Missouri lawmakers override Gov. Nixon's birth control bill veto

There are 100 comments on the SanLuisObispo.com story from Sep 13, 2012, titled Missouri lawmakers override Gov. Nixon's birth control bill veto. In it, SanLuisObispo.com reports that:

Missouri lawmakers voted Wednesday to override Gov. Jay Nixon's veto and allow employers to refuse to provide health insurance coverage for birth control if doing so violates their religious convictions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at SanLuisObispo.com.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#64 Sep 19, 2012
guest wrote:
LadiLuLu, there was nothing in your recent posts that I haven't already shot out of the water.
You people have no valid argument. You're just bitching because you might actually have to dig into your own pocket for once and pay for something only you use instead of pushing the cost off onto others. Damn leeches. People like you is what is wrong with America.
For someone who promotes discriminatory practices in the name of religion/theocracy or rule by corporate powers/Oligarchy YOU have NO argument.

How far are you willing to take discriminatory practices in the name of the above? How far? If companies refuse to hire women and/or minorities?

Simple question since you believe so strongly in what you say, how far?

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#65 Sep 19, 2012
guest wrote:
Minimum wage laws are unconstitutional. Besides, they aren't germane to the discussion.
Forcing a person to pay for medical procedures or medications that he has religious objections to is a clear violation of his right to the free exercise of his religion.
End of story.
Baloney. You can't substantiate any of that. And you know it.

You're ignorant and minimally educated, and are a coward.

Now run away, dear.

End of discussion.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#66 Sep 19, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"Minimum wage laws are unconstitutional. Besides, they aren't germane to the discussion."
It most certainly IS germane. When you are trying to argue that the gov't cannot dictate to employers about their own business, then laws that do just that are most CERTAINLY germane.
"Forcing a person to pay for medical procedures or medications that he has religious objections to is a clear violation of his right to the free exercise of his religion.
End of story."
No one is forcing a PERSON to do any such thing. We're talking about businesses. If you can't even be honest about that, why are you here?
However, forcing an employer's religion on an employee by way of company policy and their wage packet, IS the employer imposing it's own religion on the employee. And THAT is the violation.
Exactly. Well said.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67 Sep 19, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Well said.
Thanks.

Notice he's finally come to his real agenda. It's not about gov't and business really, but about a religious objection only.

I hate to tell these people but a business, especally one whose leader is the head of a foreign nation, don't have freedom of religion. And no one is forcing a single Catholic to use BC pills.
guest

United States

#68 Sep 19, 2012
Bitner wrote:
No one is forcing a PERSON to do any such thing. We're talking about businesses.
The majority of businesses in this country are small business, and they file their taxes on the personal returns of their owners. So yeah, it most definitely is forcing PERSONS to fund something they have a religious objection to, and in doing so that is a clear violation of their right to the free exercise of their religion.

Look, the people of Missouri have spoken through their elected representatives. If you don't like it, too damn bad. Move to a liberal state, pay for your own birth control, or just STFU. I'm tired of you whining like a little bitch because you didn't get your way.
Tondaleo

Muscotah, KS

#70 Sep 19, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority of businesses in this country are small business, and they file their taxes on the personal returns of their owners. So yeah, it most definitely is forcing PERSONS to fund something they have a religious objection to, and in doing so that is a clear violation of their right to the free exercise of their religion.
Look, the people of Missouri have spoken through their elected representatives. If you don't like it, too damn bad. Move to a liberal state, pay for your own birth control, or just STFU. I'm tired of you whining like a little bitch because you didn't get your way.
Great post!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#71 Sep 20, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
"The majority of businesses in this country are small business, and they file their taxes on the personal returns of their owners."

Excuse me? No, not if they're smart, they don't. I OWN my own business, and it is always kept separate from my personal finances.

"So yeah, it most definitely is forcing PERSONS to fund something they have a religious objection to, and in doing so that is a clear violation of their right to the free exercise of their religion."

Of course it's not. They are not forced to use birth control. Being forced to offer a legal medication that is used to treat a valid medical condition is not the same thing, no matter how much you want to pretend it is. It is also not them "funding" it, as though the employee is not also paying for it.

"Look, the people of Missouri have spoken through their elected representatives. If you don't like it, too damn bad. Move to a liberal state, pay for your own birth control, or just STFU. I'm tired of you whining like a little bitch because you didn't get your way."

LOL, you are the one whining. And when are you going to remember that I DO USE BC PILLS? I'm past childbearing, and don't NEED birth control. This is not about me, it goes beyond individuals here. Or even states. No employer has the right to impose religion on it's employees by way of company policy or their wage packet. None.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#72 Sep 20, 2012
Tondaleo wrote:
<quoted text> Great post!
Bullshit. It's clear neither of you know a thing about owning a small business.

Go pound sand, Knit.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#73 Sep 20, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"The majority of businesses in this country are small business, and they file their taxes on the personal returns of their owners."
Excuse me? No, not if they're smart, they don't. I OWN my own business, and it is always kept separate from my personal finances.
"So yeah, it most definitely is forcing PERSONS to fund something they have a religious objection to, and in doing so that is a clear violation of their right to the free exercise of their religion."
Of course it's not. They are not forced to use birth control. Being forced to offer a legal medication that is used to treat a valid medical condition is not the same thing, no matter how much you want to pretend it is. It is also not them "funding" it, as though the employee is not also paying for it.
"Look, the people of Missouri have spoken through their elected representatives. If you don't like it, too damn bad. Move to a liberal state, pay for your own birth control, or just STFU. I'm tired of you whining like a little bitch because you didn't get your way."
LOL, you are the one whining. And when are you going to remember that I DO USE BC PILLS? I'm past childbearing, and don't NEED birth control. This is not about me, it goes beyond individuals here. Or even states. No employer has the right to impose religion on it's employees by way of company policy or their wage packet. None.
Well, damn. Serves me right, for not proof reading.

I do NOT use BC pills. I am too old to get pregnant.
guest

United States

#74 Sep 20, 2012
Bitner wrote:
I OWN my own business, and it is always kept separate from my personal finances.
Well goody for you. But the fact remains that the majority of businesses in this country are small businesses, and the majority of small businesses file their business taxes on their personal 1040s. That's just a fact.

So again, it's not some faceless business who is being forced to violate their religious convictions, it's actual people.
They are not forced to use birth control. Being forced to offer a legal medication that is used to treat a valid medical condition is not the same thing
Either one is a violation of the free exercise of religion if the person involved has religious objections.
It is also not them "funding" it, as though the employee is not also paying for it.
The employer is paying a vast majority of the cost. Even if the employer is only paying 1%, forcing him to pay is still a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.
LOL, you are the one whining.
I don't have anything to whine about. The law is exactly what I support. I'm just defending it against the ridiculous and ignorant attacks by people like you.
And when are you going to remember that I DO USE BC PILLS? I'm past childbearing, and don't NEED birth control.
So you don't even have a dog in the fight. Just like to bitch, huh?
No employer has the right to impose religion on it's employees by way of company policy or their wage packet. None.
I agree, but as I've stated several times, no employer is imposing his religion on anyone. He's just merely exercising his religious beliefs by not funding medications and procedures for which he has a religious objection.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#75 Sep 20, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Well goody for you. But the fact remains that the majority of businesses in this country are small businesses, and the majority of small businesses file their business taxes on their personal 1040s. That's just a fact.
So again, it's not some faceless business who is being forced to violate their religious convictions, it's actual people.
<quoted text>
Either one is a violation of the free exercise of religion if the person involved has religious objections.
<quoted text>
The employer is paying a vast majority of the cost. Even if the employer is only paying 1%, forcing him to pay is still a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.
<quoted text>
I don't have anything to whine about. The law is exactly what I support. I'm just defending it against the ridiculous and ignorant attacks by people like you.
<quoted text>
So you don't even have a dog in the fight. Just like to bitch, huh?
<quoted text>
I agree, but as I've stated several times, no employer is imposing his religion on anyone. He's just merely exercising his religious beliefs by not funding medications and procedures for which he has a religious objection.
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't even have a dog in the fight. Just like to bitch, huh?
Speaking of having a dog in the fight....you or any man sticking his nose in the abortion or contraceptive debate is laughable considering your only objective is control which is the same objective of male based religions, either that or YOU just like to bitch.

What an asinine comment for you to make, not very educated.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#76 Sep 20, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
"Well goody for you. But the fact remains that the majority of businesses in this country are small businesses, and the majority of small businesses file their business taxes on their personal 1040s. That's just a fact.
So again, it's not some faceless business who is being forced to violate their religious convictions, it's actual people."

I call bullshit. Prove it. Anyone who mixes their business and personal finances takes a great risk of losing there personal property if something goes wrong. I don't believe the "majority" are that stupid. But do feel free to prove your claim.

And even so, it's STILL not about the person, but the business. We've already proven that the gov't has the right to regulate how businesses treat their employees.

"Either one is a violation of the free exercise of religion if the person involved has religious objections."

No, you are wrong.

"The employer is paying a vast majority of the cost. Even if the employer is only paying 1%, forcing him to pay is still a violation of his 1st Amendment rights."

No, it is not. And you have yet to prove that they are paying "a vast majority". I know better. Your erroneous opinion is not proof.

"I don't have anything to whine about."

Nonsense. Whining is ALL you're doing.

"The law is exactly what I support. I'm just defending it against the ridiculous and ignorant attacks by people like you."

Very good, because the law says they have to offer a prescription plan that includes BC pills. Deal with it.

"So you don't even have a dog in the fight. Just like to bitch, huh?"

No, I am debating. You have yet to offer any reason why an employer should be allowed to discriminate against a legal medication used to treat a valid medical condition based upon a religious objection. It doesn't matter if I don't use BC pills. Makes no difference at all.

"I agree, but as I've stated several times, no employer is imposing his religion on anyone. He's just merely exercising his religious beliefs by not funding medications and procedures for which he has a religious objection."

Nope, sorry. The employer IS imposing religion on their employees by way of company policy and wage packet. That is unconstitutional and unacceptable.
guest

United States

#77 Sep 21, 2012
Morgana 9 wrote:
Speaking of having a dog in the fight...
Fighting to preserve the 1st Amendment rights from government instrusion is the duty of every American.
guest

United States

#78 Sep 21, 2012
Bitner wrote:
I call bullshit. Prove it.
You have a computer and internet access. Google it. I'm not your errand boy here to do you bidding just because you're too damn lazy to do it yourself.
We've already proven that the gov't has the right to regulate how businesses treat their employees.
Government is specifically prohibited from violating the right every American enjoys to the free exercise of his religion. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and is superior to any regulation issued by the Executive Department.
No, it is not. And you have yet to prove that they are paying "a vast majority". I know better.
Again, that information is readily available if you truly cared to find the truth. Obviously you don't know jack shit about employing people and providing them medical insurance as part of their benefits package. Selling Amway and recruiting others to start their own home business hardly qualifies you to speak with any authority.

Premiums for a comprehensive family medical insurance plan cost about $15,000 per year. Businesses who offer such plans as benefits to their employees pay the majority of those premiums. Employees sure as hell aren't paying $1000+ per month for their part.
Very good, because the law says they have to offer a prescription plan that includes BC pills. Deal with it.
No it doesn't. The Missouri Legislature overrode Nixon's veto and passed the law that allows businesses to refuse BC coverage if they have a religious objection.

That's the law. YOU deal with it.
No, I am debating. You have yet to offer any reason why an employer should be allowed to discriminate against a legal medication used to treat a valid medical condition based upon a religious objection.
No you're whining and bitching.

I've given you two reasons that are insurmoutable. The first is it violates their 1st Amendment rights. The second is that's what the law in Missouri says.
It doesn't matter if I don't use BC pills. Makes no difference at all.
Obviously you just want to bitch whether the matter affects you or not.
Nope, sorry. The employer IS imposing religion on their employees by way of company policy and wage packet. That is unconstitutional and unacceptable.
Your ignorance of constitutional law is glaring. Forcing someone to support and fund something that is against their religious beliefs is violating their religious rights. That is the very reason people fled Europe and came to America hundreds of years ago. Do you know nothing of history either?

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#79 Sep 21, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Fighting to preserve the 1st Amendment rights from government instrusion is the duty of every American.
If you are so big on the first amendment why would you accuse a WOMAN of not having a dog in the fight and just liking to bitch, especially coming from a man when pertaining to discriminatory practices against women? Really? I think we are getting to the essence of your real argument.

Again how far would you take discriminatory practices under the guise of religion? Why not answer? Also what if the religion is one you do not believe in and it personally discriminates and affects you? My guess is you are fine as long as you are in the drivers seat...correct?

How far?

Does the government have a right to protect and insure individual freedom against tyrannical forces that practice blatant discrimination? Yes or no? Lets have an answer Mr. Educated.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#80 Sep 21, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
"You have a computer and internet access. Google it. I'm not your errand boy here to do you bidding just because you're too damn lazy to do it yourself."

In other words, you have no proof. Got it.

"Government is specifically prohibited from violating the right every American enjoys to the free exercise of his religion. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and is superior to any regulation issued by the Executive Department."

No one is trying to force Catholics to use artificial BC.

"Again, that information is readily available if you truly cared to find the truth. Obviously you don't know jack shit about employing people and providing them medical insurance as part of their benefits package. Selling Amway and recruiting others to start their own home business hardly qualifies you to speak with any authority."

I do not sell Amway. If you can't prove your point, just say so.

"Premiums for a comprehensive family medical insurance plan cost about $15,000 per year. Businesses who offer such plans as benefits to their employees pay the majority of those premiums. Employees sure as hell aren't paying $1000+ per month for their part."

So you say.

"No it doesn't. The Missouri Legislature overrode Nixon's veto and passed the law that allows businesses to refuse BC coverage if they have a religious objection.
That's the law. YOU deal with it."

No, what they vetoed was the law. You deal with it.

"No you're whining and bitching."

Sorry, still you whining.

"I've given you two reasons that are insurmoutable. The first is it violates their 1st Amendment rights."

But it does not. No Catholic is being forced to use BC.

"The second is that's what the law in Missouri says."

No, they circumvented the law. Unconstitutionally.

"Obviously you just want to bitch whether the matter affects you or not."

I'm debating it. You are whining like a baby about violations that don't exist.

"Your ignorance of constitutional law is glaring. Forcing someone to support and fund something that is against their religious beliefs is violating their religious rights. That is the very reason people fled Europe and came to America hundreds of years ago. Do you know nothing of history either?"

Nonsense. Not being allowed to impose your religion on your employees is not persecution. Your comparison to the very real persecution suffered throughout the ages by Christians is no comparison at all, and belittles the persecusion suffered by Christians all over the world today. You're being ridiculous.
a voter

Saint Augustine, FL

#81 Sep 21, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Then THOSE WOMEN should pay for it themselves.
<quoted text>
Yep. It's called a free market economy. No one is stopping you from purchasing medications on your own. The only issue is whether employers and insurance companies should be forced to pay for that coverage, and then pass that cost along to every other person in the form of higher premiums.
Think about it like this. Let's suppose you are an excellent driver and qualify for a good drivers insurance pool with very low premiums. Then, government mandates that the insurance company no longer will be allowed to deny drunk drivers with multiple DUIs from being in that same pool.
The insurance company's only response would be to raise the premiums for everyone in order to cover the much higher risk and much higher claims costs due to the drunk drivers.
Now, is that fair to you and all the other excellent drivers? Nope. Shouldn't the drunk drivers be in a high risk pool and pay higher premiums than you and all the other excellent, low risk drivers? Yes they should.
And it's the same with medical insurance. People who don't need nor want birth control should not be forced to purchase that coverage. And employers who are trying to limit insurance costs so they can offer plans to all their employees should not be forced to include coverages that only drive up the cost, especially when Obamacare is mandating that they provide insurance to begin with.
This is a comical post.

High risk? That's laughable. Being a woman is not a high risk activity like being a drunk driver. Where do people get these ideas from? Good old-fashioned misogyny? Yikes.

People have a right to get the coverage they pay into when they purchase insurance, even when it's employer provided as part of their compensation. If a woman needs contraception or hormone treatments she should be covered just as a male would be for his testosterone therapy. Sexual health is part of health care and just as important for women as it is men. It's so funny when we talk about women needing something for their female organs it's always seen as negotiable but men are never put under this pressure. No one ever contests prostrate care, although women will never use that benefit that they pay into the pool for men to use.

Condoms are fairly cheap and easy to get. However, the hormones in oral contraceptives is a prescription medication and you can't just go buy it. Not to mention, it's much more money if you are not using a prescription plan b/c our health care system is such a debacle here. But let's be for real here, it's unhealthy attitudes that people have about sex, reproductive misinformation, and prejudice towards the people that need oral contraceptives at the root of this problem.

Speaking of health care. The plans you seem to promote that pick and choose coverages, won't work out very well for citizens. People still will be woefully under-insured.

Why is it that we are supposedly a leading nation yet our health care system ranks 37 in the world? That's right, 37th! We are behind the many other countries with national healthcare systems. Right now, the arguing over oral contraceptives (which you don't HAVE to use if it bothers you) is preventing us to moving towards insuring our citizens who can't seem to find the jobs with benefits that will cover them or only give them the worst insurance options.
guest

United States

#82 Sep 21, 2012
Morgana 9 wrote:
If you are so big on the first amendment why would you accuse a WOMAN of not having a dog in the fight and just liking to bitch
She's the one that freely admitted she doesn't have a dog in the fight, and it's obvious she isn't defending the 1st Amendment, or anything other part of the Constitution for that matter.

She's just whining and bitching because the unconstitutional government intrusion of the Obama administration has been negated by the Missouri Legislature.
Again how far would you take discriminatory practices under the guise of religion? Why not answer?
I have answer, over and over and over again. An employer has the absolute right to determine what pay and benefits package he offers to his employees. We live in America where we have individual freedom, a free market economy, and limited government. This is not North Korea.
Also what if the religion is one you do not believe in and it personally discriminates and affects you?
Again, there is no discrimination here. It's a bullshit claim that has no basis in fact.
Does the government have a right to protect and insure individual freedom against tyrannical forces that practice blatant discrimination? Yes or no?
Explain how an employer choosing not to include birth control coverage in an insurance plan he offers to his employees is discrimination.

Explain why it is legal for Hooters to discriminate against male waiters in their restaurants.
guest

United States

#83 Sep 21, 2012
Bitner wrote:
In other words, you have no proof. Got it.
Proof abounds. You just won't want to let the facts get in the way of your errant position.
No one is trying to force Catholics to use artificial BC.
Nope, but the Obama administration is trying to force them to fund it for others, and in doing so they are violating their 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of their religion. Plain and simple.
So you say.
It's a fact, easily verifiable. The actual cost of the premiums for a comprehensive medical insurance plan for a family of 4 is about $15,000 per year. Employers pay the vast majority of that cost. Employees pay damn little of it.

Hell, just pick up the phone and call any reputable insurance company and get a quote. I know you won't do that because it would be yet another fact that would get in the way of your argument.
No, what they vetoed was the law. You deal with it.
Read the news story you dipshit. The Governor vetoed the law, but the Legislature overrode his veto and it became law. That law provides employers with the legal right to refuse to provide contraceptive insurance coverage if they have a religious objection.
No Catholic is being forced to use BC.
But Obama tried to force them to, which is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
"The second is that's what the law in Missouri says."
No, they circumvented the law. Unconstitutionally.
Nope. Your stupidity regarding things legal is quite obvious. First of all, the regulation issued by the Obama administraiton is not law, it is regulation. IOW, it wasn't a law duly passed by Congress and signed into law. It was an unconstitutional usurpation of power assumed by the Obama administration.

Secondly, the Missouri Legislature countered the unlawful actions of the Obama administration by duly passing a law to protect the religious liberties of business owners.
Not being allowed to impose your religion on your employees is not persecution.
Explain how refusing to pay for birth control pills is imposing relgion. Would you say the same thing about refusing to pay for abortion?
You're being ridiculous.
No, YOU are being ridiculous. And stupid. And whining like a little bitch.
a voter

Saint Augustine, FL

#84 Sep 21, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
She's the one that freely admitted she doesn't have a dog in the fight, and it's obvious she isn't defending the 1st Amendment, or anything other part of the Constitution for that matter.
She's just whining and bitching because the unconstitutional government intrusion of the Obama administration has been negated by the Missouri Legislature.
<quoted text>
I have answer, over and over and over again. An employer has the absolute right to determine what pay and benefits package he offers to his employees. We live in America where we have individual freedom, a free market economy, and limited government. This is not North Korea.
<quoted text>
Again, there is no discrimination here. It's a bullshit claim that has no basis in fact.
<quoted text>
Explain how an employer choosing not to include birth control coverage in an insurance plan he offers to his employees is discrimination.
Explain why it is legal for Hooters to discriminate against male waiters in their restaurants.
Well perhaps, we really should come up with the rest of the world and nationalize our healthcare so businesses and employees don't have this unnecessary burden.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Missouri Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
anyone want a free mobile home? (Mar '09) 5 hr walt 20
News Missouri Senate votes to override veto of welfa... Tue see the light 1
News Missouri Gov. Nixon Refuses to Save Failing Wel... Tue James 2
on cam naked May 3 Sada 1
News Three found dead in car overturned in creek (Dec '08) Apr 27 JIm 5
News Former resident honored for service in Vietnam (Mar '08) Apr 22 Wildlife 2
Election August 3 Missouri Primary Election: Did you vote? (Aug '10) Apr 21 Wanda may 10,214
More from around the web