http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/republican-war-on-contraception_n_822843.html This article, posted on the liberal news/opinion site Huffington Post, with the expected slant toward the pro-abortion activists, but it was unclear on a couple of points, so I went elsewhere to check.
http://www.azprogress.org/content/take-action-gop-proposes-complete-elimination-us-famly-planning-program-title-x?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AZProgress+%28Arizona+Progress%29
This seems to be another site with a liberal slant, doesn't seem that many conservative sites have picked up on this, but it also supports the story, saying House Leadership is calling for a complete cut of the Title X program in the budget for FY 2011. As posted in the first article, Title X was "Enacted in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act, the family-planning program was designed to focus on low-income Americans. The preventive-health services it provides include information and access to contraception, earning the ire of social conservatives."
Now, I understand controversy over abortion itself, I personally don't have a coherent opinion on the subject, but being male it also doesn't really apply to me. It's not my body, and thus I am of the opinion that I shouldn't have a say on the matter, and neither should anyone else who is not in possession of a female reproductive system.
However, what this article and this debate is discussing is cutting contraception for poor families based on moral grounds. If you wanted to argue the virtues of the government funding said contraceptives, I could go for that, I'd be happy to have that debate, but since the enaction of this piece of legislation social conservatives have been attacking it based on moral grounds. The thing of it is, I think it's more socially irresponsible to NOT use contraceptives than it is morally reprehensible to use them. Numerous studies comparing families who planned to have children and families who weren't planning on it have shown a clear increase in the quality of health, education, and in many cases crime rates between the two sides. The argument that contraceptives leads to more sex (especially among teenagers and young adults) simply doesn't hold water; we're human, chances are if you show us a monkey wrench it's going to lead to a line of thought ending in sex. Contraceptives don't lead to more sex, they lead to more safe sex, and with the number of venereal diseases floating around in the general population that is a very good thing. It's fiscally responsible, arguably socially responsible, and definitely responsible in regards to health to use contraceptives.
I thought we'd settled this argument with science long ago...
I agree with your views on this subject. I don't think the government should have the ability to take away contraceptives from lower class families based on moral grounds. In fact I don't think that anyone should have the ability to restrict anything from lower classes based on "moral grounds." I mean everyone that is lower class should be able to take something from the rich if they have the rich take something from them. By taking away the condoms, it is taking a chance of spreading disease quicker and easier.
ReplyDeleteAmen to that. I don't like the idea of laws deciding what is "moral" or not, and in any case reducing the access of the lower class to contraceptives will work wonders to help keep them from ever crossing class lines.
ReplyDelete(I especially like agree with you that men shouldn't really have as much of a say as women in the abortion debate! It's amazing to see men get so worked up about something that involves emotions and sensations they can never understand.)
I agree as well. Taking away contraceptives from anyone is highly illogical anyways. Morals? Also, most of the rich are not exactly angels either. Classes have nothing to do with it either. A good example is Octomom, she has eight children. Is she apart of the lower class? The government can't take away contraceptives from lower class based on "moral" grounds. Morals based on what? The Bible? Not to mention that a lot of people don't believe in the teachings of the Bible in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI don't think companies would like the government to regulate who and where they can sell. That's money out of their pockets.