Missouri continues its race to out-Kansas Kansas.
The Missouri House voted Wednesday to ban state funding of contraceptives for low-income women and to prohibit state-funded programs from referring those women to other programs.
Critics jumped on the proposal, saying it would lead to more abortions and more unwanted children on welfare. But the proposal’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Susan Phillips of Kansas City, said contraceptive services were an inappropriate use of tax dollars. “If doctors want to give contraception privately or personally, they can,” Phillips said. “But we don’t need to pay for contraception with taxpayer funds.”
Because, of course, it will be cheaper for the state to pay for the unwanted pregnancies and child care down the road, right?
The contraceptive services banned were an effort to jump-start a family-planning program that had been cut in 2003 because of the state’s severe budget crunch.
Rep. Rachel Storch, a St. Louis Democrat, pointed to a study that found the teenage birth rate in Missouri dropped 32 percent from 1991 to 2002. The drop was attributed to wider availability of contraceptives.
Yeah, but why should the taxpayers be interested in that?
(via J-Walk)
Apparently Susan Philips is the only taxpayer whose opinion matters.
Old adages have a place in lawmaking. Here’s one: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”
Missouri, Kansas, South Dakota: better them than us.
Will the women of these states put up with this crap? Do majorities there support these policies?
Should those who feel otherwise vote with their feet?
They’re trying to increase the number of abortions. Duh.