Planned Parenthood demands cheaper birth control for all
Give me a Boo-Freaking-Hoo this morning for the poor college students and their Planned Parenthood pill peddlers who are crying to the government that they can’t afford $25 monthly contraception bills. America is, like, so unfair:
Cal Poly’s Health and Counseling Services has seen the cost of contraceptives triple in recent months, according to center Director Martin Bragg.
The higher cost, he said, is the result of 2005 federal legislation that barred university health clinics from access to lower-priced drugs.
And while the local Planned Parenthood organization has kept rates the same for its clients paying for birth control, the organization must raise money to cover rising costs to buy the drugs from suppliers, according to its spokeswoman.
Bragg said “thousands” of Cal Poly students seek birth control from the university’s health services center. He said he didn’t have specific numbers, but he estimates a month’s supply of birth control pills now costs Cal Poly students about $25.
That amount isn’t as much as the monthly supply of $40 to $50 for pills in other parts of the country, but it’s more than the $5 to $10 per month that once was standard.
“Students are feeling the increased costs,” he said.
Officials at Planned Parenthood say the higher prices are putting birth control out of reach for many financially strapped students, and they want Congress to make the issue a priority.
Guess who’s ready to help?
In Washington, Planned Parenthood has found a sympathetic ear in Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. They’ve teamed up on a bill that would reverse the 2005 provision, hoping to bring back discounted prices to college campuses.
A similar bill is pending in the House of Representatives…
…Bragg said he favors congressional intervention in reducing the cost of contraceptives to college students.
“When you look at the data of the termination of pregnancies, this is money well spent,” he said. “The cost of terminating pregnancies or the cost of an unwanted child to society is much higher.”
Here’s a prescription: How about trying self-restraint? It’s free.
***
Commenter ctmom: “Add it to the stimulation package!”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » Hardy Har Har: Planned Parenthood Complains That $25/Mo Is Too High For The Pill..Obama Agrees
- WebElf Blogroll News « The WebElf Report
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Pundit & Pundette
» Westboro haters have enough to go around for everyone
Pundit & Pundette
» Guess what? Hasan frequented strip clubLegal Insurrection
» Pelosi's Abortion Land Mine ExplodesRiehl World View
» Holder Cares About CAIRStop The ACLU
» Hasan Tried To Contact al Qaeda. Sounds Like A Jihadi To MeNewsBusters.org
» Matthews on Ft. Hood Suspect Warning Signal: 'That's Not a Crime to Call al Qaeda, Is It?'Ed Driscoll
» Go Flag Yourself, Mr. President!
My husband gets the respect and sexuality he deserves. There are only 4-5 days/month where we have to abstain. People hear NFP and they think we live like monks. Not true.
In fact, studies indicate couples that practice NFP actually have more sex, have healthier marriages, and have a drastically lower rate of divorce. Because I am not denying my sexuality by artificially contracepting I am also not denying my husband his sexuality.
My point was – many are arguing that it’s “unfair” for the woman to have to shoulder the burden for the Pills, while also arguing that a woman *needs* to have the pills so she can be readily accessible to her date/boyfriend/spouse and that she *has* to be having sex or she’s somehow not an adult. There’s also the argument of “women’s body, women’s choice” – wherein a man has no say over his unborn child.
I am just arguing from the perspective of those who say a woman needs to have her body and sexuality respected by…stifling her natural bodily functions (fertility) to make her body an object.
How is that “progressive”? How is that “liberating”? It isn’t.
#100 englishqueen01:
Well said.
Agreed.
Been married 30 wonderful years to a great gal..and we respect each other.
Hoping for 30+ more years.
#100 englishqueen01:
Almost forgot:
Why are you being so holier-than-thou?
(Written with tongue firmly in cheek!)
C’mon, Rusty can’t be for real!
TT,
Not sure I am correct as I have no numbers to compare but I was thinkng the unwanted pregnancy and the associated cost. My wife was a neonatal Nurse. She took care of premies that cost us millions and then died. Again a presumption, women that don’t want to be pregnant don’t take care of themselves like they should costing the rest of us billions in healthcare for unwanted sick children.
Please don’t think I am uncaring. An ability to look at the economics of healthcare is not the same as saying we should just allow the unwanted sick kids to die.
NFP?
Well, if BC pills are to be covered, why not vasectomies? The heck with condoms.
Given that this is a story involving a college campus, it’s time (once again) for a hippie-esque protest song (of sorts)….
Everybody’s talking about
handouts, handouts
subsidized birth control
handouts, handouts
But all we are saying
is keep it in your pants
*out*
too funny!
Azygos, NFP = Natural Family Planning
Thanks 30 pcs. Is she referring to the rhythm method?
Presuming we are still talking about the Pill, how does that make your clinic any less STD oriented?
Back to my friend Rusty:
So if women have free and absolute access to birth control, and get pregnant anyway, is the man absolved of any responsibility? How about that burden? Oh wait, I bet the government will pay for the abortion, right?
No – just a brother. Sorry.
And, for the record, I do not have a problem with using low-dose pills to correct a medical condition.
However, much like people argue that abortion is “necessary” because there are so many cases of rape/incest or threats to the mother’s health – the reality is vastly different. 93% of abortions are for “social reasons” and certainly a majority of those wanting birth control fall under the same category.
If it’s “holier-than-thou” to point out the real medical, social, and environmental impact of the pill…or to argue that I have a right not to pollute my body with chemical contraceptives, that’s not my problem.
To quote another conservative pundit, “The truth cannot be delivered with novocane.”
Damn.
…
Does he have a sister?
Wait… DAMNIT!
Is he pretty? *ducks and runs*
Azygos – no. They ae different, but the “rhythm method” is often used as an incorrect way to refer to NFP.
NFP is a methodical, studied and proven method that reads a woman’s biological signs of fertility. This include basal body temperature and other indicators.
They also include fertility monitors. I use something called the “Baby Comp”, a handheld digital device that records my temperature and allows me to input days when I have my period, etc. It monitors and records my cycles and tells me what days are my fertile days and what days are my infertile days.
It has a Pearl rating of .7 (or a success rate of 99.3%)- meaning that fewer than 1 woman out of 100 will get pregnant if they use the device properly. The Pill has a 2-8% rate of pregnancy. Condoms have a 2-18% pregnancy rate.
And many people use NFP, for many reasons – not just religious. But health and environmental.
#112 On January 29th, 2008 at 12:38 pm, englishqueen01 said:
‘If it’s “holier-than-thou” to point out the real medical, social, and environmental impact of the pill…or to argue that I have a right not to pollute my body with chemical contraceptives, that’s not my problem.
To quote another conservative pundit, “The truth cannot be delivered with novocane.”’
Wait till I remove my tongue from my cheek…there, that’s better.
As you no doubt realized, I was trying for mild sarcasm to those who leapt to the “holier than thou” insult.
Regarding your post(s) – well said … agreed.
swj, you slay me.
It’s a gift…
With that attitude, I think I will start smoking really expensive cigars and drink really expensive wine. Then, I shall expect the tax payers to pay for my indulgences. Don’t worry though, I will make sure it is a burden to continue to purchase the best so, it will be okay. While I am getting everyone to pay for my indulgences, I think I will go out and buy that yacht while I am at it. That beat up Ford Ranger that a tree fell on during the hurricanes – gone. Replaced with a Corvette Convertible. Thanks everybody! I can get this all by quitting my job, going to school and having Rusty get everyone to agree that my indulgences should be supported because of the cost increase of the things I have on my wish list.
Or
I can expect “adults” to act like adults.
Nah, not as long as there are liberals who defend a person’s right to live outside their means and expect us all to pay for people who want to indulge. SHEESH
swj719AWG,
Giving up the hunt for the Jewish Goddess?
Hey, I’m all in favor of whatever it takes to make sure these skulls-full-of-mush leftie hippie chicks don’t reproduce now or ever. But as for the cost of pills going up, it’s called inflation. Suck it up and deal with it. (Oooo, maybe wrong choice of words, but anyway…) Have 3 less mocha grande frappuchinos each month and pay for it yourself.
lol.
Remind me, who was that?
EQ,
I never heard of the Baby Comp. Please tell me more. My hubby and I are trying to get pregnant and I have tried the basal temp thermometer, ovulation kits, and other methods but this one escapes me. Thanks.
30,
Have you tried sex? LOL
There’s the zinger…
It’s okay. She knows I love her!
She’s still gonna hit you, dude.
Soap,
It’s official…you are insane.
But of course we have.
I’m just impressed that Soap dodn’t offer to help.
Interesting. Thanks for the insight.
It does not change a thing Dimsdale. believe me, the people I used to see in the office are not the type of people you want procreating. Think “The Hills Have Eyes” and multiple it.
Englishqueen, your 99% figure just does not jive with what I studied in school. Unless you are on the Pill or wearing a raincoat (properly) I was taught that sex without protection will eventually lead to children. And in my experience as a provider it does. Your numbers for pill and raincoat failure however match what I was taught.
PP here in Phoenix used to charge $13 dollars a month for the Pill (10 years ago). The government steps in and now they have to charge $25 dollars. Whats wrong with this picture that politicians don’t understand?
swj,
That sounds like something you would say.
You wound me…
It’s been that kind of day.
Ick! Now that is a mental picture that is “seared, seared” into my memory!! LOL!
Last fall some whiny spoiled brat representing the Washington University womyn’s studies dept wrote a letter to the op ed page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last fall demanding the federal govt take immediate action so she and other poor, pathetic souls could get their pills cheap. The blog response was not pleasant. Even though commentors are fairly evenly split between conservatives and liberals, she took a pounding from almost all of them.
Few things are more callow (there’s that word again!), self-indulgent, and morally reprehensible than demanding that tax payers fund your hedonism.
If you raise the price of birth control, how will students afford their medical marijuana?
We should be subsizding that too! Anything less would be unfair.
I find it ironic that the same people who want to keep their tax money at home to not fund planned parenthood, would be fine with sending their tax money overseas in foreign aid to Saudi Arabia or Israel.
Oh, jeezzz. Now we are supposed to fund Planned
ParentAbortionhood too?Funny, I raised 4 girls and there was no need for birth control or abortions. They have self control. Maybe we should pay them for NOT being a burden on society? Sounds reasonable to me.
Thanks for the non-sequitir.
Planned Parenthood rewards neither planning nor parenting. Discuss.
When you hit the nail on the head, what is there to discuss?
Excellent point.
Spare me the thought that people “lose” their virginity so early in life.
First of all, you don’t “lose” your virginity (unless raped) — you relinquish it.
Secondly, if I remained a virgin until my wedding night (after a six-month tour overseas as a US Marine), anyone can do the same.
Rusty, stop making excuses for people who refuse to act responsibly.
Read this clinical study.
I wasn’t a biology or pre-med student, but I was always taught *any* sex – even sex with protection – could lead to pregnancy. It’s part of our biological design (whether you believe in Intelligent Design or evolution).
But I do know that .7% (the failure rate of the method I use) is less than 2%-18% (the failure rate of the Pill and condom).
30 pieces: E-mail me and I’ll be glad to give you some information!
Really? Where in this thread did anyone say that?
#145 On January 29th, 2008 at 3:10 pm, ACHefty said:
“Spare me the thought that people “lose” their virginity so early in life.
First of all, you don’t “lose” your virginity (unless raped) — you relinquish it.
Rusty, stop making excuses for people who refuse to act responsibly.”
Once again, with tongue planted firmly in cheek: Oh dear, why are you being so holier-than-thou?!
Back to serious mode:
Excellent post, especially the last sentence.
Well said.
Agreed.
Having sex while on birth control is acting responsibly. Just because it doesn’t jive with your beliefs doesn’t make it irresponsible. To think otherwise is very judgmental. It’s not very pragmatic either. The majority of college students are not virgins. Being away from parents for the first time increases sex (both responsible and irresponsible) as well.
It’s in no one’s interest, especially not the school’s, to have pregnant students. Including these pills in a health insurance plan and/or having the government not artificially raise the price (I’m surprised more small government conservatives aren’t pissed about this) are good ways to deal with the situation.
And the argument that you don’t want to pay for other people’s sex is silly too. That means you don’t want people to be provided with condoms? Ok. Then you’re paying for the STD treatment. Guess which is less expensive.
I’ll say it once, and I’ll say it again: if you say you want the government out of your bedroom, then don’t ask the feds for condom subsidies.
Sex is a choice, regardless of the motivation, and it’s not the government’s job to help facilitate that choice, any more than it is the government’s job to pay for my nicotine patch if I’m addicted to cigarettes.
Ah – the other shoe drops: the dreaded “judgmental” accusation & face-slap; to join “holier-than-thou”.
Surprised it took so long….
#149 On January 29th, 2008 at 4:56 pm, fourstringfuror said:
“I’ll say it once, and I’ll say it again: if you say you want the government out of your bedroom, then don’t ask the feds for condom subsidies.
Sex is a choice, regardless of the motivation, and it’s not the government’s job to help facilitate that choice, any more than it is the government’s job to pay for my nicotine patch if I’m addicted to cigarettes.”
Exactly.
Well put, #149.
Englishqueen,
Thank you for the link. I did read it, very interesting. I would however like to see a larger sample size and a prospective study before making an informed decision about the effectiveness of the method. I will have to do some digging on the subject.
Some decent discussion going on here I guess but boy are there a lot of Judgy McJudgersons. MM included; restraint?
Take a flying leap, all of you.
I am a “poor college student.” I’m also a hormonal BC user. Oh, and I’m married too. So you’ll forgive me if I take a pass on “showing restraint and keeping my knees together” where he is concerned.
In fact, I feel bad for those that. think that’s the solution
Why not? Everything else in in there.
The liberals may be trying to help the students, and I’m not eager to spend tax payer dollars on that.
However, from a cost/benefit standpoint is it cheaper to subsidize prevention than to pay for unwanted pregnancies some of which end up in abortion, some in broken homes, and some others burdening the responsible grandparents who step in and take responsibility?
If most college students can’t get a job, pull together the down payment for a house, or organize their life (much less an infant’s) maybe the country is better off not having them get pregnant while still students.
You can tell them to abstain, but if they don’t listen others pick up the cost.
Yes, one can be serious about it. There is a terrible lack of personal responsibility on the part of many people in America. The frequency with which college students or others beds down with someone is just one area. And, if they aren’t not capable of providing for their own protection from unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases by diverting pizza, beer, Starbuck’s, or other luxuries money, they are not capable of dealing with the responsibilities of the possible creation of a child, nature’s intention for the male-female sexual encounter.
It is mankind that has decided the personal pleasure is the reason for sex. Granted, it is very enjoyable. But, there can be repercussions and, if we aren’t capable of dealing with that ourselves, we don’t need big nanny government to do it. If that is the case, maybe they need government to help them with the actual act of carrying out the sexual relationship. I can think of quite a few in Congress that could help them, if they wanted it (no matter which way they swing) and, even, some past presidents (not to mention any names.).
Varilux -
You first.
Funny, that, because I feel bad for those that think shagging like animals is an unalienable right.
You’re married. Fine. You’re a hormonal user. Fine. But no one’s picking up the cost of my preferred method of birth control and the monitor I use is a hell of a lot more expensive than pills.
Why should we subsidize yours?
EQ, if the government intervened to increase the cost of your birth control by 400%, it wouldn’t matter if it was an IUD, NFD, condoms, birth control pills, or whatever. You’d be angry.
Unwanted pregnancies are more expensive than prevented ones. Moral stands are nice and all, but nothing in the world will be able to stop two adults from having consensual sex. We can either make it harder on people or easier. Since the sex is inevitable, easier should be the way to go.
Someone used the example of public schools. I don’t have kids. Why should I pay? Because it’s for the greater good. Why should I pay for detox programs when I don’t use? Because a clean human is better (and cheaper) for society than an addict.
From the featured news item:
Since 1990, Congress had allowed pharmaceutical companies to offer discounted drugs to college students and low-income people. But when Congress passed its deficit reduction bill in 2005, it included a provision that disallowed university health clinics from getting access to the lower-priced drugs.
There appears to be no taxpayer subsidy here; yet another case of Congress slipping unrelated items for special interests (here Big Pharma) into important legislation.
That said, I can’t see why low-income students can’t go to an off-campus clinic to get their BC pills.
Remember, state universities do have a lot of students from low-income families; while financial aid may allow them to attend school, they aren’t flush with cash – they probably AREN’T spending 25 a week at Starbucks.
So going from 5-10 a month to $25 is going to hurt.
And these are the students who if they get pregnant, they’re either going to have an abortion or the taxpayers WILL be soaked far more than college expenses for AFDC, WIC, Section 8 and EBC food and energy assistance.
Here’s the thing — it’s not the government’s job to provide me with birth control anyway! So that’s a straw man argument…and, as an aside, a great indicator of how the government would treat socialized medicine.
You always seem to forget that two “consenting” adults are also fully aware that sex can lead to pregnancy. Even with birth control. So if they’re not ready for that responsibility and expense…they shouldn’t have sex.
It sucks to you, perhaps, but guess what…life’s not fair. Life’s not about getting to do whatever (or, in this case, whoever) you want without consequence.
Don’t want to worry about getting pregnant? Don’t have sex. It’s that simple. Encouraging “safe sex” is not encouraging safety – it’s just encouraging sex.
Consequences be damned.
The prefered consequence of two irresponsible people having sex is pregnancy?
Some percentage of those people will abort? Is that preferred?
Some percentage of those people will be poor parents and burden friends/family/neighbors/social services/public schools. Is that preferred?
No. What’s “preferred” is personal responsibility, dedalus.
If you, and Rusty, and others will argue that adults have the right to have sex, then they need to take responsibility for 1) their birth control and 2) any children that may be created.
If you want freedom without responsibility, what you end up with is not freedom, but vice.
To people who are mature enough to consent to sex need to accept those consequences and responsibilities. That either means finding a way to support that child (financially and otherwise) and be good parents or, if not up to the task, putting that child up for adoption.
I know “personal responsibility” is a radical notion for people who’ve been raised in a generation taught to leach off the public teat, but nothing – no government subsidy or program – can replace it.
And that’s what all opponents of this idiotic measure are calling for: personal responsibility.
If you want to act like an adult, fine. But accept the fact that comes with a lot of responsibility. Otherwise, don’t consent to making adult decisions.
EQ, unlike many frequent commenters on this site, I respect almost all of your arguments. If I were arguing against Soap Box or SWJ, I probably wouldn’t say what I’m about to say.
Too many people treat sex irresponsibly. It annoys me as much as it annoys you. Hell, I’m not perfect in that regard. There are things I wish I could take back.
I’ll give you that many people need to act more responsibly. Unwanted pregnancies are (almost) always so dumb and easily preventable. Same with STDs.
But this is the world we live in. People will make bad decisions. Bad things happen. EQ, I know you don’t want bad things to happen to people. So, preventing those “bad things” should be of utmost importance. Providing birth control contributes to that prevention.
The other option is to be a bad parent, as many young people do who are unprepared to support or raise a child.
Your preference is that everyone should be responsible for their sexual activity. I agree. I also agree that people shouldn’t drink and drive, but if there was an auto subsidy that amounted to a few dollars a month that would prevent an inebriated driver from turning the ignition, I might favor it over public service announcements that tried to encourage people to drink responsibly.
Sure drunks and unwed parents mess up their own lives, but they also mess up people who did what they could to do the right thing.
Wow, we’re still going with this? Sweet.
Providing birth control enables people to behave irresponsibly. This view is no different than the mother who allows her cokehead son to live at home rent-free, never encouraging him to seek treatment, never notifying the authorities. Yeah, sure, you’re keeping the guy off the street, and you’re keeping him safe, but it’s a temporary fix, at best.
You’re not subsidizing mine, queenie.
And I still pity you that you think “shagging” my husband like an animal is a bad thing.
Whoa.
I pity you that you think the intelligent response to a dissenting opinion is “take a flying leap.”
I never said that nor did I imply it. And it has absolutely nothing to do with opinion–dissenting or not.
I’ll help you out though, so it’s completely clear. What I said and what I meant was “self-restraint” and “marital sex” should never be diametrically opposed (in my very humble opinion it seems).
And yeah, I still do pity you if you think sex and marriage are things that should like, never go together, omg!
Priceless.
Who claimed they were perfect? My list of mistakes is epic, and my list of regrets is monumental…
But I made them. I made the bad choices that led to those mistakes and those regrets. I don;t need someone to fix them for me, and I don’t need someone handing me an excuse to keep making those same mistakes.
That’s exactly what this BC pill BS is. It’s a crutch to enable behavior.
I’m not saying they can’t have sex. Hell, they can have all the sex they want. Hell, the hot red-heads can call me, and I’ll help out if they like…
But just because they want to do something that could result in a bad outcome (STDs, pregnancy, yadda yadda yadda) doesn’t mean we have to FUND it. If they want to have sex, and they want to have the pill, they can pay for it themselves. If it means they don’t buy beer, then they don’t buy beer.
They can prioritise their life and their activities. Once you start removing the need to do that, you get things like – as just one example – the mortgage crash and it’s bailout. Making the choice to buy a huge house you can only afford to pay for if absolutely NOTHING changes (payments, your incoming wages, other bills) is monumentally stupid, and a symptom of “can’t make a good decision”.
Instead of buying what they could afford, they bought what they couldn’t, simply because they wanted it. Now that it’s biting them on the ass, they demand that Government fix it.
I’m sorry, but they knew what they were doing (technically) when they did it, just like these college girls and the pill.
Just because their life got a tiny bit harder doesn’t mean I have to make it easier for them. If that is the case, then I would like MY bailout from the pile of crappy choices I’ve made first. Trust me, it will cost WAY more than this BC BS.
“And yeah, I still do pity you if you think sex and marriage are things that should like, never go together, omg!”
???????
Who said this???
Even a concrete block knows they go together….
#162 & #169:
Thank you.
So very well stated.
When did I say sex within marriage was wrong? I didn’t, because it isn’t. And I addressed your situation – hormonal use is not the same as using birth control as carte blanche.
But this issue isn’t about married couples, is it? It’s about college students who aren’t married wanting to sleep with anyone they want.
Fine. That’s their choice. But why do their need to be programs and rewards for people who claim to be adults but don’t want the responsibility and consequence of their actions?
I’m not arguing for federal subsidies. I’m arguing that health care should cover this.
And I think we should give women some credit. It’s not like they need birth control because they don’t have self-restraint. It’s because they want to take charge of their own sexuality.
The person you were talking to is a married college student.
No – I don’t want bad things to happen to people, but I don’t want to encourage the behavior that could lead to those bad things.
As I said above – no sex, even sex with the pill and condoms – is 100% failsafe. You could easily find women who were on the pill and still got pregnant. Or women whose partners used condoms and still got pregnant. People use condoms and still get STDs.
Remember the movie “Jurassic Park”, and the whole notion that “nature would find a way”. It happens when you fight biology.
And by encouraging people to have more sex – even “safe” sex – is going to lead to more unplanned pregnancies, the contraction of STDs and more problems.
No one who was abstinent has ever gotten pregnant or contracted an STD. On top of that, promiscuity leads to a boatload of other social and emotional problems. The title and author escape me, but there was a book by a college campus nurse that chronicled all the problems promsicuity caused – I read excerpts and it was a fascinating read.
And, the fact of the matter is people have dignity. Random, casual sex turns people from someone into something – man and women are reduced to objects of pleasure, rather than full people who need to be loved and respected.
So if I don’t want bad things to happen to people – I don’t want that limited to unplanned pregnancies and STDs, but the slew of other problems sleeping around causes.
Rusty:
She’s still married, so that’s not the issue. Unless all these college students are married, that is.
So you want your healthcare premiums to go up?
NOTHING is EVER free. There is a cost somewhere, be it taxpayer funded, or funded by premium payers.
If they want to take control of their sexuality, they can also take control of their freaking pocket book.
If they want the pill, they can pay for it.
If the pill is what allows them to “take control of their sexuality”, and they have to rely on someone else to provide the pill, then they aren’t really in control of their sexuality, are they?
Yeah, looks like you said it, tough guy. Try reviewing your comments before you make a statement like that.
Since I do check my past comments before saying anything, I can confidently say you are 100%, absolutely, wrong. I never said anything to this effect, at all.
Gives new meaning to the notion of being an animal in bed.
People have sex outside of marriage and with non-procreative intentions. Some, but not all, is random and casual. If some sex degrades a person’s humanity other times physical intimacy enhances two people’s awareness of each other and of themselves.
Helping people control when they want to bare children can improve their lives and the lives around them. Sex is encouraged by fashion, advertising, hormones, peer pressure. You can couple a message of restraint with birth control. Abstinence can be a good message and is the right message for some, but since there is no way to enforce it others are left to pay the price for two young people who have a moment of passion.
What’s cheaper a few pills or pregnancy that results in abortions or ill-cared-for children?
You’re really missing the whole point of this discussion. The responsibility for preventing “bad things” does not belong to anyone but the one doing the “bad things!” How hard is that to grasp?
Look – if you are prone to road rage, and I look over and see you shaking your fist at someone, it is not my job to calm you down. It’s not my job to meet you at your home before work and make sure you’re rested up, well-fed, relaxed and prepared for a rough commute, and it certainly isn’t my job to buy you breakfast. However, if I witness road rage, it would be my job to report it to the police, as a responsible citizen.
There is no way to enforce BC pill use either. Nor should there be, which is the whole point. Who then do you blame?
That’s a joke, right? I mean, you cannot be serious.
Individual, personal, adult, big boy britches responsibility, people!
Completely.
People are taught to drive responsibly but also wear seat belts. Even though the federal government forces private companies to install airbags in their autos most people don’t use the safety devices as a reason to dispense with individual responsibility.
Okay. How about this? If you really want the government involved, so men and women or boys and girls can rut like animals without any personal responsibilty, let’s make it a one-time investment of a tubal ligation for the females or a vasectomy for the males. So, they can rut to their hearts’ content without fear of impregnation and we don’t have a continual drain on our tax dollars for their inability to curtail other wants to pay for birth control for this want. It’s not like anyone is asking them to forgo a need, like food, shelter, etc. to pay for their birth control.
Is that a compromise those on the left can live with, Rusty? It takes care of the birth control pill issue and unwanted pregnancy and doesn’t make for a continuous drain on everyone else.
You can couple all the messages you want, but you cannot enforce proper use of a BC pill. Automobile regulations are enforced by law.
As I said before, personal responsibility is where this begins and ends. Sex is a choice; not an obligation, not a duty, and certainly not a right; of which STD’s and pregnancy are common results. Ergo, birth control is a choice, not a right. It is not the job of anyone but the chooser(s) to obtain, pay for, or use birth control.
I like speeding on the interstate, but that doesn’t mean you should help pay my way to a racing school, even if it does get me off the public road and onto a safe, private race track.
I’d also like to ask, who gets to decide which babies are unwanted? That’s an awfully arrogant attitude to have.
There are plenty of bastards (literall) in the world who are wanted, and needed, and loved.
All regulations are enforced by law. No one is advocating requiring the use of birth control–bad idea, can’t enforce.
The auto analogy was meant to show that safety measures don’t automatically create a corresponding increase in reckless behavior.
Sex is legal among adults with few government restrictions. You don’t even need a license.
I like speeding on many roads. I really like it. But it is illegal for both of us. The government doesn’t pay for you to go to racing school since it doesn’t want you to speed. But you can go to driving schools that will lower your insurance rate and take points off your license, if speeding has resulted in any violations.
This might help with the “unwanted” baby problem, but you’re missing the point. Liberals believe there must always be a victim to exploit. If you remove one problem, you only give them reason to look for another. There must always be a victim.
If we tied everyone’s tubes, in a few years we would have stories about “victims of reproductive zealot” and people would demand the government pay for reverse surgeries!
Er, zealots*. Plural.
You’re lumping me and every other responsible, non-promiscuous adult who works and pays for her (or his, for that matter) own method of birth control in with those Girls Gone Wild.
Because we happen to be college students?
You also seem to be that people using birth control are doing something wrong inherently…not being careful and judicious—choosing to wait until they are better suited to raise and provide for a child but not willing to forego sex in the meantime. This smacks of “sex is for procreation only” not to mention your automatic assumption that BC users are all blissfully unaware that it can and does fail and are whistling past the graveyard of consequences.
Parenthood is the most enormously important, awesome and arduous undertaking known to human kind, stop assuming you’re one of the chosen few that realizes that and especially stop assuming that people using BC methods never do.
If that .9% rate of failure means that we become parents at a somewhat less than opportune time but I can keep having sex with my husband, I’ll risk it—if that’s all right with Your Highness.
…And I’m a tough girl if you’d like to talk statement evaluation and reading comprehension.
Actually, never mind. Reading through the debate again I just realized it’s not about subsidies at all.
That’s interesting because I don’t
demandrequire anything from my husband nor does hedemandrequire anything from me. Mutual caring and respect is a lovely thing and ours doesn’t require some sort of daily, ritual display to be real.It’s nice that you decide for all of us. If we don’t march to your drummer, why then you’ll simply do us a favor and decide what we “deserve.” We clearly cannot be accountable for our own sexuality and certainly can’t think for or take care of ourselves, right?
Do you even realize how insulting this is; to men and to women? Aside from saying that women don’t like and don’t want to take an active role in their sexuality but that men see us only as objects to “use”? I choose to control my fertility in one way, you choose to control yours in another, yet this is how you think of “us” because our choice is not the same as yours.
Though it may surprise you “we” women have needs and desires, too. This is so eerily similar to something I read a while back I have to mention it. If you Google “Stop ****ing Him” you should the find the (incredibly offensive) LJ entry. The eerie part is the disclaimer at the top of the item:
Conservatives as the new Liberals in sharp relief. How sad for everyone.
LOL
You need a stiff drink. Maybe two. Relax, woman; we’re just debating. That’s what free Americans get to do.
I’m uncomfortable with hearty lefist trolls. Don’t know about the rest of you.
SinceIn case you’ve missed it, I’m lamenting the fact that supposed conservatives are sounding so dissapointing similar to abortion fanatics and am pointing to that example.I’ve probably been Right and known exactly what it means to be a “Free American” longer than you’ve been alive.
…And I’ll happily take that flying leap as well, I have a comparatively short drop from reality as opposed to the self-constructed pedestals and ivory towers I’m seeing as I look around.
Don’t kid yourself, Cari.
So you did say it!
Listen, the debate here is about birth control pills, and whether government should in any way affect the price. Let’s stick to that. Stop with the diatribes. Having a strong opinion does not make someone holier-than-thou.
Sex is great! I’m all for it and have three beautiful (home schooled) rugrats to show for it! However; I fail to understand why it is so ridiculous to expect someone to pay for their own birth control if they want to have sex. I don’t care what your age and/or situation.
I spend a great deal of time with a large variety of college age people and ALL of them can come up with $25 at any given time to do something they want and ALL of them are poor as church mice. And speaking for myself, when hubby & I were younger we too were broke and living on noodles but we knew that coming up with $25 for pills (yes, $25 more 20 years ago) was a lot better than the alternative. Did we have sex? You betcha (and we still do) Did we get pregnant before we wanted? Nope. Did we expect someone to pay for BC for us? Nope (even when it was covered by insurance some pharmacists refused to process it and we paid the full ride ourselves).
Now, one thing I know… you can’t make anyone take the pills they are “given”. In high school, I hung around with the party crowd and every single girl I knew that was on the pill got pregnant (some more than once) because they couldn’t be bothered to “remember” to take the pills. They got them from the free clinic for $3 every 3 months – a few of the girls I knew even were so “lucky” that their mothers took them to said clinic (at the time I thought that was cool, now I know otherwise). I was too uncomfortable going that route and made my own doctor’s appointment – $25 – and paid for my own pills at $25/month. I had a lot of my own cash invested and I was not going to make the mistake of forgetting to take a pill. I think this falls somewhere in the same vein of: you take better care of something you’ve paid for yourself than when it’s been given to you without any effort on your part.
Between PP and various entitlement programs we shouldn’t have any unplanned babies running around anymore. That is obviously not the case now is it? These people are smart enough – they just can’t be bothered to make an effort to get what they want (want = sex, effort = job to pay for birth control). Besides, they still get free condoms which at least help prevent STD’s.
I do a lot of things I don’t enjoy (nor have time for) in order to earn cash to pay for things I want or feel that I need/deserve – I don’t see why college students (or anyone else for that matter) can’t or won’t do the same. Except that someone is willing to use others’ money to pay the way for them. When no one else pays their way they’ll pony up.
All this being said: the government needs to get out of the price fixing biz completely.
Sorry for the ramble…
Ramble away.
That’s creepy.
If you don’t your name known, don’t link to your blog.
By the way, I do like some of your Corvallis shots. I like the old church/cemetery pictures. Nicely done.
Varilux – You’re entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to mine.
But you’re clearly, and after repeated explanation, still missing my point. So that problem clearly lies with you.
As I said – at least twice above – you’re a different story than the non-married, whining college kids who want birth control so they can sleep around. I believe you’ve also said you pay for your own BC. I’ve also argued – perhaps not in this thread but elsewhere – that married couples are free to use whatever method of BC they choose…so long as others dont’ have to fund it. So why do you think this is about you when you clearly don’t fit the parameters of the discussion I’m having?
I think it’s insulting so many people take the “They’re just gonna do it anyway” stance on something as important as sexual behavior. That’s like saying alcoholics are going to drink anyway, so we may as well buy them that six pack.
I can’t believe you would in any way equate the discussion we’re having here with abortion advocates. My entire argument has been that this sort of permissive behavior actually leads to more unplanned pregnancies and abortions. What a complete disconnect and totally illogical argument.
Sometimes, our role in life calls for us to avoid doing things we *really* want to do. For unmarried college students, that means not having sex if they claim they can’t afford BC pills. Or finding alternative means of getting them or other forms of BC. On my college campus, campus jobs ranged anywhere from $7-$9/hour. And they were in abundance. A student picks up an hour and a half a week on campus and she’s got the $25/month for her pills.
But the answer is not going to the government crying, “Please sir, may I have some more.”
Also – when I was in college, up until I graduated, I was covered by my parents’ health insurance which would have covered the pill if I used it. I know some insurance providers don’t – but how many of these kids could get their meds from Mom & Dad’s plan?
Thanks, and I don’t care who sees my photo gallery. I care that you’re referring to me by my name and not handle like everyone esle.