Now, on the face of it, “free birth control” (to women who have jobs who can afford to pay the premiums on an Obamacare health insurance plan) sounds like yet another government “giveaway”. Also, the birth control is being treated differently than other forms of healthcare : if the women is prescribed aspirin instead of BC hormones by an Obamacare doctor, that aspirin will not be free, and depends on deductible/copay/out of pocket maximums.
However, if conservative voters and Congressmen thought about it for another fraction of a second, instead of kneejerk saying “no way!”, they’d realize that the opposite is what they should be supporting. Think about all those people that conservatives don’t want to see breeding : unwed black mothers, irresponsible high school and college students, welfare moms, trailer park residents, poor union workers, illegal immigrants, and so on. In fact, the very people who are beginning to outnumber conservative voters at the polls because they breed faster are the people who cannot easily afford to pay $600/year for the birth control pills!
Second, by refusing to spend taxpayer money on the pills is an example of “penny wise, pound foolish”. If a woman can’t afford the pills out of pocket, guess who will pick up the tab when she brings the baby to term and needs various forms of public assistance for the child’s entire childhood? The pills are a very cheap form of prevention.
As a matter of fact, it might save the country money to simply offer the birth control pills free of charge to any American woman, regardless of ability to pay.
Go write your Congressman, and/or tell me why I am wrong.
IANAC, but for starters, they’re not “free”. Best to say “publicly funded”.
I’m guessing a lot of conservatives think that readily available birth control results in casual sex, which they think is bad. They think sex is best reserved for a stable family unit. Good luck with that!
Oh, not even for a “stable family unit” - there’s a group out there that basically thinks sex is bad and abstinence the only proper birth control.
That certainly is the reason any non-married people shouldn’t have birth control in their eyes - sex only in marriage, everyone else should just say “no”.
So, just to be clear, you think that conservatives should ignore their principles and endorse a policy because it will deny Democrats more votes in the future?
I’m saying that conservative values include being fiscally conservative. Or, at least that is what conservative’s claim. Reducing the number of babies born to mothers who are not in a position of financial strength would seem to be in line with conservative values.
In addition, reducing the number of people who breed who don’t “deserve” children (because they are too poor) means that the kind of people conservatives like - good old fashioned, religious, stable family unit kind of people who generally are white or asian - are relatively more common in the future.
Or, to put it another way : I think the real reason conservatives are against subsidized birth control (free to the end user) is that it seems like government funding of recreational sex. The problem is, those people the conservatives don’t want breeding are exactly the kind of people who will be engaging in this sex, and they will be doing it whether or not the government provides the birth control. Ironically, the people who the conservatives do want to see breeding (well off women from good families) are the least likely to do it.
If we are going to put things in such moralistic terms; because people generally “succeed” by being vicious, amoral predators who inflict a great deal of suffering in the process; they deserve punishment. Our society is designed to reward people the most who are psychopaths, or willing to act like psychopaths.
As for more practical reasons, because people can only become rich by taking advantages of all the many services and protections that government and society at large offer; all of which need to be paid for. And, because letting money pool at the top is bad for the economy and social stability.
If you’re going to be that cynical, why stop there? Why not accuse conservatives of wanting to burden the people you described with unwanted children in order to keep them down?
I’m going to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt and accept that they have sincere religious and philosophical beliefs that abortion is wrong.
Hardly. The fact that the modern corporate world is almost ideally designed to promote & reward psychopathy and that some companies actively recruit psychopaths for leadership positions is pretty well known.
Except being “fiscally conservative” isn’t the only conservative value. There are lots of things that could be done to save money but that would violate or come in conflict with some other value.
But don’t deny you said conservatives should, cynically, support a policy that violates their principles in order to get more votes. It’s right there in your OP. If you don’t see it, then you’re blinded by your own ideological distaste for “conservatives”.
OK, now you’re veering into racist territory, besides ignoring one very strong “conservative value”, i.e. promoting self-reliance.
That’s not “putting it another way”, that’s an entirely different argument. And one I mentioned in my first post in this thread.
Perhaps conservatives think (rightly or wrongly) that there are other ways to encourage people to form stable family units. Ways that don’t violate some “conservative value” or other.
Although the onus is on him to prove him (not that I expect he will), it’s actually quite difficult to demonstrate that an individual has sociopathy. It’s a pretty complex as a diagnosis and we don’t even really know how common it is. Moreover, the purely physical markers don’t necessarily mean one has the social/emotional ones most associated with it.