JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - An attempt to resume state spending on birth control got shot down Wednesday by House members who argued it would have amounted to an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles.
Missouri stopped providing money for family planning and certain women's health services when Republicans gained control of both chambers of the Legislature in 2003.
But a Democratic lawmaker, in a little-noticed committee amendment, had successfully inserted language into the proposed budget for the fiscal year starting July 1 that would have allowed part of the $9.2 million intended for "core public health functions" to go to contraception provided through public health clinics.
The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending.
"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.
Wow, how could a so-called "pro-life" person oppose birth control, when birth control reduces abortions? I just don't get it. I'm racking my brain for an explanation, racking, racking, racking...
Jeez, could it be...I mean, it seems so illogical and backward, and so awfully primitive, and yet...
Do you think Christians, you know, the pro-life ones, do you think they could be interested more in, ah...how do I say this...more in, well, controlling women, than they are in stopping abortions?
I know. Crazy. And yet it's the only theory that fits the facts.
4 comments:
"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state."
Noooooo... what you're saying is "As an adult, you have the right to do what you want with your body."
Maybe there should be a ruling against lime-green clothing. 'Cause by allowing lime-green clothing, the state is basically saying it's OK to wear it. When obviously it's not! (OK, I like lime green clothing. Sue me!). How about there being a law against being fat? 'Cause being fat is being unhealthy. By allowing fat people, the state is saying it's OK to be unhealthy.
When will there be a ruling that men aren't allowed to have erections unless they're married & procreating?
I'll shut up now.
Promiscuity is multiple sexual partners. What if a woman wants birth control and is in a monogamous relationship?
The upside is, more cool kids will get fed up with life in the Red States and move to L.A. Think of all the great new friends we'll have.
Of course the old "if we give it money then when endorse it" argument is hypocritical bullshit.
I suggest the cool kids clean their own damn house. There are too many goddamn people in LA already.
Okay, I know I'm from a red state, but I was grandfathered in.
"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state"
It's all about controlling women & (as you always say) they seriously think that fucking should only be for procreation.
Post a Comment