Senators debate birth control measure

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Several Democratic senators raised concerns Tuesday about a Missouri proposal that would let employers refuse to provide health insurance coverage for birth control, abortions and sterilization procedures.

The Missouri legislation is a response to an attempt by President Barack Obama’s administration to get employers such as Catholic hospitals to provide free coverage of birth control as part of their health insurance plans. After pushback from some religious groups, Obama’s administration said such coverage would be provided by insurance companies instead.

The federal rule would apply only to churches and religiously affiliated employers. But the Missouri bill would go further, 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.

The Republican-led Senate set the bill aside after two hours of debate but could return to it later this week.

Senate Republicans said employers should not have to pay for medical services they find morally objectionable.

“I don’t see why I, as an employer, should have to give up my First Amendment rights,” said Sen. Bill Stouffer, R-Napton. “As an employer, you shouldn’t have to give up your religious beliefs.”

Sponsoring Sen. John Lamping, R-St. Louis County, said employers should decide how to structure their health insurance coverage, just as they would other benefits they provide employees.

But Democrats claimed the intent of the bill is not to protect religious freedom. Minority Leader Victor Callahan, D-Independence, said Lamping’s proposal could set a precedent for employers to deny coverage of a wide variety of medical treatments.

The bill amounts to an “attack against birth control and women,” said Sen. Jolie Justus, D-Kansas City.

Majority Leader Tom Dempsey said the measure would not forbid anyone from purchasing birth control but would instead give employers “flexibility” to cover what they want.

“I just want to make it clear that we’re not infringing in any way on their ability to purchase birth control,” said Dempsey, R-St. Charles. “It’s just really about the cost.”

Justus said it would be more difficult for women to get access to birth control if they have to pay for it out of pocket rather than through their insurance plan.

“Contraception is something that every woman should have access to,” Justus said. “We can’t be in a situation where employers get to be the arbiters of what services they (employees) get and what services they don’t.”

More like this story

spelchek 1 year, 3 months ago

"Justus said it would be more difficult for women to get access to birth control if they have to pay for it out of pocket rather than through their insurance plan." It will be more difficult for women to get access to tooth paste if they have to pay for it out of pocket rather than through their insurance plan. Without it, their teeth will rot. See where this is going? <--Rhetorical

LuckNLove 1 year, 2 months ago

I'm Republican and don't support laws against birth control... >.> I do, however, believe it is wrong to abort people. Not really sure why people always say abortion is a woman's right... a woman's right is to kill?

spelchek 1 year, 3 months ago

“We can’t be in a situation where employers get to be the arbiters of what services they (employees) get and what services they don’t.” Do you mean employers like the government?

tonto_goldberg 1 year, 2 months ago

No employer, not even the government, is forcing an employer to have any medical services. It's the arbitrary denial of services on real or imaginary moral grounds that is being debated.

JMO 1 year, 3 months ago

What if your employer is a Christian Scientist? I guess they shouldn't have to offer insurance at all?

bluesfan13 1 year, 3 months ago

I agree that employers shouldn't be forced to offer insurance. However, that's not what's at issue here.
Our government has already made that decision for us. The question at hand here is, since they've already mandated health insurance, do they have the authority (for lack of a better word) to force standards of said insurance.

LuckNLove 1 year, 2 months ago

Hmmm more money for Uncle Sam I suppose.

JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago

Hey Senators! The economy is bad. We have $4.00/gallon gas coming. People are unemployed. Good-paying jobs are impossible to find. We have a huge budget deficit. The schools are not teaching our kids. The roads are falling apart.

Quit wasting time debating bedroom stuff and FIX THE ECONOMY!.

tonto_goldberg 1 year, 2 months ago

Well stated.

viktorkowski 1 year, 2 months ago

good luck with that. next on the agenda another pay raise for themselves

John 1 year, 2 months ago

Graceful: Donchknow, they (that mysterious crowd that votes to pay for everything out of the U.S. coffers because that way it doesn't cost anyone anything out of their pockets. LOL They also purposefully misunderstand and mistate others in order to justify their weak point of view.

evenkeel 1 year, 2 months ago

The following makes me laugh, though not in a good way:

Resisting the Federal government from mandating that insurance companies provide birth control is "arbitrary denial of services ".

A liberty loving desire to rein in our leviathan, intrusive government is "debating bedroom stuff".

Shoving ever more government command and control down the throats of an increasingly infantilized citizenry is "protecting women's freedom to use birth control"

This is Orwellian. Simply Orwellian.

evenkeel 1 year, 2 months ago

The project of the liberal idea is to infantilize the population. If you have a mortgage you should have never taken out, don’t worry, the Obama administration will help you out. If you have student loans that are difficult to pay back, don’t worry, the Obama administration will help you out. If you want contraception, don’t worry, you shouldn’t have to pay for it, the Obama administration is going to force insurance companies to provide it “free”.

Ever since the New Deal, there has been a segment of the population that is very happy to live off the teat of the giant state. And the giant state lives off the teat of the tax payer. Of course, only 50% pay income taxes. So, thinking of it that way, half of this nation's citizens are literally sucklings.

Any wonder we are surrendering to tyranny through dependence?

JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago

Next thing we will have the government mandating men purchase vasectomies too.

JMO 1 year, 2 months ago

Honestly, what's wrong with everyone that they can't have a civilized discussion. I get so tired of coming on here and reading "blah-blah-blah left", "blah-blah-blah right". As I see it, it's pretty simple. Good employers offer health insruance. Good health insurance covers birth control. Nobody says anyone has to use birth control. Nobody says anyone has to buy birth control. But if you want to use it, your insurance should cover it. For many women it isn't just to prevent babies because you don't want them...for many women it's actually dangerous to get pregnant or they need to avoid it because of medications or treatments that would cause birth defects, but they might want the option to have children later so they don't want a permanent prevention method. It certainly is a health matter and insurance should cover it.

JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago

Amen! Grace nailed it. Insurance should only cover catatrophic events. The lazy public has become so used to having every little thing they have demanded insurance become a prepaid purchasing plan for every little thing (so they don't have to pay for it). What foolishness! Well, they say a fool and his money will soon be parted.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

News Tribune