I agree with this writer that it is stupid for Conservatives to cut funding to anything that prevents unwanted babies from being conceived. Especially since they want nothing to do with funding the care and early education of these young unplanned/unwanted children. And yet they do have a tendency to be stupid at times, so I have no doubt that they will try. CNN Opinion: Birth Control
On the other hand I am not sure how one can say that the funding does not support PP's ability to do abortions? I mean if the funding goes away, I assume PP will need to reprioritize their spend unless make up donations can be found.
Well if their funding does get cut, I will probably have another charity to add to my list. And if there are 10 million households like mine out there... We only need to give $50 per year... And the upside is that maybe PP can become more efficient and effective if they don't have their hands tied by the Religious Right Politicians / Bureaucrats...
Life News $500 Million / yr to PP
On the other hand I am not sure how one can say that the funding does not support PP's ability to do abortions? I mean if the funding goes away, I assume PP will need to reprioritize their spend unless make up donations can be found.
Well if their funding does get cut, I will probably have another charity to add to my list. And if there are 10 million households like mine out there... We only need to give $50 per year... And the upside is that maybe PP can become more efficient and effective if they don't have their hands tied by the Religious Right Politicians / Bureaucrats...
Life News $500 Million / yr to PP
56 comments:
What I have been told many times by pro life advocates is that providing abortions is immensely profitable for the abortion providers. So logically, it would seem that abortion is subsidizing family planning services, rather than the other way around. It follows then if family planning subsidies are reduced, the abortion side of the business will be under pressure to expand to make up for the lost support.
For the devotees of logic out there, I am looking for a reasoned explanation of how reducing a competitive service birth control, hurts the competitive service, abortion, to which they actually object.
--Hiram
Excellent point...
It's way too easy to complicate a simple issue, I have found. To put it more simply, if you oppose abortion, why don't you favor policies that make it easier to get access to birth control?
--Hiram
Here is where the word "fungible" comes into play. The US taxpayers should not be in the business of subsidizing the murder of its own potential citizens, especially when it results in a eugenics program where the "lower races" are disproportionately killed. Therefore, giving taxpayer money to an organization that offers a [supposedly] beneficial service like birth control, but that also does abortions, means that the abortion business gets subsidized because the funds are "fungible," that is, what is spent on the one could as easily be spent on the other. But cut the funds provided to the whole organization, and that money would need to be raised from willing donors (or customers) who do not care about the combining of those two different businesses.
If PP wants to separate their two businesses so the taxpayers can support bc but not abortion, that might be alright, but I see no reason why people should not be responsible for their own bc. It's pretty cheap, and not using it is irresponsible as we have said many times. And needing it because of irresponsible sex is...
"The US taxpayers should not be in the business of subsidizing the murder of its own potential citizens, especially when it results in a eugenics program where the "lower races" are disproportionately killed."
So shouldn't dollars be used to prevent unwanted dollars as opposed to being used to perform abortions? Bear in mind that those dollars are totally fungible and can be used for both purposes.
--Hiram
No. One good purpose does not require funding a bad one. And there is no rule or obligation to fund irresponsible behavior. Preventing unwanted children is a personal responsibility and "society" is not obligated to pick up the tab for it.
One good purpose does not require funding a bad one.
But other things can fund a good purpose.
Preventing unwanted children is a personal responsibility and "society" is not obligated to pick up the tab for it.
But should it?
--Hiram
We as a society know that:
- there are ~600,000 abortions in the US each year
- many households are trapped in poverty due too many children too few adults.
- kids raised in poverty often stay impoverished as they grow older
- there is a HUGE social, emotional and financial cost to all of this
And the solution to much of this is SO EASY and INEXPENSIVE. Make Long Acting Birth Control free and easy to get for those who want it. And yet the silly religious right fights the logical and practical solution.
Maybe Hwy 12 provides a good comparison.
I mean it should be simple for responsible people to drive on their side of the road. However the facts and data showed that some people weren't and it was costing society financially, socially and emotionally. So society stopped arguing and simply fixed the problem.
And Jerry, I think you should read that CNN opinion piece closer. The cost of BC is very very high if you are low income.
"...for those who want it." And therein lies the problem, does it not? You assume a level of personal responsibility in preventing unwanted pregnancies that you simultaneously insist those who actually become pregnant do not have.
Thought experiment: Pills are available from Walmart for 8$/month or less. Other forms of birth control are, on a daily basis, even cheaper. Now suppose instead it was free. What would be the increase in use? Or do you want to make it mandatory for certain classes of people?
Jerry,
Where do you come up with these things?
USNWR Birth Control Costs
First of all, one needs a prescription and that means paying for a doctor's appt. Then their is the medication cost and $8 sounds like a real bargain.
Let's just say $20/mth + $180/yr. This adds up to $35/mth.
Quite the bite of a poor girls / woman's budget.
Now it seems that you want to limit the options and freedom for poor women that are readily available for others.
You who speaks of school vouchers, equality and choice wants to keep poor women trapped in pregnancy and poverty, instead of giving them a fair and equal choice. It is ironic.
You, who claim that poor women are too irresponsible to avoid behaviors that lead to unwanted pregnancy would suddenly, if provided free bc, be responsible enough to actually use it. And since most bc methods have a 1-20% failure rate, it is likely the additional carelessness promoted by HAVING that free bc would likely result in MORE unwanted pregnancies.
In short, "giving them a fair and equal choice" and then claiming they are too irresponsible to be making those choices just doesn't make sense.
Seems to me that people who seek health care are acting responsibly.
--Hiram
Jerry,
The is why LARC is best, but it also costs more. Efficacy by Device Type.
Jerry,
Yes, young poor women want relationships and sexual activity just like more well off women... Is that a surprise to you? And if they are poor with dependent personalities, they may feel pressured to be sexually active more often. (ie attract man and keep him happy)
Does this mean that she will forget to take her birth control pill? I don't think they are necessarily related. Though she may be so immature that she thinks of "trapping the man" with a baby. Or having a baby for the unconditional love they offer.
Long and short. Poor women are at a terrible disadvantage in this area relative to their more well off peers. If they need to choose between rent, food and BC, unfortunately the BC likely drops and she starts to rationalize / worry.
Hiram,
Sorry, but I can not think of pregnancy as a illness or injury... So most of them are not seeking healthcare, they are seeking "publically funded barriers" to prevent an unintended event from happening...
Sorry, but I can not think of pregnancy as a illness or injury...
Do you think of it as something that has to do with health? Does it require some level of care? Do you think women who are pregnant should see doctors?
Is health care limited only to instances where there has been injury or illness? Should a child get a measles vaccination only after becoming ill with measles?
I suffer from nearsightedness, the result of neither illness or injury. That being the case should I not seek care from a doctor?
--Hiram
Yes a Mother and the child she is carrying in the womb should both get healthcare...
Now there are certain female conditions where hormone (ie pill) therapy is a good healthcare. (ie skin issues, sever cramping, etc) But to just prevent a pregnancy... Not so much so in my opinion.
You make my point perfectly if you think getting pregnant is equivalent to getting the measles.
"Yes, young poor women want relationships and sexual activity just like more well off women... "
You sound like those sex ed proponents who tell kids "you shouldn't have sex but if you do, here's a condom." We tell them the responsible choice, and then subsidize their irresponsibility. Does that make any sense?
Our problem isn't poor couples who can't afford birth control; our problem is unwed motherhood. What is "cheapest" for the government should not be the metric here, but rather what is "right." And that is for taxpayers to quit subsidizing irresponsibility or eliminating the consequences (through abortion). Unless you are willing to insist on mandatory contraceptives as a condition of welfare, you are faced with asking people making poor choices to make better ones. How is that working for us?
I don't think we have ever tried making LARC free and readily available. Maybe we should since preaching abstinence and praying for miracles certainly has failed.
Now there are certain female conditions where hormone (ie pill) therapy is a good healthcare. (ie skin issues, sever cramping, etc) But to just prevent a pregnancy..
Are women who have cramping issues or whose skin is less than optimal in poor health?
--Hiram
I would call it physical discomfort, and yes the skin conditions can cause complications.
Why is it important for you to think of birth control as healthcare?
I would call it physical discomfort, and yes the skin conditions can cause complications.
More physical discomfort than pregnancy? And do complications even more serious than less than sparkly skin occur with pregnancy?
Why is it important for you to think of birth control as healthcare?
Because I have respect for language and the way it is used. And much more importantly, I don't think quibbling over semantics should affect health care policy.
--Hiram
" I don't think we have ever tried making LARC free and readily available. Maybe we should since preaching abstinence and praying for miracles certainly has failed."
Or how about this: Stop subsidizing irresponsible sexual behavior and stop "protecting" people from the consequences of poor choices? And do you really consider that all of this government "help" has been a raging success? If the government steps in to relieve people of the consequences of their bad decisions, guess what? You get more bad decisions, not fewer.
Now if you want to offer birth control as part of Medicaid and require some sort of co-pay so it isn't completely free, I could see it. I object to Medicaid as structured, but that's a separate issue.
: Stop subsidizing irresponsible sexual behavior and stop "protecting" people from the consequences of poor choices?
Do you really think we shouldn't protect people from the consequences of their poor choices or the poor choices of others?
--Hiram
It depends on what you mean by "protect." Certainly the primary duty of government is to protect us from each other, or from "others" wherever and whoever they are. But government should only in very limited circumstance protect us from ourselves. They certainly should not be doing so in a way that requires others to PAY for our self-inflicted injuries.
"relieve people of the consequences of their bad decisions"
Welfare, Medicaid, etc is when we transfer the consequence from them to us....
Free LARC is how we reduce the consequences of their poor choices impacting the innocent result (ie fetus / child) and society. (ie poverty, failing schools, crime, welfare, higher taxes, etc)
The problem is that you cannot isolate these effects. Wasn't it Obama who said he wouldn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" and therefore their (presumably) poor choices would be "solved" by killing the child before birth? No harm, right? And the cheapest for "society"? But if government prevents all the "punishment" for irresponsible sex, then (we get more of it and) the punishment falls on the innocent child. Now if we try to protect the innocent child we end up punishing everybody else with higher taxes (and the social pathologies resulting from making a horrible muck of it). Seems to me the best course of action here is to somehow "carrot and stick" the irresponsible sex by "society" not accepting responsibility for the consequences. I know we've come a long way down the other road, but going further isn't helpful.
Once more, the most logical course here is mandatory LARC for anyone on welfare. Is that what you want to do?
Jerry,
You are funny. There is no punishment falling on the innocent child if they are not conceived in the first place... This is just about your moral view.
"if government prevents all the "punishment" for irresponsible sex, then (we get more of it and) the punishment falls on the innocent child."
If it is stingy nature that drives your view, the free LARC would be cheap compared what we are currently incurring.
Now I agree that I think Parent(s) should be licensed before being allowed to have kids. Some simple criteria may be applied:
- Can they afford to pay for housing, food, etc?
- Can they pass a basic parenting test?
It is amusing that we make people get a driver's license and pay for insurance before letting them drive. And yet anybody can be a Parent.
That said, my view does not matter since most people believe that having children is a right, not a privilege.
So no need to force anyone to take the free LARC.
You are a big fan of vouchers so that Parent(s) of all incomes are equally free to choose their schools.
I think you should be a big fan of Free LARC so potential parent(s) of all incomes are equally free to control when they will have children.
Or do you think poor women should be trapped in poverty, barefoot and pregnant?
And remember... With no conception there is no possible abortion.
"Wasn't it Obama who said he wouldn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" and therefore their (presumably) poor choices would be "solved" by killing the child before birth? "
Obama was talking about sex education when he said that, not abortion. Here's the entire quote in context:
"So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.
You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions."
Thanks so much, Sean, for that quote. It's maybe the most sensible thing I have heard Obama say. In a perfect world, he would be correct. But John isn't talking about people like Obama's kids. He's talking about people who really don't do well with "education" of any stripe, and about rebellious, sometimes poorly supervised, hormone-addled youngsters. My point continues to be that I believe the cost of birth control is but a minor consideration in the more general problem of unwed motherhood, and that subsidizing bc is liable to have the same result as subsidizing unwed motherhood has, that of begetting more "begetting."
Look, I may not like it, and I still believe the problem is more a moral issue (and moral corruption by government subsidy), but at least in an interim offering bc as a part of taxpayer-funded medical care is just common sense. Physicians can recommend it to their patients and recommend they take it, and the responsible ones will. Seems to me that is already the case and PP doesn't need to even exist for that purpose, but either way, until they split the two sides of their business, taxpayers should not be supporting any of it.
John, that's a good point (about bc "vouchers") but I think (don't know) that is what Medicaid is, is it not? And with that having been in place for such a considerable time, and that we now have this "problem," why do you believe having PP also do it is going to make any difference?
It seems not all poor people are on Medicaid.
Interesting stat on that page.
"For every dollar of public funding spent on Contraception Services Medicaid saves $5.68 in cost associated with unintended pregnancy and infant care."
And that does not even included... Welfare, ongoing Medicaid, crime, etc...
Apparently another good thing about ACA that may be gutted by the silly Religious Right.
I see a "good thing" (discounting that it is part of the highly flawed Medicaid system and part of ACA), but what makes you think the RR wants to "gut" it? Is it that the money would flow through doctors rather than PP? Because that seems to me a positive.
I'll also point out the Trump doesn't seem to be much of a RR person.
Because unfortunately folks like yourself and further right seem to be more interested in "immoral" behavior than pragmatic solutions to society's ills.
That old "why is society helping to pay for birth control"? "Those people" should just stay celibate...
Or the concern that the cost effective IUD in rare cases may trigger a fertilized ovum to not attach to the uterine wall... Therefore it is morally unacceptable.
Hopefully Trump is more pragmatic, unfortunately I don't think Pence is...
Question: Do "society's ills" ever have a moral component, in your view? Is government law and regulation a complete solution to the way millions of individuals lead their lives?
And to me, it is a false choice to say "society pays for birth control" or "people stay celibate." LOTS of other choices, including some bad ones and some good ones. Unless government commands otherwise (see above).
"Killing" a fertilized ovum (by interfering with implantation) is indeed a moral issue for a few people, but I am wondering how you can say it is rare? Isn't that exactly what an IUD does, every time it "works" to prevent pregnancy?
"Isn't that exactly what an IUD does, every time it "works" to prevent pregnancy?"
Generally, no. IUDs work by preventing fertilization by either making it impossible for the sperm to reach the egg and/or by making the cervical mucus toxic to sperm. If the timing of the insertion of the IUD is such that there is an already fertilized egg in the system, it's possible that the insertion will prevent it from implanting.
Jerry,
Read the linked site and LEARN... :-)
Yes, some of society's ills do have a moral component... Examples: Assault, Theft, Murder, Fraud, etc, etc, etc.
I don't think having sex with another consenting adult is going to make it on that list in our modern society. That is why it is best to ensure that free LARC is available to protect society from the consequences of poor irresponsible participants transferring the consequences to an innocent child and society as a whole.
Just like the Jersey Barriers were needed on Hwy 12.
Do "society's ills" ever have a moral component, in your view?
Yes.
Is government law and regulation a complete solution to the way millions of individuals lead their lives?
Governments, along with other institutions of our society can help address problems. I don't think there are any "complete" solutions out there.
--Hiram
"best to ensure that free LARC is available to protect society from the consequences of poor irresponsible participants transferring the consequences to an innocent child and society as a whole."
What's wrong with transferring the "natural consequences" to the participants? Law should be working to reduce the consequences to the innocent child by putting the responsibility directly on those irresponsible people where it belongs. "Society" should not be subsidizing their irresponsible choices, nor should we abandon the notion that moral standards were created and observed because they had a very practical result. If you want to make LARC available as a portion of "free" health care for the poor, fine, but only the responsible people will use it, same as now.
You are one of those who want to protect irresponsible parents from consequences.
Remember my simple idea to punish parents who do not attend Parent Teacher conferences, ensure their child's homework is done, ensure their child comes to school clean, fed and rested...
All basic parental responsibilities.
Therefore your hesitancy to provide B/C and your reluctance to hold parents accountable leads to the child(ren) and society bearing the consequences. Make up your mind...
"You are one of those who want to protect irresponsible parents from consequences."
Quite the reverse. I want to insure that the consequences fall on those being irresponsible. Giving them free bc only works on those responsible enough to seek it out (and also assuming they could not afford it or an alternative for themselves), while you let the irresponsible continue on, and protect them from consequence by offering abortions and "free" welfare money.
I said =put the responsibility on= the parents, not punish them. How about we start with simply requiring women on welfare to name the father, and then dun the father for the child support? A shock at first, but after a while we would see such irresponsibility reduced. We require (and help) them to live up to their responsibilities first, and only resort to punishment when they refuse.
Society should not let the child suffer a dangerous parent, but neither should it accept the responsibility for others' poor choices.
And I'm glad you aren't in charge. I've often found Parent-teacher conferences useless and sometimes maddening. Kids sometimes stay up late or skip breakfast or fall (or jump) in mud puddles. You are setting yourself (or the failing school system) as the arbiter of who is and is not a good ("responsible") parent. Frightening.
We don't give welfare, food and to protect the irresponsible Parent... We do it to protect the innocent child(ren).
As you know I am fine with forcing Mother to identify Father. And if they choose to not do so... Then what?
No Teacher is going to press the issue for an occasional issue. You are just giving chronic poor irresponsible Parents a free pass to continue as they are. In other words, you are allowing them to avoid consequences and pass them on to the child(ren) and society.
If Momma doesn't choose to identify Baby Daddy, then she becomes responsible for the financial support of the child. She doesn't get to dump that off on the taxpayers, period. Now that may be difficult for her, but too bad. If she cannot feed the kid properly, CPS steps in, but she keeps the financial responsibility for herself regardless of where the child is.
And for the second comment, turn your first question around: If these "irresponsible parents" (a category I believe FAR smaller than what you claim) don't go to Parent-Teacher conferences (a relief for teachers), then what? Isn't it always far better to allow people the opportunity to be responsible, and help them to exercise it, than for government to step in and take on that responsibility and THEN demand they exercise it properly?
I also point out that allowing schools to blame parents enables THEM to be irresponsible. Assuming we ever start holding schools responsible for results (as supposedly NCLB did), can't you just see the school purging themselves of the "unlucky kids" by getting them shipped elsewhere, just as you claim private schools do?
The punishment wouldn't be kicking the child out of school. It may be cutting that welfare check or the child tax credit... Just like your punishment for not naming Daddy.
And I am sorry but I set the "acceptable Parent" bar pretty low...
Attend Parent Teacher conferences, ensure their child's homework is done, ensure their child comes to school clean, fed and rested.
If they can not accomplish this most of the time, then they are failing as Parents.
As for quantity of irresponsible parents out there... This indicates it may be pretty high.
Some more data.
And More Data
Now if you put as much energy into teaching adults who made babies how to be real Parents, we may get somewhere.
See... The sex/conception part requires no self discipline, self control, good self image, maturity, academic capability, skills, empathy, money, job, consistency, coaching skills, communication skills, etc... Or any of the other skills / knowledge that is required to be a good responsible parent.
And yet you keep insisting that almost anyone who has sex and carries the child to term is a "Parent". (to be trusted with a child)
And the people who were academically capable and showed enough self discipline to make it through an Elementary Education degree where they learned specifically about child development are "questionable". (not to be trusted)
Remind me not to ask you for hiring advice.
You know, I think both of your concerns-- irresponsible conception and subsequent irresponsible parenting-- have the same explanation: Good people in a bad system produce bad results. I claim all these Baby Mamas are victims of a bad system where unwed motherhood is subsidized and not criticized. And those wonderful teachers are thrown into a system that is geared towards maximizing union dues and the children are generally "widgets" down the assembly line rather than individuals with unique learning abilities and/or handicaps.
How else do you explain the fact that the unwed motherhood rate has climbed so dramatically, or that the schools are now failing so dramatically? What has changed more in the last 40 years, human beings or the size and reach of government?
You definitely like to point everywhere except the irresponsible sex participants who brought a baby into the world. A baby that they were not ready or capable of caring for and raising responsibly...
You speak of making them bear the consequences of irresponsibility but have NO follow through. Just excuses for their behavior... And excuses for their failure to raise their kids well...
And as for what has changed in the last 50 years... Pretty much everything is the correct answer. Though I do agree that the war on poverty was a BUST.
By the way, schools are failing dramatically for two simple reasons. NCLB forced everyone to collect and report data. And the expectations keep increasing. These schools have been failing for generations, but no one knew it was happening. Where do you think all those poor people came from 50+ years ago?
"You speak of making them bear the consequences of irresponsibility but have NO follow through." I don't know who "you" is, but it cannot be I.
I think your whole thesis is in fact unfounded. Suppose you are told "Sex is really important. Marriage is not. Don't have sex but if you do use a condom. If you have a baby the government will give you money. If you get pregnant you can have an abortion; it is your right. If it feels good do it. If you have another baby while on welfare we will give you more money, and no one will check to see if there was a 'man in the house.' Don't worry, the schools will feed and educate the kid." Now, who is being irresponsible, when the very definition of responsible sex has been drummed out of you?
As for all those poor people 50 years ago? They are still with us in the same numbers, except now the vast majority are from unwed mothers rather than impoverished intact working families.
Post a Comment