for proving my point.
The Missouri legislature voted to defeat a measure that would (re)allow county health departments to carry contraception. Not, to make sure this is clear, emergency contraception. But just plain, ol' oral contraception.
The article says that anti-abortion groups were opposed to the spending. Why, you might ask? I mean, won't contraceptives reduce the number of abortions performed? Won't it also save the state millions of dollars on health services as well as the benefits given to low-income mothers? This isn't a pro-life or a cost-effective measure, is it? So, what's the big deal?
Thankfully, Representative Susan Phillips (R-Kansas City) gives us an explanation: "If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that." Ahh! I get it. Or, rather, got it. It's more about controlling sexuality, isn't it? They clearly care more about that than about preventing abortions. And I think that says an awful lot about their "pro-life" cause.
Edit: I just wanted to add that I am well aware that this isn't just *my* argument. The only reason I kept linking back to my post of a few days ago is because I've been recently debating this very topic, and people have asked for evidence that some people are more anti-contraception than anti-abortion (thus, making their issue more about sexuality than life). This constitutes said evidence, so I thought I would play it up.