WATCH: Steelman Joins SSM in Opposing Mandatory Insurance Coverage of Birth Control
Missouri resident Sarah Steelman is a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate and the state's former treasurer.
*Editor's note: An earlier version of this article and its accompanying headline were unclear about the issue on which Sarah Steelman has weighed in. Steelman is opposed to mandatory insurance coverage of birth control. The article has been updated to clarify that point.
Sarah Steelman, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate and former Missouri treasurer, has taken to the airwaves to respond to the national controversy over mandating insurance coverage of birth control*.
She isn't alone in opposing such coverage. St. Louis organizations concerned about the idea include SSM Health Care, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. SSM St. Mary's Health Center in Richmond Heights is a part of the health care system.
Politico reporter Dave Catanese said the spot would start airing on the Fox News Channel last week. It features Steelman staring at the camera and condemning the decision.
In addition to Brunner and Steelman, U.S. Rep. Todd Akin (R-Wildwood) is also in the GOP primary to determine who will face U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), later this year. Both Brunner and Akin have sharply criticized the decision.
Closer to home, state Sen. John Lamping (R-Ladue) is pushing legislation stipulating that no entity “shall be compelled to obtain coverage for or provide coverage for abortion, contraception, or sterilization in a health plan if such items or procedures are contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions.” It recently passed a Senate committee.
“I’ve requested this bill be given a prompt hearing so we can debate it on the floor as soon as possible,” Lamping said in a statement this week. “Protecting the religious freedom of Missourians is a right upon which the government should not intrude.”
More from the web
- St. Louis Post-Dispatch Catholic hospitals in area plan to fight birth control rule
SGB
11:37 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
The phrase “mandatory birth control”, in this case, is misleading and inflammatory. The phrase you are searching for is “mandatory insurance coverage of birth control”.
“Mandatory birth control” has a specific meaning, and hearkens back to a specific historical moment. It refers to forcing individuals to undergo sterilization or use birth control measures, including forced abstinence, to keep them from reproducing at all. It ties in with eugenics in an attempt to keep “undesirables” from reproducing, had its moment in the US 80 plus years ago, and is utterly abhorrent to any modern person – right, left, or center – who has given even a little thought to morals and ethics. To conflate that insult to human dignity with this piddling insurance law decision is irresponsible at best. Yes, both issues have a moral dimension, at least from the point of view of those who think birth control is always immoral, but the two disparate concepts are in no way equivalent by any reasonable person’s estimation.
Nate Birt
1:53 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
An excellent point — thank you, SGB. I've updated the article and its headline to reflect this important distinction.