a problem if the government paid for the morning-after pill or abortion for rape victims. I think that would be my special exception.
Even I favor government funding for that. Government is supposed to protect people from criminals.
grundle is offline  
Old 03-17-06, 04:51 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East County
Posts: 33,104
So this wouldn't surprise anybody that this is the same state that has certain Republicans trying to make Christianity the OFFICIAL RELIGION OF THE STATE.

B.A. is offline  
Old 03-17-06, 04:56 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,777
I think someone should propose a bill that states all supporters of this bill will have to pay for unwanted pregnancies and adopt the abandoned children as well.
Michael Ballack is offline  
Old 03-20-06, 10:36 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
GreenMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,281
Originally Posted by grundle
I favor a ban on government funding of birth control.

I oppose a ban on private funding of birth control.
I would have understood this better if it was saving money. Old-school Republican thought is for less social programs and for saving dollars.

But this wasn't a reduction, like it said:
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.


Originally Posted by Jason
I don't think it's strange at all. It fits right in with their moral crusader image.
See, I don't get this either. Republicans aren't against birth control, are they? Or are all these Missouri lawmakers all diehard Catholics or something?? I get the "no birth control for kids" thing as a moral crusading type attitude. But why the issue with adults? Why is preventing poor people from getting birth control a moral crusade?

It seems like a party against abortions would be in favor of birth control as an alternative. I just don't get it.
GreenMonkey is offline  
Old 03-21-06, 06:35 AM
  #17  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,988
Originally Posted by GreenMonkey
I would have understood this better if it was saving money. Old-school Republican thought is for less social programs and for saving dollars.

But this wasn't a reduction, like it said:






See, I don't get this either. Republicans aren't against birth control, are they? Or are all these Missouri lawmakers all diehard Catholics or something?? I get the "no birth control for kids" thing as a moral crusading type attitude. But why the issue with adults? Why is preventing poor people from getting birth control a moral crusade?

It seems like a party against abortions would be in favor of birth control as an alternative. I just don't get it.

That is an excellent point.

Since it didn't reduce government spending, I am against this restriction. As long as the government is spending that money anyway, they should be allowed to spend it on birth control.
grundle is offline  
Old 03-21-06, 07:19 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,041
Originally Posted by GreenMonkey
See, I don't get this either. Republicans aren't against birth control, are they? Or are all these Missouri lawmakers all diehard Catholics or something?? I get the "no birth control for kids" thing as a moral crusading type attitude. But why the issue with adults? Why is preventing poor people from getting birth control a moral crusade?

It seems like a party against abortions would be in favor of birth control as an alternative. I just don't get it.
It is a dividing point between the fiscal-responsibility and religious-whacko wings of the party. In the long run, it is far cheaper to not cause unwanted children to be raised on welfare. (true for teenagers, too)
OldDude is offline  
Old 03-21-06, 07:37 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Can I ask a question of our atheist or agnostic friend, or whatever he's calling himself now (OldDude) a question? Is it possible for you to mention the word religious without adding the word whacko to it? It seems to have become your trademark.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-21-06, 08:44 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,041
Of course it is. Not all the religious are whackos. There are several denominations that are entirely accepting of birth control, and even some that accept abortion, although nobody really likes it. They even accept evolution (not necessarily all the same denomination). Apart from these "litmus tests" there are a wide range of views on other issues.

However, the Republican party (which I understand you aren't a member of) includes in its Big Tent a number of religious who have very whacked views about the world in general, and I stand by the term as applied to them.
OldDude is offline  
Old 03-21-06, 10:14 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: QC, CA
Posts: 2,718
i think bush has realized that by doing this, he can solve the social security problem.
nomaan is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.