Thursday, March 16, 2006

If you are poor, married, monogamous, and/or do not have health insurance, Missouri lawmakers consider you promiscuous

If you are poor, married, monogamous, and/or do not have health insurance and living in Missouri:
  1. Lawmakers define you as promiscuous.
  2. Lawmakers deny you contraception

But they will tell you to keep your legs crossed if your husband wants to enjoy martial relations with you.

Law makers also define a woman/girl promiscuous if they've been raped or are the victim of incest. And as such have voted to deny victims contraception, so the state can victimize them again.

I do like what one commentor to Fired Up Missouri suggested: "Don't ban contraception, ban testicles!"

Sounds like a slogan and/or bumper sticker to me.


Anonymous said...

If you are poor enough to qualify for medicaid, you'll get your freebie birth control. If you don't have health insurance but make too much to qualify for medicaid, I doubt you'll go hungry paying for your shot, pill, ring, patch, whatever. Surely you can make a few sacrifices in your budget so the rest of us taxpayers don't have to pay for your birth control, too. I'm so sick of people thinking they are entitled to every little handout available when they are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves--those are the kind of people this bill addresses.

Tyrone said...

At the same time, you'd think Republican lawmakers would be more interested in preserving the contraception the interest of reduced abortion, you know?

Clytemnestra said...

So anonymous (gutsy there aren't you), you'd rather pay more for unwanted children, then less for contreception.

Yup, fiscally responsible there.
Penny wise (maybe), pound foolish.
A stitch in time.

yaada, yaada, yaada

Guess building more prisions, spending more for foster care, etc. is FAR better than paying for controceptives.

Clytemnestra said...

kit bit,

I agree