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?

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 »