Why do conservatives want to deny women free birth control?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

This is why I’m a pro-life Democrat. Realistically speaking, measures such as expanded access to birth control, and social programs for poor families will do much more to reduce abortions then laws that will immediately be voided by the federal courts (or even damage the pro-life movement as the vaginal ultrasound laws do).

[Llama_Llogophile]

@adaher

Which would mean little. Planned Parenthood gets enough money without needing federal dollars. Plus the absence of federal funding would increase private donations dramatically.

So conservatives are trying to defund PP (which proves the point of this thread), but you’re saying that means nothing practical?

Look, conservatives are often bull headed enough to enter into symbolic fights they have no chance of winning. But I don’t think that’s what they’re thinking here.

[donrichardson]

@Habeed

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.

You are absolutely right but you aren’t thinking like a capitalist. By denying birth control to women there are lot more unwanted pregnancies. Some of those women will have abortion$, which fuels the medical profession. Those who don’t have abortions become a burden to society but it doesn’t cost the medical profession anything; the taxpayer pays. The medical profession doesn’t want to see universal birth control because it would negatively effect their abortion cash cow.

[Chimera]

The better question is to compare two things;

Viagra = Good, cover with insurance
Birth Control = Bad, no insurance, derogatory words toward women who want it.

You want to make these bastards uncomfortable? Start asking why.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

Is this going to be one of those “why do conservatives …?” and then 95% of all answer ar by liberal, and poor John Mace has to be pconservative-by-proxy?

Even though I am personally opposed to contraception, I would not oppose cheap/free access to them, as they reduce abortions, which are a much, much, much reater evil.

However, “free” access to contraception should be based on reasonalbe standards, not simply “it feels right”. Shouldn’t people be allowed to chose no BC and get cheaper insurance?. Free for all?

@bobot

I’ll use my open eyes as my cite. I recall an oil giant poisoning the Gulf Of Mexico. I recall fisherman of the Gulf being denied their life’s work. I recall a poor, poor, strained oil executive wanting his life back, rather like a psychopath.
A generalization, sure, and a true one.

I’m sure you stopped using oil products, including plastics, to show that you’re really disgusted. Too bad Bp didn’t use the magical oil eco-pixies to produce it.

[bobot]

Apparently you missed what I was responding to. It had nothing to do with how the oil was produced, especially not those working on the wells. But I’m pleased to find agreement with you regarding the pixies.

[John_Mace]

@Llama_Llogophile

So conservatives are trying to defund PP (which proves the point of this thread)…

No, it doesn’t. Many conservatives might not what the government to offer “free” birth control, but if private citizens what to do that, that’s a different story. There is a significant difference between opposing the government funding of an activity and the private funding of an activity. It’s like claiming that when the government doesn’t fund arts projects, it’s engaged in censorship.

If conservatives were really interested in “denying” women “free” birth control, they would be trying to enact laws to make it illegal. I’m not seeing that.

[Llama_Llogophile]

@John_Mace

No, it doesn’t. Many conservatives might not what the government to offer “free” birth control, but if private citizens what to do that, that’s a different story. There is a significant difference between opposing the government funding of an activity and the private funding of an activity. It’s like claiming that when the government doesn’t fund arts projects, it’s engaged in censorship.

If conservatives were really interested in “denying” women “free” birth control, they would be trying to enact laws to make it illegal. I’m not seeing that.

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Certainly, there are some conservatives who look at this as a public vs. private funding issue. But as I said in my first response in this thread, conservatives don’t seem to be getting their backs up about how we fund flu shots. People like Limbaugh and Huckabee * are pissed off about contraception in particular. They can’t stand it, they’re wrong, and again I say - fuck them.

• You might say, correctly, that Rush and Huck don’t speak for all conservatives. But so far, I haven’t heard much outcry from folk of that ilk telling them to shut up.

[John_Mace]

@Llama_Llogophile

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Certainly, there are some conservatives who look at this as a public vs. private funding issue. But as I said in my first response in this thread, conservatives don’t seem to be getting their backs up about how we fund flu shots. People like Limbaugh and Huckabee * are pissed off about contraception in particular. They can’t stand it, they’re wrong, and again I say - fuck them.

Bad analogy. Flu shots are a matter of public health. If you get the flu, you might give it to me. If you get pregnant, you’re not going to give pregnancy to anyone else.

[Llama_Llogophile]

@John_Mace

Bad analogy. Flu shots are a matter of public health. If you get the flu, you might give it to me. If you get pregnant, you’re not going to give pregnancy to anyone else.

Well, this is where the rubber (heh) meets the road: I most definitely see contraception as a matter of public health.

[Habeed]

@John_Mace

Bad analogy. Flu shots are a matter of public health. If you get the flu, you might give it to me. If you get pregnant, you’re not going to give pregnancy to anyone else.

If you get pregnant, and you cannot afford the enormous costs of raising a child, society has to either

1. Let the child either die or grow up malnourished and mistreated. A malnourished/mistreated child is extremely likely to become a criminal, which does affect you.

2. Pay the costs of caring for the child - that includes payments to the mother, to the child’s doctors, to the grocer - this ends up costing tens of thousands of dollars or more.

Either way it does affect you just as much as a flu going around.

[John_Mace]

@Habeed

If you get pregnant, and you cannot afford the enormous costs of raising a child, society has to either

1. Let the child either die or grow up malnourished and mistreated. A malnourished/mistreated child is extremely likely to become a criminal, which does affect you.

2. Pay the costs of caring for the child - that includes payments to the mother, to the child’s doctors, to the grocer - this ends up costing tens of thousands of dollars or more.

Either way it does affect you just as much as a flu going around.

Conservatives will argue that:

1. The general public is not responsible for raising children, and that doing so encourages people to have children who shouldn’t.

2. The cost of incarnation is so high only because of requirements that non-conservatives have placed on the prison system. Do you really think that if conservatives were running the prison system that incarceration costs would be so prohibitive?

You can’t judge conservative principles based on the assumptions of non-conservatives.

[Habeed]

@John_Mace

Conservatives will argue that:

2. The cost of incarnation is so high only because of requirements that non-conservatives have placed on the prison system. Do you really think that if conservatives were running the prison system that incarceration costs would be so prohibitive?

Incaceration doesn’t stop first-time criminals. The murder rate used to be a lot higher, and, possibly coincidentally, it was during a time period where abortion was illegal.

[John_Mace]

@Habeed

Incaceration doesn’t stop first-time criminals. The murder rate used to be a lot higher, and, possibly coincidentally, it was during a time period where abortion was illegal.

I didn’t say anything about that. Where are you getting this???

But the murder rate is largely correlated to the percentage of young males in the population. That has been steadily declining for years. An older population, like he US now vs 75 years ago, is going to naturally have a lower murder rate.

[adaher]

@Llama_Llogophile

So conservatives are trying to defund PP (which proves the point of this thread), but you’re saying that means nothing practical?

Look, conservatives are often bull headed enough to enter into symbolic fights they have no chance of winning. But I don’t think that’s what they’re thinking here.

It’s not symbolic. tax money should not pay for abortions, and that’s not just a conservative position. Since money is fungible, a case can be made that funding PP does in fact subsidize abortion with taxpayer dollars.

Personally though, I think Republicans should start using more Democratic tactics to deal with Planned Parenthood. Under most circumstances, receiving federal money means the federal government has enormous power to regulate your business. Republicans should just get PP doing more things Republicans like.

[elucidator]

@adaher

… Republicans should just get PP doing more things Republicans like.

Like, what, for instance?

(If I could only have learned to resist the power of morbid curiosity, I wouldn’t know so much stuff that I wish I didn’t.)

[adaher]

I don’t know, maybe promote marriage or something, or abstinence, or military recruiting.

[BobLibDem]

@John_Mace

Conservatives will argue that:

1. The general public is not responsible for raising children, and that doing so encourages people to have children who shouldn’t.

2. The cost of incarnation is so high only because of requirements that non-conservatives have placed on the prison system. Do you really think that if conservatives were running the prison system that incarceration costs would be so prohibitive?

You can’t judge conservative principles based on the assumptions of non-conservatives.

1. You can say that the general public is not responsible for raising children, but if the parents cannot afford to do so you have to choose between letting the child starve or having the general public feed it. If conservatives truly favored smaller government, they would prefer to spend pennies funding contraception or dollars funding abortion as opposed to thousands of dollars bringing up children that the parents cannot.

2. The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment has pretty non-partisan roots. Sure, you have sociopaths like Joe Arpaio gleefully abusing his prisoners, many of whom are not guilty of anything and only awaiting trial. But on the whole, most people don’t want to abuse people in prison. Not sure what conservaties would do to make it more cost-effective, sounds to me like the old “if we only could cut waste in government we could balance the budget” bullshit.

[adaher]

@BobLibDem

1. You can say that the general public is not responsible for raising children, but if the parents cannot afford to do so you have to choose between letting the child starve or having the general public feed it. If conservatives truly favored smaller government, they would prefer to spend pennies funding contraception or dollars funding abortion as opposed to thousands of dollars bringing up children that the parents cannot.

There are always going to be conflicts between values. Making the government cheaper is a priority for conservatives, but it’s not always the top priority. Plus there are other ways to avoid paying for children, one of them signed by President Clinton in the 1996 welfare reform bill: you don’t get more welfare if you have more children while you are on it.

[Lightnin]

@John_Mace

First of all, you have offered one alleged example, which does not prove anything about what happens “generally”, as was the claim. And second, you are offering a medical diagnosis based on one sentence the guys said in an interview, which is simply absurd. Thirdly, you used weasel wording (“rather like” as opposed to “is”).

That’s a hat trick of logical fallacies in one short post.

Although this is very tangential to the actual OP, I’ll just leave this here:

“Among the things he learned while researching his new book, “The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry”: the incidence of psychopathy among CEOs is about 4 percent, four times what it is in the population at large.”