Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!Mo. legislation would restrict vasectomies
Friday, March 2, 2012
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri House member frustrated with recent legislative debates over birth control and reproductive health is proposing to restrict vasectomies.
Legislation sponsored by Democrat Stacey Newman would allow vasectomies only when necessary to protect a man from serious injury or death. Vasectomies would have to be performed in a hospital, ambulatory surgery center or health facility licensed by the state Department of Health and Senior Services.
The Missouri House last week approved a resolution objecting to the federal health care law and a requirement that most employers or insurers cover contraceptives.
Newman, who’s from St. Louis County, says that such issues affect women the most. She says men also must make family planning decisions.
Similar legislation has been filed in Georgia.
———
Vasectomy restrictions is HB1853
Online:
Legislature: http://www.moga.mo.gov
Marry Me
Comments
gofish 1 year, 2 months ago
Some days I'm proud to be from Missouri, other days, I wish I lived in a state that was more progressive in it's values. Unwanted pregnancies result in abortions. Therefore, the end result of denying access to birth control on religious grounds is really a pro-abortion stance. I applaud Rep Newman for trying to show the patriarchal right wing that legislating birth control might not be so fun when they are the ones directly affected. I oppose legislating religious morality. I think our state takes a very backwards stance when it allows itself to waste time on abortion. We are at a time when the average joe has to choose between buying gasoline, getting health care, and buying groceries because a prolonged recession combined with inflation is starving the household budget. Is the MO Legislature for the people or against us?
lovemykids 1 year, 2 months ago
I was not trying to get anyone to pay for my tubes being tied. I had no insurance and I had the money saved to do the operation! The only problem was that NO doctor in Mo was going to do it for me. They said I was too young, I might change my mind someday, blah blah blah... They stopped me from doing the right thing. They told me that at my age that procedure would NEVER be done unless I had already popped out 3 kids on Medicaid. They are ALREADY telling women no to having their tubes tied! This bill is just someone trying to put the shoe on a man's foot for a change. Let them see what it feels like to want an operation, have the funds to pay for it, and be told no by every doctor in MO.
gofish 1 year, 2 months ago
This isn't about government paying for anything. It's about restricting access to healthcare based upon religious zeal.
bluesfan13 1 year, 2 months ago
Ok, most of the time you at least have a grasp of the situtation, even if I oppose your opinion nearly 100% of the time. However, this bill is 100% religious in nature. Newman has no real interest in restricting vasectomies. This bill is merely a response to religious organizations saying they don't want birth control for women covered in their health plans. It has nothing to do with funding, money, family planning, or anything other than a response to the Catholic church.
wyriontair 1 year, 2 months ago
This is not about "denying access to birth control.." No one is trying to deny access, what the problem is that the goverment is dictating that those who provide insurance MUST PAY for birth control and that includes insurance agencies that are run by religious organizations, which is a violation of first amendment rights.
asb 1 year, 2 months ago
Why do you care? It was wyriontair and hkchas in that sub-thread. Are you Quantum Grace, needing to be everywhere at once, with your nose up everybody's business? Why yes, as a moral farce, er force, yes? Oh and here I am in this sub-thread where I've no business beyond pimping Grace.
gofish 1 year, 2 months ago
Anytime you remove insurance coverage for a service, you are denying access to those who cannot afford to pay for it out of pocket.
lovemykids 1 year, 2 months ago
Look it doesn't matter if you have insurance or not... they will not let you get your tubes tied in Mo until your doctor decides that you are ready for it. That is usually after you have 2-3 kids. For the women who want no children, this is an expensive process. If I want my tubes tied I pay for it once and it costs a lot. If I am on their monthly birth control, their 5 year removable birth control, their depo shot, etc... then I MUST come into the office and pay for a visit every single time. They make more money this way. That is (in my opinion) the only reason that makes sense for them to constantly tell you no. As long as you are still walking around with a possibility of getting pregnant, then you are a guaranteed car payment for that doctor. He/she knows absolutely that you will come in for that next visit, because it is cheaper to pay for the pills than it is to pay for the kids.
asb 1 year, 2 months ago
Insurance companies are not run by religious organization in principle. They provide a service-for-fee to religious organizations, but you might think they'd be willing to not cover a standard expense at the behest of the religious organization, and so make more money. However, their actuarials know that an uncovered woman will cost them more in the long run, which is why contraception is usually a standard coverage . . . and around it goes. Question . . . if a woman is denied contraception coverage, does she get a discount? Answer . . . no.
spelchek 1 year, 2 months ago
"I applaud Rep Newman for trying to show the patriarchal right wing that legislating birth control might not be so fun when they are the ones directly affected.". --- You do realize this fabricated issue stems from federal legislation without one single republicans name on it don't you.
Common_Sense 1 year, 2 months ago
I want a new (better) car, but due to other choices and priorities, I cannot afford a new car. The Democrats will not buy me a new car. Why are the Democrats denying me access to a new car?
herekitty 1 year, 2 months ago
I'm glad I'm not from Missouri anymore. Church and state are suppose to be seperate. It's for you people to sue the state, Move out of state and cut off the money supply.
Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago
This is about who pays, and it is about sex.
People get health insurance and drug coverage as part of their salary/compensation for work.
By cutting birth control out of this compensation, you're saying men don't have to pay for the drugs they need, but women do.
You'll never see these movement conservatives try to restrict men's access to anything. Never. This is about sex and fear.
The idea that institutions have a "religious freedom" to demand that all their employees abide by the tenants of the employer's religion is completely upside down.
lovemykids 1 year, 2 months ago
How about this for a fair deal? We pay for our birth control out of pocket if they pay for Viagra out of pocket.
spelchek 1 year, 2 months ago
Monthly viagra out of pocket = $700
Monthly pill out of pocket = $15-20
Abortion = $350-$550
Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago
Whether or not the government should require health insurance to provide birth control is one thing. I happen to think it is a good idea to reduce accidental pregnancy and unwanted children as much as possible. I also think it is a good idea to give women control over reproduction so they can be productive in the economy and plan their families. I think that is quite reasonable, rational, and any number of things.
Regardless, insurance providers have to comply with all sorts of laws, I'm sure, and it is really the birth control that made it a raw material for manufactured outrage.
My point is that religious institutions acting like secular employers can't just opt out of secular laws just because they claim a religious opposition. Even if you accept the idea that the First Amendment applies to institions and not just people, religious freedom is not, and never has been, an absolute.
Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago
But in your view, a woman who works at a religious institution won't get the same health benefits as others. What about her freedom? She has the right to be free of her employer's religious feeling. And you can't just tell her to switch jobs. Not realistic.
Why in your mind is it tyranny for the government to require employers to abide by uniform laws that may conflict with an employer's religious belief, but it is not tyranny for an employer to financially punish a female employee for her religious belief?
Someone's freedom has to give. That's what living in society means. In this case, I think restricting employers' freedom to opt out carriers greater social utitlity.
Don't really see the Commerce Clause issue. Health insurance is interstate commerce.
JMO 1 year, 2 months ago
If insurance doesn't cover birth control, some women can't afford it. If she can't afford birth control, she may likely end up pregnant. Then there's another mouth to feed that she also can't afford. I really don't understand how can anyone believe that insurance not covering birth control is a good thing?
It isn't as though men are the ones really responsible here. Let's be honest. Men don't like or want to use condoms, the ONLY reversable male birth control method. Men don't generally want vasectomies unless they are married and already have a bunch of kids. And men don't get pregnant, so they expect the woman to take care of that. I may be speaking in generalities, and it may sound sexist, but it's still true more often than not. Sequoia is right. Saying "don't cover birth control" is saying WOMEN, you don't get this medication covered.
And you can say "then women, you shouldn't have sex" all you want...but until MEN quit wanting sex, that's not gonna happen and you all know it.
JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago
Your household is quite different from mine!
JMO 1 year, 2 months ago
No actually, it probably isn't. LOL
But as I said I'm speaking in generalities, and from a lifetime of experience as a woman with many woman friends and acquaintances who have boyfriends and husbands - women talk - about a LOT of stuff men would rather not know they talk about. And I've had 25 years of professional experience dealing with other people in matters pertaining to parents and children and child support. So I know just a tad about who the burden of birth control really falls upon.
JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago
Gosh, you could apply that same crazy logic to health care, dental care, etc.
JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago
If they would just raise our taxes a whole bunch, the government would have enough money to pay for all of these things. We could easily be as well off as the European and Soviet countries if only we could have higher taxes.
gofish 1 year, 2 months ago
Apparently the religious radicals need to learn about planned parenting. It's not just a bunch of sinners with loose morals that are affected by this issue. If a family is on a budget and wants to live within their means, they need to be able to control the number of kids they have and the timing in which they have them. Many people call that taking personal responsibility. The answer is birth control. Unless I'm misinformed, marital sex is meant for more than just baby making. Or do you prefer to maintain a bunch of sexually repressed priests that turn to children? I don't need "religious freedom" to practice responsible behavior. It's a health care issue. You're so worried about your religious zealotry that you'd rather keep women barefoot and pregnant and inflate the number of kids on welfare and Medicaid because the size of their family keeps them below the poverty line. This is a health care issue and a women's rights issue. Will the patriarchs of the religious right please take a seat and try to learn from the lecture?
gofish 1 year, 2 months ago
Graceful, it's not about public funding. It's about government requiring religious institutions health insurance policies to provide the same health care coverage as the mainstream even if it "goes against their religious beliefs". To rephrase, it is whether the government should allow a religious organization to limit a woman's access to birth control based upon church doctrine. Should the Bible control your access to health care? Personally, I haven't found anything legitimate to misconstrue "be fruitful and multiply" to insist on the converse, that "though shalt not control the number of babies that pop out of a woman's womb". It's religious dogma which is entirely different than a scriptural "truth". People have been arguing "Thou shalt not murder" by trying to interpret when life "officially" begins since 1973. Hows about we avoid that argument by preventing the unwanted little buggers to begin with?
Mr_Grimm 1 year, 2 months ago
I can suport making healthcare cover the cost of birth control, making insurance compaines cover it. BUT, i DO NOT think ANY employer should be mandated to cover it, no matter if it is religious or not. An employer is not responsible for your choices, period. Wether it is the mans or womans responsibility to take care of the birth control is moot, it takes 2 to tango. Both are agreeing to the act. So if they are mature enough to do the deed, i think they should be mature enough to discuss the issue of birth control and who is going to take care of it.
LOVE MY KIDS: you were wronged by the doctors. You had the means to pay for a procedure, and had made the choice. NO doctor should refuse you that! I can understand them giving you their opinion and saying your choice is against thier better opinion, but they still need to give you the procedure. PERSONALLY i think either surgery should be covered by medical insurance. IF you want to make sure you never have any/anymore children lets help make that happen. I'd get a vasectomy tomorrow if it were covered. I think it should be offered as a free service to those on medicaid along with the choice of birth control.
bluesfan13 1 year, 2 months ago
I would argue that by paying $500/month for insurance, I paid for my vasectomy myself.
I see your point, but if you think for one minute that insurance costs will decrease simply because birth control isn't covered, then... Well, lets just say that birth control costs are a tiny fraction of overall heath care expenses.
JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago
Health insurance is designed to only cover CATASTROPHIC EVENTS, not every little prescription or office visit.
If we could take insurance back to what it was MEANT to be, the premiums would be reduced dramatically. Medical services and products would be cheaper too, since they would not have to hassle with all the claims and other administrative tasks.
Everybody wants every little thing covered for everyone, and that is why the system is broke and costs are so high.
gofish 1 year, 2 months ago
Costs are high because those who HAVE private health insurance are paying for the FREE treatment that those who DO NOT have health insurance get and do not pay for. We already have national health care. It's just not formally written as such. The emergency room charges me and my insurance company triple the cost to cover both me and the uninsured person in the bed next to me. At least Obamacare seeks to level the cost among EVERYONE that recieves care.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.