Mo. Senate panel backs measure on birth control

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

By WES DUPLANTIER

Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A debate in the Missouri Capitol over birth control grew Tuesday as a panel of lawmakers endorsed legislation that would allow any employer to refuse to provide health insurance coverage for contraception if doing so goes against the employer’s religious beliefs.

The legislation, which would allow employers to refuse to provide coverage for birth control, abortions or sterilization procedures, was approved by the Republican-controlled Senate Small Business, Insurance and Industry Committee on a 6-2 vote along party lines.

The vote sends the bill to the full Senate and comes a few weeks after the Obama administration tried to get employers such Catholic hospitals to provide free coverage of birth control as part of their health insurance plans. After pushback from some religious groups, the administration said last week that such coverage would be provided by insurance companies instead, a move the administration said was a sort of compromise on the issue.

The federal rule would only apply to churches and religiously-affiliated employers. The Missouri bill would go farther, allowing any employer to refuse to provide coverage for the medical services if the services violate the employer’s beliefs. It does not call for insurance companies to provide the coverage instead.

Sponsoring Sen. John Lamping alluded to the federal rule in his remarks to the Senate committee. Lamping, R-St. Louis County, also said he did not think his measure would make it more difficult for women to obtain birth control pills.

“Nowhere in this bill is any effort made to deny a woman’s health care,” he said. “Reaffirming religious freedom and the conscience clause here in Missouri is the only acceptable compromise.”

Representatives for Catholic and Baptist churches in the state voiced their support for Lamping’s measure, also alluding to the Obama administration’s new rule.

“If there’s one thing we’ve learned in recent weeks, it’s that we should not trust our religious liberty to federal regulators,” said Bishop John Gaydos, of the Catholic Diocese of Jefferson City. “This so-called compromise falls far short of protecting the religious liberties our citizens far cherish.”

Michelle Trupiano, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Missouri, said allowing an employer to not offer coverage of birth control could make it more difficult for women to have access to the medications, even if they use it for something other than preventing pregnancy.

“Birth control is good preventive care,” she said. “Women should not be denied access to this benefit just because they work for a religious employer.”

The small business committee took the unusual step of voting on Lamping’s bill the same day the committee heard testimony.

Two Democrats on the panel, Minority Leader Victor Callahan and Sen. Tim Green, objected to the same-day vote. They said they might support the bill’s intent, but had questions about the definitions of certain terms in the bill, such as what constitutes a “moral conviction.”

“I’m offended that we are rushing this through,” said Green, D-St. Louis County. “I don’t think it’s right.”

Sen. Scott Rupp, chairman of the committee and co-sponsor of Lamping’s bill, said the committee voted Tuesday because it does not plan to meet next week. Rupp, who has proposed a constitutional amendment similar to Lamping’s measure, also called the new federal rule a “full-frontal assault on religious liberty.”

Lamping’s bill and Rupp’s proposed constitutional amendment generated discussion in the Capitol even before Tuesday’s hearing. Several Democratic House members also spoke out against both Senate proposals at a Monday news conference.

“For others to say that this (the Obama administration rule) is a religious attack is bogus,” said Rep. Tishaura Jones, D-St. Louis. “This is about a woman’s right to have access to birth control. A woman should have the right to plan when she has children.”

———

Birth control bill is SB749

Constitutional amendment is SJR49

Online:

Legislature: http://www.moga.mo.gov

More like this story

lovemykids 1 year, 4 months ago

No one should have a say in a woman's health, except that woman and her doctor. Obama should have stuck with that and told the corporations to eat it. Human rights should ALWAYS superseed the corporations rights. After all a corporation doesn't eat, love, or feel. We people do those things. Just try to keep it in perspective. If there was a world wide shaking of the tectonic plates.... would it be people who hide, live, rebuild, and start a new life, or would it be a corporation that only exists on paper and in people's minds?

gofish 1 year, 4 months ago

I guess the Republicans don't want women in the work place because they are trying to assure that they all remain home barefoot and pregnant piously obeying the religious beliefs of the politicians, the corporations, and their lobbyists at the capital. Amen! Legislation like this proves Missouri is set to become more backwards than Arkansas! Someone take the blinders off of Sen. John Lamping and let him know that there is an elephant in the room...it's called the ECONOMY!

viktorkowski 1 year, 4 months ago

as each new day goes by it looks more and more like the republicans have the same beliefs as those muslims they like to complain about so much. or maybe republicans just hate women

Sequoia 1 year, 4 months ago

It is interesting that all these chumps bleating about birth control are always men. Why don't you ever see women wag their fingers about birth control?

lovemykids 1 year, 4 months ago

Tick off all the women in your country. Go ahead. It will be hillarious. You think a mob full of men is intimidating? Just wait until you see a wave of estrogen sweeping towards your door. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"

Sequoia 1 year, 4 months ago

I think this is a trap Obama is setting. He's tricking the conservative movement into opposing him on birth control. Since the "movement" has no ideas of its own other than to react to "liberal" ideas like they're the end of the world, the conservative movement is, of course, hyperventilating about religious freedom. The result is that the voter is going to think that Obama is fer birth control and the conserverative movement is agin' it. This is not a winning issue for conservatives. The more they over-react to Obama, the more they look unfit to govern the majority.

For one thing, I do not believe a corporation or institution has "religious freedom." Religious freedom is something for the individual human heart. Institutions do not "believe" anything. Second, when an institution acts in the public sphere, they need to follow the regulations set up to govern that sphere. Finally, individual women have a religious freedom to choose birth control, and it is good public policy to makes sure they can get it as cheaply and easily as other preventative health care.

If Republicans had just worked on health care instead of calling it socialism, they wouldn't have painted themselves into a corner on this issue.

Sequoia 1 year, 4 months ago

No, I just don't think corporations have religious faith. Only people do. Faith is a personal experience between a human being and his creator. A corporation cannot have that experience.

If this is about power and not contraception, where were the Catholics on the issue of torture, assissination and indefinite detention? Hmmmmm?

Just because you, or a corporate CEO, or a bishop, believe something is immoral does not mean you should have the power to make me live my life your way. When a religious institution is an employer, that institution should not have the power to force its beliefs onto its workers. The government is protecting people's right to have easy access to birth control. The religious institution is the one who shouldn't be meddling in that.

My position is shared by everyone who uses birth control. That's most Americans.

It is not foolish to offer it as part of a health care policy... it is one of the best ways to reduce abortions.

Republicans ARE in a corner, Grace. Obama has been fairly moderate, and in many cases quite conservative. In their over-reaction, Republicans are the ones who look radical now, when they're the ones who are supposed to be moderate and temperate.

I'm the one who has been telling Republicans how to take back power from the Democrats. Forget the conservative movement. Turn off Fox News. Quit telling people what "liberals" will do, and tell them what you will do. Focus on conservative values. Stand on reality. Then your actions will have power.

This issue is a losing one Grace. You think my opinion is Democratic propaganda? You think I'm an Obama plant? I'm the one telling Republicans how to win. You're telling them how to lose. I'm right. You're wrong. Wait and see. Whaddya say? $10,000 bet?

spelchek 1 year, 4 months ago

"Obama has been fairly moderate, and in many cases quite conservative." = Loss of all credibility.

Sequoia 1 year, 4 months ago

I've got evidence. Do you? Or just emotion? How many times do I have to be right before you'll start listening to me?

spelchek 1 year, 4 months ago

"How many times do I have to be right before you'll start listening to me?" = Loss of all credibility.

JCLifer 1 year, 4 months ago

Same for abortions and same-sex marriages, right?

spelchek 1 year, 4 months ago

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” First thing James Madison wrote; there is no gray area. Ms. Sebelius and her boss Mr. Obama are usurping the Constitution thus making it worthless.

Sequoia 1 year, 4 months ago

Nobody is prohibiting any person from exercising their religion. Nobody is forced to use birth control. The government is just protecting the people's religous freedom from the Catholic Church.

I don't have the "religious freedom" to stop paying taxes, just because that tax money is used for things that offend my faith.

The Church has the relgious freedom to lobby Congress, the president, and the agencies. The Church did lobby those agencies to use their power to force the Church's beliefs on the rest of us. The Church failed. They lost. That's not a violation of the First Amendment. The Church doesn't have a right to get their way.

"Religious freedom" means we all get to believe and worship as we choose. It does not mean that the Church has the "right" to impose its beliefs on secular institutions.

James Madison never intended the First Amendment to mean that a corporation could do whatever it wanted just because someone in that corporation has a religious belief. Madison, like most of the Founders, was suspicious of corporate power and concerned about how that power could hurt democracy. If you actually knew anything about Madison, you would know this. I suspect that anything you know about Madison comes from the conservative movement, which would like to turn all our Founders into corporate tools.

I may not have credibility with people who need their conservatism spoon fed to them by elite East-coast media celebrities, or people who need a "movement" to follow. That's fine. Good reading, common sense and heartland values haven't failed me yet.

asb 1 year, 4 months ago

The federal government has ample authority to protect a person from the religious whims of any organization, but that's not really the issue. Medical insurance is now mandated, and IF THAT holds up in court as being in the general welfare, then contraception will be assumed a reasonable coverage since it is a nearly universal and cheap practice.

Sequoia 1 year, 4 months ago

This really gets to an essential failure of the current conservative movement. In the movement's view, only government threatens freedom. And, government ONLY threatens freedom... the idea that government can protect freedom never seems to occur to movement conservatives.

Movement conservatives never acknowledge that other powerful institutions, like churches or corporations, can ALSO threaten freedom. In my view, conservatism should always argue for the freedom of individuals to think as they choose, and to act as they choose subject to the limits of social order.

Conservatives need to defend freedom, not just corporate power. This is the path to victory.

evenkeel 1 year, 4 months ago

The purpose of Insurance is to protect against catastrophic loss.

Birth control is no more of a health INSURANCE issue than tire rotations are a car insurance issue.

I have car insurance. Geico does not cover the cost of my oil changes or windshield wiper replacements. If that was included as part of my car insurance coverage, car insurance would be much more expensive and it really wouldn't be insurance anymore.

I have home insurance. I do not expect State Farm to pay for cleaning my gutters or cutting my lawn. If that was included as part of my home insurance coverage, home insurance would be much more expensive and it really wouldn't be insurance anymore.

There is no such thing as a free condom, just as there is no such thing as a free lunch. Who should pay for birth control? Here's an idea, the person who uses birth control pays for their birth control.

There. I solved that.

Sequoia 1 year, 4 months ago

Same could be said of colon cancer screenings, and any preventative health care, right? You realize that preventative care actually reduces health costs in the long run, right? People who pay their insurance premiums DO pay for birth control (and, by not having the insurance company... and the rest of us... pay for the baby that's not been conceived, BC really pays for itself).

With your home and car analogies, you're talking about radically changing the way we pay for health care... maybe you should have tried working on that when you had the chance. I mean, I know exactly how much an oil change costs... do you know how much a colon cancer screening costs? Now, the Democrats are doing it instead, and they're doing it their way. Shoulda listened to people like me who wanted conservatives to help people with their health care problems long ago, then you might actually have solved something.

linoge 1 year, 4 months ago

I hear some of the same people who want to restrict or remove birth control also complain about low income families having more children than they can afford to feed. I'm certain that this is an oversimplification but, to some extent, it would seem that more birth control would result in fewer food stamp recipients. As long as it's just the poor folks who are using birth control and running the risk of eternal damnation (no one really cares about them anyway) why should the rich people complain?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

News Tribune