Gov. Jay Nixon Vetoes Contraceptive Services Bill: Agree or Disagree?

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a bill that would have allowed employers to deny insurance coverage for contraceptive services if they have religious or moral objections. What do you think of his actions?

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a bill that would have allowed employers to deny insurance coverage for contraceptive services if they have religious or moral objections.

Nixon, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, said Missouri law already provides "strong religious protections" that let employers and employees abstain from paying for contraceptive coverage based on their beliefs.

From the report:

Nixon said the bill would undermine the current protections because it would let an insurance company "impose its will, and deny inclusion of contraceptive coverage, even if that position is inconsistent with the rights and beliefs of the employee or employer."

At a news conference in his Capitol office this morning, Nixon said he vetoed the bill because "we want families making these decisions -- not insurance companies."

Sen. John Lamping, R-Ladue, said he would seek to override the veto in September, the report said.

In March, Patch asked readers if they thought contraceptive services should be optional for Missouri employers. The response varied.

But now that Nixon has vetoed the measure, we ask you: Do you support or oppose Nixon's decision to veto the bill? Or do you think his actions are justified? Where do you stand on the issue? Who should be paying for contraceptive services?

Retired Career Woman July 16, 2012 at 04:23 PM
Our society has had women's contraception for 50 years, with the resulting expectation that couples can regulate the #of children they produce, so the woman can continue to work, and raise a manageable sized family that they can afford. If no female contraception is available by insurance coverage, results includes : frequent maternity leave that effects the woman's career path, larger families that may strain their careers and incomes thru college years, need for diligent male contraceptive use that may strain the marriage bond, many couples choosing employers where contraceptives are insurance covered( needed until the woman is aged 50+-or paying the full retail cost of female contraceptives for 20-30 years ), (how many coillege educ couples have 10 children now?). Does God want his followers to experience these results of a modern religious institutional ruling? Is this what be fruitful and multiply means for contemporary spiritual believers?
Kevin Lane July 16, 2012 at 04:50 PM
The price of the contraception is the problem. It isn't even possible for government involvement to make it any cheaper. Do you just not care as long as you think someone else pays for it? Why is it that you can have your beliefs, but others should let go theirs and pay for yours? Why can't they have their beliefs? What makes yours more valid than theirs? "can deny their coverage of a medication or procedure" - Insurance companies already do that, and it's not the same thing. The slippery slope is forcing them to go against the religious freedom that built this country. Freedom isn't forcing someone to pay for your contraception. Freedom is the option not to. Freedom is what you are promised, not contraception. That statement is based on the idea that everyone else should pay for your medical (even when it's not medical), whether they like it, agree, or not. Pretty enlightened & tolerant, isn't it? You don't need everyone else to pay your bills for you, you've just been told you do. Whether you believe it or not, it would be cheaper for you to pay for your own, than to pay for everyone else's. The people that oppose this kind of government take over aren't the ones taking from you. They are on your side, whether you are or not. Some people actually understand where the slippery-slope is. If you don't, don't criticize those who do. We should not need to "cowtow" to those that can't see past what they think they'll be getting for "free", when it's just not possible.
Kevin Lane July 16, 2012 at 04:54 PM
I was just trying to explain to someone the concept of "reductio ad absurdum". Thank you.
Kristy July 16, 2012 at 05:11 PM
@Kevin Lane: I do pay for mine. its part of my compensation package. as it is for the vat majority of people who receive their benefits through their employers, which therefore makes the rest of your argument moot.
Karen Clark July 16, 2012 at 05:18 PM
I agree. This is how people manage their families. Who can afford to raise 10 children in this economy? Add to that the risk involved with pregnancy adding to health care costs. I have a better idea. What if insurance companies quit paying for Viagra? After all, if God wants someone to make a baby, he will help the male without artificial assistance -- right? That won't happen because it is males making a big issue about contraceptive coverage. I never thought our society would return to an attitude of "barefoot and pregnant," but that's what is happening here.
Michael Rhodes July 16, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Tough issue. I can understand why a business owner with strong beliefs would not want to supply (through insurance) items that go against their relegious beliefs. At the same time should an employors beliefs affect the employees of that company in regards to their personal life? I lean to Nixon's side on this one. Should employors be allowed to go through a pick out meds and procedures that they believe violate their beliefs? A very slippery sloop to be on with no easy anwser.
Kay Scott-Boyd July 16, 2012 at 08:30 PM
There is one issue no one has even broached. A large number of women are put on brith control pills forr medical reasons other than contraception. People that think contraception is cheap should start looking into its costs! I know people who the cost is several hundred dollars every time they renew their prescription and it isn't prescribed for birth control. So should a large number of womenbe denied access to reasonable health care because of religious reasons? There are many sides to this issue and the reality, in my opinion, is it should not be the government or any specific religion to try and legislate morality. But recognize there will be thousands if not millions of women who will be denied medical care from their insurance comapny because of religious prejudice. Why not go the easier way and have some insurance companies specialize in the demands of religious organizations?
Kevin Lane July 16, 2012 at 08:30 PM
Your employer pays as much or more for your insurance than you do (often forgotten), yet doesn't get a say in it? You still think you're getting something for free, and somehow think you are entitiled to it at someone else's expense. Your personal life is not the responsibility of that employer, it's your respnsibility. You still pretend that contraception is a medical necessity that should be covered by someone else. There are a lot of "elective" procedures that insurance doesn't pay for, what's next, breast enhancement, someone getting their lips done? Where does it end if you don't draw a line at elective? The rest isn't moot, you just found a reason to quit listening. Exactly why you still don't understand. Remember when employers used to have to out-do other companies for the best employees using these compensation packages? You could go find a better paying job, with "better" or at least more fitting benefits. The people who changed that, (and created an 8.8% unemployment rate from 5.4%) are the same ones you think can help you, now. Unfortuanately, that's the only kind of help they can give you. They've created fewer jobs, and less competition for employees. They took away your options, and now you think they can provide more? This is the point that no one will ever address. How exactly does making healthcare more expensive save you any money? People will say it's cheaper, but they can't explain how unless they dismiss the very methods of paying for all of this.
Kevin Lane July 16, 2012 at 08:47 PM
Or the special needs of those women. Or make a distinction between those cases & others. The point again is: the cost. The cause cannot be the solution. It's not even possible, ever, regardless of the example. Not knowing or understanding how we got here is the only way people can think this is a good idea. If you understand that, then you understand that this is only asking for more of the same. We can fix it, but not with more of the problem. You are also assuming that this will make it cheaper. Ok then, show me an occasion where getting the government more involved in something has made things cheaper or easier on the people. Especially working people and their employers. Go.
Rockwood 25 July 16, 2012 at 09:27 PM
@Kevin, Government involvement made calculators, then computers, cheaper and available to most all of us. Many things we use daily came from the investment government made in NASA and that technology continued to be fine-tuned and improved until mass producers picked it up as an industry. It's never black or white.
L Jacoby July 16, 2012 at 09:41 PM
Part of my employment benefits package is medical care. The nature of the medical care I receive should be between my health provider and me. My employer has the right to limit the dollar amount spent overall but not the kind of care provided. Compare this to another part of my employment benefits package—vacation pay. My employer can limit how much time is paid for but cannot specify where I spend my vacation. His objections to Las Vegas should not compel me to go to Disneyland in order to receive my vacation benefits.
Rockwood 25 July 16, 2012 at 09:43 PM
Excellent analogy!
Phil Gonzalez July 16, 2012 at 09:52 PM
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon is evil & is relying on the "Ignorance of the American People" (Alexander Hamilton said "NEVER UNDER estimate the Ignorance of the American People.) Amendment 1 of the US Constitution states CLEARLY : "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF; or of abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peacefully assemble, or to petition the government for a redress of grievances." If you want to change the US Constitution, you MUST amend it (Article 5 of the US Constitution). You can NOT change the definitions of the words. Since the greatest body of government, the US Congress, the President OR the Supreme Court can NOT change the "rights, privileges and immunities" enjoyed by the people in the United States, NEITHER CAN THE LESSER bodies of governments WITHIN the USA change one dot, one iota of the US Constitution or OUR rights, privileges or immunities. Congress, The Presidents AND the Supreme Court have done this intentionally and with EVIL intent since the founding of this country. I URGE ALL citizens of the United States of America to read, study & look at the videos that are posted online and learn about the great evils perpetrated by the evil men since the founding of this country even in this 21st Century.
NotaNativetoWebster July 16, 2012 at 09:58 PM
Actually if you work for the Govt (ie Military) they can, in fact, tell you where you are NOT allowed to vacation. Had a friend who was a Nuclear Launch officer and during the 12 years he held that position, he was forbidden from travel outside the US - security risk. Soooo your analogy only proves that employers should be permitted to choose what will and will not be covered under ins plans that they are footing the bill to pay.
Rockwood 25 July 16, 2012 at 10:17 PM
@NotaNative, Close but nope. Military still didn't have a say in specifics at all and not for all military, for small group. How vacation is spent up to individual. Also how it should be between an individual and their health practitioner.
Rockwood 25 July 16, 2012 at 10:24 PM
Wow. Some would say that those who misdirect others and nullify the collective activities of the Supreme Court and Congress along with the President were doing evil. That's a pretty rough word to be tossed about, especially regarding so many over such a long period of time. Not all on-line is factual or well documented. Perhaps a wider breadth of reading could be useful.
Kevin Lane July 16, 2012 at 11:35 PM
Rockwood, NASA is a "civilian" organization funded by tax dollars. It does not have open books & it does not mean the government necessarily ended their space program. The government gave us cheaper computers & calculators? No, just like they didn't make VCR's & Word Processors cheaper. As more were sold, and the initial capitol was recovered, they naturally got cheaper, and eventually became obsolete, just like nearly every other product. If you mean in schools, you paid for those, likely in state AND Federal taxes, meaning they cost more. Note: NASA & Calculators go back an awful long way. With the endless increase in involvement since then, it's interesting that you had to go back that far to find an example. L J, Are you saying we need to pay for your vacation now? No, you're not. Because they are not the same. Inside your employer insurance package is a list of things they cover, and that's the list. Anything else is not covered, and making them cover everything is neither logical nor feasible. Your analogy doesn't work, they would have to be paying for your gambling, hookers & blow for it to apply. You want your employer to be able to provide better benefits, it takes less government, not more. More is the reason they no longer CAN provide the kinds of benefits & perks they used to, not to mention, the reason why it takes way more than 1 income to run a household these days. There is a ton of evidence on this relationship all the way back to the middle-late 70's.
Seeunmo July 17, 2012 at 09:01 AM
Really???? Really??? You need to get a life
Seeunmo July 17, 2012 at 09:07 AM
you go Kevin everything you said is so true. The government needs to get out of my life and out of my bedroom. Oh and you can get the pill at walmart or target for 9 bucks pay for it your self people
Jaycen Rigger July 17, 2012 at 01:28 PM
@Rockwood 25 And yet you seem to be looking for a one-size-fits-all solution for yourself and everyone else. People and companies must be free to choose not to participate. Jay Nixon has voted against individual freedom.
Jaycen Rigger July 17, 2012 at 01:30 PM
@Rockwood 25 That's an excellent point, Rockwood 25. Just as you know what your employer will and won't cover when you get hired on. So, personal responsibility if fine for a person with school-age children, but not for you. Interesting.
Jaycen Rigger July 17, 2012 at 01:31 PM
Great point, Kristy. You have the freedom to choose to or not to work for whomever you want in America. Don't work for someone you think has a stupid policy. Seems pretty simple to me.
Jaycen Rigger July 17, 2012 at 01:32 PM
@Kevin Lane Too bad you lack understanding of the concept. Tell your friend to find a new mentor.
Jaycen Rigger July 17, 2012 at 01:34 PM
@Karen Clark Can you please explain how allowing people to choose their own contraception (or lack thereof) is "barefoot and pregnant"? What in the world does that even mean? It's not society's responsibility to make sure you can live your life they way you wish. It's YOUR responsibility. I never thought our society would become a collective with people calling for more, but there you are.
Jaycen Rigger July 17, 2012 at 01:36 PM
Excuse me. The employer wasn't required to provide the service until Obamatax came along. Somehow, and God only knows how this is possible, humanity has survived for thousands of years without employer covered contraception. Oh how in the world did we do it!?
Jaycen Rigger July 17, 2012 at 01:37 PM
Yes, why not allow companies to choose what they will and won't provide, or what they will and won't specialize? Do you really think you or Jay Nixon is qualified to make decisions for everyone else? Well...based on your comment, I guess you do. Frightening.
Jaycen Rigger July 17, 2012 at 01:38 PM
@Rockwood 25 No private innovation made those things cheaper. Large public demand made them cheaper. Your opening sentence is simply wrong.
Devon Seddon July 17, 2012 at 11:46 PM
To Everyone: There are a lot of different means of birth control, some are even safer in many ways. You can choose to go the route of drugs & chemicals & surgeries if you like. But that choice should not cost me, and it certainly shouldn't cost everyone, much less require government assistance on the highest level. Oh, and since there DO happen to be many other & even safer methods that require no medicine (unless it's a 1-time cost), maybe it's not even medicine, ever thought of that? Yes. You always thought about it like that. That is until someone told you someone else is going to pay for it, then it became "medicine".
Kay Scott-Boyd July 18, 2012 at 01:56 AM
Great analogy! I think it should be betweem the person and his Dr. NOT the insurance company or the man next door saying you hsould not have soch and sich treatment because it goes against his perceptions. Leave it to the medical professional who has gone to school for WAY more years than more insurance people have!
Christine R July 18, 2012 at 12:20 PM
It is sad, to me, that people cannot or will not grasp this issue. It is about personal liberty. If you own a business, you should not be forced to do things if not doing them does not break a law and is not unethical. I am amazed someone so truly dumb as Sandra Fluke was accepted into Georgetown. I truly believe that she is too intellectually lazy to have found where to purchase affordable contraceptives or where to obtain them for free even though this UMSL Grad could tell you where to do so after a 1 minute Google Search. Those of you who agree with the Governors decision are either intellectually lazy or just plain dumb.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »