CommunityPam's House Blend

Missouri votes to not resume funding birth control

Message to Missouri women: Don’t want kids? Don’t screw, you promiscuous jezebels!

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.

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.

Because, of course, if you are opposed to abortion, you should do everything in your power to make sure that the pregnancies women do have are the ones that are planned and wanted. And the best way to see that happen is to scold those slutty harlots who so foolishly think they have a right to have sex without pregnancy.

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.

Missouri Right to Life said it was concerned with the contraception language because it was loosely written and could have included emergency contraception – often referred to as the morning-after pill.

The Missouri Catholic Conference also opposed the birth control funding.

State taxpayers should not be required to subsidize activities they believe are immoral or unethical, relating to contraceptives or abortions,” said Larry Weber, executive director of the state Catholic Conference.

I like that theory, Larry. You know, I’m pro-life myself. Well, let me clarify, I’m pro-already-living-and-breathing-life. My tax money should not subsidize activities I believe are immoral or unethical, activities that would violate my pro-ALAB-life stance like dropping daisy cutters and cluster bombs on Iraqi cities. Think of it as mass post-birth abortions.

Others, including some lawmakers who described themselves as “pro-life,” said it was illogical for anti-abortion lawmakers to deny money for contraception to low-income people who use public health clinics.

“It’s going to have the opposite effect of what the intention is, which will be more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions,” said Rep. Kate Meiners, D-Kansas City.

Well, that’s what poor women deserve for screwing; the blessing of even more hungry mouths they can’t feed. But, hey, someone’s got to be the brood mares for the next generation of Wal-Mart clerks.

The other alternative is for low-income women to give birth to more children, which is only likely to drive up the state’s costs to provide services to them, said Democratic Rep. Melba Curls, also of Kansas City.

Oh, don’t worry, Melba. We’ll just spend the same amount of money on an ever-increasing number of poor children. If they’re lucky.

“The average Missourian believes that as part of women’s health, they should be offered in a medical clinic a voluntary choice of contraception,” Donnelly said.

Yeah, but the average Missourian is a hell-bound fornicatin’ sinner who can’t keep her legs crossed. Let’s make her breed; that’ll show her!

I also notice they’re not floating any bills to restrict birth control for people who can afford it; just for state-funded birth control. Apparently, poor people are so morally bankrupt that access to birth control will turn them promiscuous, but people who are better off seem to handle the pressure just fine. Or is it that we don’t mind if better off folks are promiscuous?

Hmm, I wonder if Rep. Susan Phillips uses birth control herself?

Previous post

Way to Go, Lieberman

Next post

Red state women speak out on state-sanctioned womb control