Mo. lawmakers pass contraception bill on final day
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon speaks in his office during a news conference at the conclusion of the final day of the legislative session Friday, May 18, 2012, in Jefferson City, Mo. Photo by The Associated Press.
Originally published May 18, 2012 at 6:38 p.m., updated May 18, 2012 at 11:15 p.m.
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri's Republican-led Legislature registered its discontent with President Barack Obama's health care policies Friday during an otherwise uneventful final day of a legislative session in which lawmakers settled for the doable instead of the ideal on their education and business priorities.
Legislators sent the governor a bill stating that employers can refuse to provide health insurance for birth control — a measure meant as a slap against an Obama administration policy requiring insurers to cover contraception at no additional cost to women working at certain religious-affiliated institutions.
A separate measure also passed Friday will ask Missouri voters later this year whether to restrict the creation of a health insurance exchange, another Obama initiative.
The session ended at 6 p.m. Friday without passage of several education and pro-business proposals touted by Republican leaders when they began work in January. But legislative leaders, as is typical, still declared the session a success, noting that, in an election year, they were able to reach compromises that led to the passage of a $24 billion budget, an expansion of authority for charter schools and a tweak of the state's workers' compensation system, among other things.
"For the Missouri House, it was promises made and promises kept. We're very happy with our success," said House Majority Leader Tim Jones, R-Eureka.
Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon noted many of his budget priorities prevailed but expressed disappointment that lawmakers failed to expand incentives for businesses that supply parts to automobile manufacturers.
When the session began, some Republican legislative leaders outlined an aggressive education agenda to overhaul the state's school funding formula, expand charter schools, pare back teacher tenure protections, authorize tax breaks so children in failing schools could attend private schools, and eliminate a two-year waiting period before the state could intervene in unaccredited schools such as the Kansas City School District. The charter school bill was the only item to pass.
The Legislature's pro-business agenda also was left partly unfulfilled. Lawmakers sent the governor a bill prohibiting employees from suing co-workers for injuries covered by the workers' compensation cases. But Nixon vetoed other workers' compensation changes, as well as a Republican-backed bill that would have made it harder for employees to win workplace discrimination cases. Divisions between the House and Senate again scuttled bills to create new incentives for businesses or scale back the state's existing tax credits.
By Friday, several major bills either already had passed or been effectively declared dead. That led to any easygoing mood underscored by a series of legislative pranks. In the Senate, food mysteriously appeared on the desk of an unsuspecting senator, a flagrant violation of chamber rules. In the House, one lawmaker arrived to discover his desk wrapped in tin foil, while another lawmaker attempted to dangle objects from an upper gallery over the head of the person presiding over the chamber. Some House members threw paper wads at each other before reveling in an end-of-session tradition of tossing suddenly useless bills and amendments into the air when the final gavel fell.
Although some Democrats opposed the measures, debate on the pair of politically charged health care proposals remained relatively calm. The contraception legislation passed the Senate 28-6 and the House 105-33.
The bill states that no employer or health plan provider can be compelled to provide coverage — or be penalized for refusing to cover — abortion, contraception or sterilization if those items run contrary to their religious or moral convictions. The bill also gives the state attorney general grounds to sue other governmental officials or entities that infringe on the rights granted in the legislation.
"This bill is about religious freedom and moral convictions," said Rep. Sandy Crawford, R-Buffalo. "This is about sending a message to the federal government that we don't like things rammed down our throat."
The legislation is a response to a policy by Obama's administration that initially sought to require religious nonprofits serving the public to cover birth control through employee health plans. After a backlash, Obama modified that policy earlier this year to require insurers, not the religious employers, to bear the responsibility of covering contraception.
Nixon declined to say whether he supports the Missouri measure, adding that he backs both a woman's access to contraception and the right of people to practice their religious beliefs.
"We already have a strong religious exemption on the books, but we'll review this carefully," Nixon said.
Rep. Stacey Newman, D-St. Louis County, said the legislation was "attacking women's reproductive choices."
"This is wrong and I dare you to go home and talk to your daughters ... and say, 'Look, what we're going to say is that your employers' religious beliefs matter more than your own,'" Newman told colleagues.
Under a separate bill passed Friday, voters would get the final say on whether to enact a state law prohibiting the governor from establishing a state health insurance exchange. The federal health care law signed by Obama requires states to create such online markets by 2014 or have the federal government run one for them. The Missouri measure would allow a state-created insurance exchange only if specifically authorized by a state law or a subsequent vote of the people.
Both health care measures are part of a continuing effort by the Missouri Legislature to stand up to Obama's health care policies. In 2010, lawmakers referred a measure to the statewide ballot prohibiting the government from requiring people to have health insurance, a challenge to a federal provision that most people must have insurance by 2014 or face penalties. Voters approved the measure by 71 percent.
Birth control bill is SB749
Health exchange bill is SB464.
Online:
Legislature: http://www.moga.mo.gov


Comments
jeffcitygirl 1 year ago
Legislative pranks??? Seriously? Aren't these men and women supposed to be mature, highly respected and intelligent people, who were voted into prominent and important positions? This makes me cringe in embarrassment for the lack of respect for the importance of the job they are there to do. These are grown adults, business men and women of stature acting like a bunch of giggling silly 8th graders Igetting ready to leave school for the summer!! I did not know this went on. I understand they have been working in an extremely high stress environment for a few months, and deserve to blow off a little steam, but why not a reception or after hours party where grown ups act like grown ups? This type of immature behavior would not be tolerated in any other work environment. Ridiculous and shameful!
jeffcitygirl 1 year ago
And on the topic of the bill control bill...I find it a complete and utter outrage. I agree with the quote above that by letting employers single out only birth control medications as not covered by their insurance policy they are allowing employers to shove their religious beliefs down their employees throats. Maybe these religious employers should only hire people of their own religious faith. (and if you really asked Catholic women their stance on birth control I believe you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful that actually haven't taken or used some form of contraception. If someone has a job with a catholic hospital and is not catholic or care to be free of contraception and be irresponsibly overpopulating the world with children they can't afford, then they have to come up with the $25 to $50 a month or more to pay out of pocket for their pills, while someone who works for any other employer that provides standard HMO coverage gets their pills often for free or a very minimal cost. The fact that MEN are the majority of legislators who voted for this says it all. They do not understand, do not care, and as long as they can control women's reproductive rights they get to perpetuate the stroking of their fragile egos to feel more masculine. This is one of the most absurd issues out there today. Women are not asking for anyone to PAY for their pills other than having the insurance company cover the drug just as ANY OTHER drug. What about those that take the pill to balance hormones as a preventative treatment for uterine cancer or ease the pain of endometriosis or ovarian cysts? Shaking my head...
sickandtired 1 year ago
here's the thing jeffcity girl, If you don't like the fact your employer doesn't offer birth control as part of the insurance policy then you can find an employer that does. Why should they have to go against their belief just to make you happy? If you don't want to change jobs then get your own private insurance policy. under Obama care the price of private policies have to be comparable to employer based policies. That way you can keep your job( that obviously you love so much) and get your BC pills like you want
spelchek 1 year ago
"This is wrong and I dare you to go home and talk to your daughters ... and say, 'Look, what we're going to say is that your employers' religious beliefs matter more than your own,'" Newman said. -- This quote reeks of someone that has never had to worry about making enough to cover payroll. Free contraception exists already; so what is the problem?
jeffcitygirl 1 year ago
Sickandtired... I seriously doubt the cost of covering BC pills would cause an employers insurance rates to be any higher than if they don't include them. In fact the reason most HMOs provide free BC pills is because prevention of pregnancy is a heck of a lot cheaper than paying for pregnancy and delivery. Do religious employers policies cover viagra? I bet they do. Do they mandate it only covers it for married men? I highly doubt it...which would make it in conflict with church teachings but you don't see that being excluded. What about gays? Do religious employes ban or fire openly gay employees? If you want to be a business be a business and follow the same rules as all other employers have to follow. If you want to preach then be a church.
sickandtired 1 year ago
well when you get a job with a religious based business you also should expect they are going to incorporate part of their beliefs into their day to day business. They are not preaching and they are not pushing their views on you but what you are doing is pushing their views into a dark hole by telling them they cannot follow the belief they have. If you don't like it don't get a job with a religious based company. Business owners shouldn't have to change their policies just because the employees don't like it. Employees don't like a lot of the rules employers have, get over it. Next thing you'll say is that employers shouldn't be allowed to do drug testing
sickandtired 1 year ago
I am curious what you think would happen if say SSM decided to either get rid of insurance all together or close their doors over this situation. I think it would get very ugly for Jefferson city folks.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID