Way to go KC Coalition of Labor Women! Outlawing benefits for workers is a labor issue. Thank you Representatives Kelly, Still and Webber and Senator Schaefer for doing the right thing. What's with Rep. Jones? Looks like he is out of step with Boone County and working people.
Columbia Tribune
By RUDI KELLER
Published September 12, 2012 at 1:19 p.m.
Updated September 13, 2012 at 2 p.m.
JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri lawmakers overrode Gov. Jay Nixon yesterday and passed a bill designed to prevent consumers, employers and insurance companies from being forced to accept coverage of contraception and abortions over religious objections.
The House vote, 109-45, was the minimum needed to pass the bill over Nixon's objections. In the Senate, the margin, 26-6, was more comfortable. The bill needed 23 votes in the 34-member Senate.
State Reps. Chris Kelly, Mary Still and Stephen Webber, all Columbia Democrats, voted to sustain Nixon's veto. State Rep. Caleb Jones, R-California, voted to override. In the upper chamber, state Sen. Kurt Schaefer of Columbia was the only Republican to join with five Democrats supporting the veto. At a news conference after the votes, Nixon said he was disappointed in the outcome.
"It is a shame we are still debating access to birth control in 2012," Nixon told reporters. The protections for religious objections to paying for birth control or abortion are already strong in Missouri, he said. "I don't see why they need to pass a law," he said.
The override vote drew an immediate response from a Kansas City labor group. Edward Keenan, an attorney for the Greater Kansas City Coalition of Labor Women, filed a lawsuit in Cole County seeking to block enforcement of the law.
"We will not allow the tea party-dominated legislature to segment workers through culture wars and systematically take away their rights," Keenan said as he announced the lawsuit in a news release.
Debate was brief in both chambers, with the only suspense, coming before the session began, being about whether any members of the Senate would attempt a filibuster. In the House, Republicans ended debate after about 20 minutes. GOP supporters of the bill said it was a matter of religious and economic freedom. Besides, one said, birth control medications are cheap enough that it shouldn't be an issue how the bill is paid.
"This bill does not prohibit the sale or purchase of contraceptives," said Rep. David Sater, R-Cassville, who also is a pharmacist.
Several Democrats were left standing waiting to talk when debate was shut down. Still was one. She issued a statement that said she opposed the override "because the ability to plan for a family is important to a woman's health, her career and the economic well-being of her family. This bill is unfair. It discriminates against women employees by eliminating a benefit that is important to the health and well-being of a woman."
Still also said she objected to the male-dominated chamber deciding health issues for women.
Under the bill, which Nixon said in his veto message in many ways mirrors protections already in law, no consumer could be required to pay for birth control, contraception, sterilization or abortion coverage if they have a religious or moral objection to doing so.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. John Lamping, R-St. Louis County, said Nixon was wrong. The current law is not strong enough, he said, and employees, employers and insurance companies need protection against new federal mandates requiring that birth control and contraceptive coverage be included in all health plans.
The bill does nothing to restrict access to birth control or contraception coverage, Lamping said. "This bill does not restrict access," he said. "This bill makes clear that you can't force someone who disagrees with you to pay for those services."
There was no filibuster in the Senate. Sen. Jolie Justus, D-Kansas City, said she had promised not to block the vote. She said the bill was unnecessary and predicted that legal challenges, such as the one filed later in the day, would result in large costs for the state and ultimately show the law can't be enforced.
"This is a cheap political stunt that restates current law that just creates another obstacle to women obtaining birth control," Justus said. "We are putting ourselves at risk for a lawsuit that the state of Missouri is going to have to defend."
Schaefer, the only Republican to oppose the bill, said he agreed it was unnecessary. If, under current law, an employer does not wish to provide the coverage but an employee wants it, the worker can purchase it as an add-on to the plan.
"This allows the insurance companies to no longer provide that," Schaefer said. "I don't think it is right, and I don't think it is necessary."
No comments:
Post a Comment