This week, people across the country have been up in arms about a Missouri lawmaker's desire to curb steak and seafood being purchased via EBT. He has now clarified his bill's language.

According to the Washington Post, Rep. Rick Brattin says his proposal is intended "to get the food stamp program back to its original intent, which is nutrition assistance" and not to get rid of canned tuna and fish sticks.  He also went on to say that he's seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards, and that if he can't afford those foods on my pay, he doesn't "want people on the taxpayer's dime to afford those kinds of foods either."

Brattin describes the behaviors of some on SNAP assistance as an injustice to those who pay into the system but aren't able to enjoy the same foods. When the story first broke, it brought about massive opposition from those that receive SNAP benefits but just as much support from those who agree with Brattin.  Comments ranged from allowing parents to dictate what their family eats to those that thought the idea was great to those that cited the use of SNAP programs by the military and veterans.

Although, this is an issue that has both pros and cons, but one where a reasonable compromise could be reached, many aren't supportive of Brattin because of other statements he's made such as a person being a victim of "legitimate rape."

He's also the legislator that suggested bringing back the firing squad for executions when lethal injection drugs aren't available.

Should Brattin's former proposals be taken into consideration with new proposals, or are all of the issues totally unrelated, other than their sponsor? You can read the bill's full language here. What are  your thoughts?