Missouri – we want to be as stupid as South Dakota!

What Mac said. Any woman who votes Republican ought to just sign over her uterus NOW. That’s all these asshats think you are, ladies. A twat.

pesky’apostrophe: always better than an unexpected period.

So. I know we’re all living in this weird world where fetuses and pre-fetuses and the concept of fetuses and sperm and eggs which make up the fetus are suppose to be more important and have more rights than women who have made it to adulthood and babies, infants, and children who are already born. I’m sure everyone who thinks the government should be intruding into our personal lives to stop the unchecked slaughter of babies due to masterbation, family planning, birth control, and abortion should also be spending whatever it takes to ensure the health and welfare of poor children and abused children, right? Right?

*crickets*

Yesterday the Missouri House voted to ban contraceptive funding for low-income women, and to prohibit state-funded programs from referring those women to other programs. You know, because as sponsor Rep. Susan Phillips says, using tax payer money to provide contraception is wrong. It’s wrong, I say!

So let me get this straight – Republicans are constantly bitching and complaining about having their hard earned money confiscated to pay for the stereotypical welfare queen who keeps popping out kids so she can get more welfare, right? Now Republicans are choosing to stop funding to a program that allows low income women to be responsible by limiting the number of kids they have, which might allow them to go to school and pull themselves up out of poverty, thus decreasing the need to spend as much on welfare? I’m sure they could just say that low-income women just shouldn’t have sex, but a good portion of these people are probably married – are they saying that married people shouldn’t have sex? Yes, I know, sex is for procreation with the Republican set, blah blah blah…but then they can’t be allowed to bitch about the welfare queens popping out two dozen kids anymore – they’re encouraging it!

I won’t even mention that the proposal specifically targets low-income women. What about state funding for male contraception? Is Missouri going to ban programs that provide condoms to low-income men and prevent state-funded medical clinics from handing out low cost vasectomies? I didn’t notice anything about low-income men, so this is really just a sexist bill aimed at punishing women for daring to a] be poor and b] have vaginas.

And what if the low-income person in question happens to be a junkie? Isn’t that a little irresponsible to encourage a junkie to get pregnant? I know the goal here is forced childbirth for all, but isn’t that just a teeny bit extreme and not particularly good when the baby is born a junkie, too?

Perhaps the low-income woman is using, let’s say, the birth control pill to regulate her period or control debilitating PMS and cramps. Or maybe she uses birth control of some sort because she’s going through chemo or has a history of ectopic pregnancies or something else. Not every woman uses birth control simply because she’s a big sluts intent on thwarting the patriarchy, you know. Isn’t it really unethical and against a doctor’s oath to refuse brith control under those circumstances?

Not to mention that more unwanted pregnancies due to lack of birth control access means more abortions. Of course, I’m sure that Missouri will follow South Dakota’s lead by trying to ban abortion. Not that it’ll stop women from having abortions…it’ll just mean more women will take matters into their own hands.

Good job, Missouri. What a bunch of schmucks.