Legislation to strike down mandate for employee health plans drives heated debate

Sunday, July 8, 2012

Thousands of messages continue to roll into Gov. Jay Nixon’s office, urging him to sign, or veto, Senate Bill 749, the Missouri Legislature’s declaration that employers can decide not to provide coverage for some health care services — such as abortion, contraception or sterilization — because of their religious beliefs.

Nixon spokesman Scott Holste said they had received “just over 10,000 e-mails and letters” through last Thursday.

Nixon’s office has not said when the governor will act on the bill, or how he will act on it. But the state Constitution requires him to complete actions by Saturday on all bills passed during this year’s legislative session.

Read additional details in our newspaper or e-Edition. Newspaper subscribers: Click on an e-Edition article and log in using your current account information at no extra charge. For e-edition help, e-mail circ@newstribune.com. Click here to purchase the full version of archived articles.

More like this story

tonto_goldberg 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Compassion is down for the count on this one. Why do some people feel the need to preach about the most negative part of their religious beliefs through their business? Why do some people have to express their religious freedom by denying religious freedom to others?

spelchek 10 months, 1 week ago

"Why do some people have to express their religious freedom by denying religious freedom to others?" -- Who? Who is being denied their religious freedoms by other religions? Other than Catholics by the Church of Government. Last time I checked, nobody is forced to abide by any religion (except government once again). We have choices..........so far.

John 10 months, 1 week ago

Then do not work for them. . . . it is that simple.

Why should ANYone mandate that an employer or an employer's insurance pay for ANYone's contraceptive?

John 10 months, 1 week ago

You're being silly, Hank. Nobody should have the right to mandate what is, or is not, included in an insurance plan. Nobody is discriminating.

As far as the employment goes, no, a religious body should not be required to hire non-members of their faith. It really is that simple. You, and others, can cloud th issue all you like with silly straw men arguements, but it is that simple; no religious body should be required to employ non-members.

TickledPink 10 months, 1 week ago

But they DO hire non-members.

No one is forcing a practicing Catholic to swallow a birth control pill, tie their tubes or get a vasectomy. Practice your faith and leave the rest of us alone.

Sequoia 10 months, 1 week ago

Religious organizations are not required to employ non-members. They choose to do so because they need those skills.

The government does have the power to require what insurance companies provide in their plans.

Neither of these points has anything to do with anything. They're not being debated by anyone.

Talk about clouding the issue.

JCLifer 10 months, 1 week ago

Why does the government have the right to control what insurance companies put in their plans? Insurance plans are a contract between the insurance company and the purchaser. The government has no business sticking its nose into private business dealings of willing participants.

Sequoia 10 months, 1 week ago

Lifer, that argument comes about 100 years too late.

This is the same argument that companies used to try to defeat child labor and working hour legislation. The companies argued that the workers were "free" to enter into any contract they wanted to, even a 12-year-old for 20 hour days. Never mind the only choice was to sign a contract for horrible hours in terrible conditions, or don't work and starve to death. Freedom!

The government has always regulated what sort of contracts you can enter into.

asb 10 months, 1 week ago

It's called regulation, and like it or not it is a good thing. Child labor, speed limits, 40 hr work week, safety rules, and finally healthcare.

JCLifer 10 months, 1 week ago

OK, so more government is better. Government is good. Government is here to help us.

dokeus6 10 months, 1 week ago

All of these issues fit the liberal agenda. They will bring down the country once and for all. Our corporations can't survive with this sort of regulations on them. We can't have any of this!!!

I'm being sarcastic by the way.

Sequoia 10 months, 1 week ago

Formulations like "more/less government is good/bad" are simplistic and unhelpful.

We don't need more government or less government. We need smart government.

The government is not "here to help us." The government IS us. It is nothing more than people working together to protect their rights and improve their quality of life.

That's why we need to wake up, vote, and stop letting a small number of individuals buy our government for their own interests. Every time we the people have done so, a few individuals have cried that it will be the end of the world. It won't. Don't be a sucker.

JCLifer 10 months, 1 week ago

So, the government is people, just like corporations are people! Now I get it!

Sequoia 10 months, 1 week ago

Not quite, Lifer. The government is not a person. It is made up of we the people. It is ours and we control it, and it is the method by which the people pool their power to protect their general welfare from other concentrated forms of power, like corporations and other governments.

But, the government does not have "rights." Only individual human beings have rights, endowed by their Creator. The government has "powers" and "duties," as framed in the constitution.

I think the same logic applies to corporations. They are created by law, not by nature. Therefore, I think it is more accurate to say corporations have certain powers and certain duties, but not rights.

Hope that clears it up.

JCLifer 10 months, 1 week ago

You just confirmed what I said! Government is just like a Corporation. No better, no worse. Same as a Labor Union. All three are composed of PEOPLE. They are not inheritly evil or good, they just reflect the kind of people that make them up.

Sequoia 10 months, 1 week ago

Right. They are composed of people. But that doesn't mean that they as institutional actors are "people" or have "rights" like people. Maybe we're not disagreeing on that.

spelchek 10 months, 1 week ago

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What part of being forced to buy a product without fear of government backlash is "free" hkchas. You call it "armed violence", others call it liberty. Our Constitution makes it very clear that government should not get to big for it's britches and the people should take up arms if necessary. We did it before to escape taxation without representation, we can do it again. It is our RIGHT.

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune