Taking birth control off of the list of covered medications on the insurance plan or making people drive 50 miles to get it absolutely is making it impossible for people living at or just above the poverty line.
Your privilege is showing.
I’d like to refocus the conversation a bit if we can though. We are getting into arguing these as individual points. And there is certainly space for the debate, but I’m going to ask you all to make a new thread if you want to do that.
What I want for this thread is to hear from conservatives specifically - what does this slate of policies gain? Why are you in favor of it, and how does it help the nation?
There it is! That was rather quick.
Didn’t take long for someone to bring up the “privilege” of working to afford things.
Oh please. What’s the furthest someone anywhere has to travel for a can of spermicidal foam and a box of condoms? They sell that stuff at gas stations and grocery stores for kripes sake. And even the most pathetic failure can afford them.
Once again, you’re equating not paying for it with preventing people from being able to get it. Not the same.
Exactly what I am reading from it.
Everyone can afford basic birth control measures such as these. If you can’t afford the $7-10 for condoms and spermicide, maybe one should have their priorities elsewhere rather than on sex.
One might. Others won’t. Most of 'em, I daresay.
Cites please for those being official Republican policy positions.
In a small town with businesses owned by conservatives who don’t want to sell such things? There are gas stations that don’t sell them. UDFs around here don’t sell any sort of birth control (or lottery tickets).
That there are national companies that provide such products to the public is not something that should be taken for granted, that is a recent development, and one that could reverse. And that is not even counting on whether states or localities pass legislation outlawing the selling of family planning products.
Nice classism there. It’s not just the 7-10 dollars, which is not insignificant to someone working MW, it is also the possibility of having to travel a fairly long distance to spend that money.
Then there is the fact that you completely ignore that more effective means of birth control, an IUD or the pill, is not 7-10.
From a fiscal and social standpoint, it makes far more sense to assist people in affording family planning than it does to have society pay for the cost of a child. Do you think that you actually save taxpayers money by increasing the number of unwanted children? Do you think that abortions will be decreased by decreasing access to family planning supplies and the knowledge of how and why to use them?
So, the way I see it, it makes sense from a fiscal standpoint to provide and encourage birth control to the less fortunate (Just one year of school could pay for decades of birth control). It makes sense from a social standpoint to not force people to bear children that they will not have the emotional or physical resources to care for.
The only reasons I see that are left for that side of the argument is kinda a two fer. Punish women for not being “virtuous”, and punish poor people for not making enough money. You have literally just called out the people who our capitalistic economy (that has rewarded people with vast sums of wealth and power) has failed, and told them that they are too poor to have sex, that they should be punished for being poor. Others in this thread have specifically said that women should be punished for consenting to sex.
You’ve watched Footloose one too many times. Where exactly are all these Podunks that are run by Puritans and are hundreds of miles away from a box of Trojans but the serfs are too poor to make the journey? In a nation of 300+ million where the majority of the poor live in cities where are all these poor horny people? And seeing they aren’t getting birth control paid for by the rest of us, why aren’t there a helluva lot more of them?
Never seen footloose, sorry about that very poor assumption on your part.
Go back a few decades, and you will see exactly what you describe. Then look to your party, and see that they want to go back to the 50’s.
They are going to planned parenthood, or other similar family planning centers, which you want to defund. They are getting birth control through medicaid or ACA or through their employer’s insurance, which is something that your and your party want to end.
That there has been progress that means that you don’t see the problems that that progress has solved doesn’t mean that there are not people in the party that you support that want to undo those solutions and bring back those problems.
Sorry, to follow up…
You don’t believe me that UDF, a chain of 210 convenience stores owned by highly religious people (though I don’t know if they are puritans; prudes, maybe), doesn’t sell condoms?
There’s even some yelp reviews, complaining to that fact.
Where are the poor horney people? Where there are poor people. I don’t understand the motivation behind this question.
And to your final point, of why aren’t there more, well, that’s because they are having abortions.
Why bother when you can order them from Amazon?
And how did the Republican party force them to this decision?
CVS doesn’t sell cigarettes. Can smokers blame the Democrats?*
*Actually, if we’re talking about flavored cigarettes the answer is yes!
Classism again.
A few things. First, you need a credit card to order from amazon, which many poor people do not have. You also need to have an address that can receive packages securely. Some apartments are good for that, others, not so much. Unless you are buying $35 worth of stuff, shipping is not free, so that’s an additional cost. You also need to wait a week or so between the time you order, and the time you receive them, which is sometimes a bit longer than people are willing to wait when the moment strikes.
Finally, it’s not just this specific chain not carrying this specific item, it is the mindset that “family values” means no family planning that is persuasive in the conservative mindset, and efforts to further limit access to contraceptives of all kinds is an active effort.
We’re not talking about conservative mindset. Stick to the OP. We’re talking about the GOP specifically. People can have those values even if they are apolitical. The Republican party is not forcing them to not sell those items, would you force them to sell them? Fascist much?
These people are republicans. They are not selling them, not because they are forced not to sell them, but because they choose not to sell them. They also make massive donations to the GOP. They do that to convince the GOP to agree with their mindset and pass legislation that furthers their agenda of “family values”.
Excuse me, that rather reprehensible insult is entirely uncalled for. I made no comment about forcing anyone to do anything. Project much?
Can’t buy rubbers at the catholic bookstore either. Why aren’t you railing about that too? it has to do with values.
Which brings us back to the question of where are contraceptives not being sold because the Republican party passed laws prohibiting it. And spare me your circular argument about how not paying for it is the same as blocking access. By that standard the government is blocking access to cable tv, cars, vacations, etc. etc…
This idea that birth control is too expensive for all but the wealthy and thousands of miles away is ludicrous, even for the 12 people in this country that fit the scope of your claim.
The catholic bookstore is not a gas station. Need I remind you of your claim?
Yes, you would expect to be able to buy them at a gas station, but I have just shown you that your claim is false.
Selling contraceptives did use to be illegal. It is not as if this is some fantasy, this is history. And it is your party that wants to roll back the clock on all progress since the 50’s. The very wealthy people who own this chain of gas stations try to influence policy of the GOP to push to make contraceptives illegal again.
If that is the argument that you want, I’ll let you fight this strawman over there, as there is nothing in any of my posts that have said anything remotely resembling what you are accusing me of saying.
But at least, this time, you didn’t call me a fascist. You are improving.
Haven’t seen anyone yet mention the fetal personhood legislation that Republicans in a number of states have tried to pass. Part and parcel of these bills is the notion that hormonal and chemical means of birth control work by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine lining, thus killing the fertilized eggs. The upshot is that these laws would leave barrier contraceptives (e.g. condoms, diaphragms) as the only legal contraceptives.
Since barrier contraceptives have to be put on/in in the heat of the moment, so to speak, they may work well for individuals and couples with good self-discipline, but at the societal level, the effect of outlawing all contraceptives besides barrier contraceptives would be a significant increase in unwanted pregnancies. And since these laws would outlaw abortions, that would mean a significant increase in unwanted babies.
Which, once born, become Somebody Else’s Problem from a Republican point of view. It’s really important to Republicans that they be born, but they don’t give a damn about the babies after that. A cruel and perverse belief system they’ve got there.
Not true. At least in the UK. You can use a debit card.
I thought ‘loaded’ credit cards were a thing in the US.
Only a problem if you’re homeless.
If you have an active sex life you should be buying in bulk.
A week? It’s next day over here.
Finally, you have a point. But this is a small chain of stores; are you really telling me that there are no alternatives? You can respect their point of view even if you don’t like it. The free market means that you can shop elsewhere. Or are you going to force shops to carry stock of which they disapprove? Would you force a Muslim shopkeeper to stock alcohol?