advertisement

UPDATE: Missouri senators begin debate on birth control measure

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 | 7:53 p.m. CST; updated 8:25 p.m. CST, Tuesday, February 21, 2012

JEFFERSON CITY — 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 push-back from some religious groups, Obama's administration said that such coverage would be provided by insurance companies instead.

MoreStory

The Missourian published a story in July on the new face of the pro-life movement and a related interview with Michelle Trupiano, public affairs manager and lobbyist for Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri.



The federal rule would only apply 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."


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Ray Shapiro February 25, 2012 | 12:36 p.m.

I always thought that all employee health benefits were just that. Benefits, not rights.
As such, any benefits offered would be the result of negotiations between the prospective employee and the employer. If collective bargaining were in play, then the union would also play a part in the offered benefits package. Benefits are a gift, not a right. Although, sometimes there is leverage on the part of the prospective employee.
When did Obama usurp the right of employers to determine benefits to privately employed individuals.
Is this the tactics of some kind of National Union of Progressives?
Has Liberal Progressivism become a new kind of religion?
Is this just a religious issue? A political issue? Or something much bigger?

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 25, 2012 | 2:07 p.m.

"Is this the tactics of some kind of National Union of Progressives? Of course!
Has Liberal Progressivism become a new kind of religion? Of course!
Is this just a religious issue? A political issue? Or something much bigger? Much, much, bigger!

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements