# Wisconsin Senators trying Stop Birth Control for Poor Women **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 1, 2006, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601 "2006-03-01T12:54:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/81 "2006-03-02T00:49:40Z")
> [@What Exit?](#): > > So is it your view or are you just stating your hypothetical strict libertarian position? > > Jim It’s not my view. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/82 "2006-03-02T00:59:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I see. > > What evidence, precisely, was adduced for the claim that these senators hold such misogynistic views, then? I see no such evidence - posters don’t seem to be making that claim based on evidence. Mostly it’s “I can’t think of any other reasons for them to do this other than misogynistic views” which I personally would disagree with, since logically a misogynist would try and repeal this program for all women, not just the 15-17 year olds - though it could be a case of “small steps” just as your hypothetical strict libertarian’s moves. But this is, of course, guesswork. Likewise there’s a been a few posters who seem to base their assumption on the old “evil conservative are doing something to hurt women, again. Bloodsucking mysognists!” “argument” which is again not based on any evidence (other than past history, but I’m not going to debate entire conservative political views, here). There’s always a few knee-jerkers. I don’t claim there’s any evidence supporting these views - just conjecture. I was merely pointing out the flaws in your strict libertarian hypothetical; because while I think both that view and the mysoginist claims are wrong, I can’t prove the mysoginist claims wrong. I could prove your hypothetical to be unrelated to this situation, though. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/83 "2006-03-02T01:07:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nonsense. You can support laws against murder, but not favor public charity of any kind. Again looking at the libetarian world, you can be guided by the principle of non-coercion: prohibit only the initiation of force against an unwilling recipient, and nothing else. If someone starves on his own, that’s no business of the government; if he’s killed by another, that is an initiation of force. Doesn’t refusing to perform a minor act of public “charity” while ignoring that this will avert a much larger public expense later on suggest a certain refusal to recognize reality? Rather non-objectivist, I’d say. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/84 "2006-03-02T01:11:21Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Doesn’t refusing to perform a minor act of public “charity” while ignoring that this will avert a much larger public expense later on suggest a certain refusal to recognize reality? Rather non-objectivist, I’d say. No, because a libertarian wouldn’t be making that expense later on. But you’re also confusing libertarianism with objectivism. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/85 "2006-03-02T01:14:00Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No, because a libertarian wouldn’t be making that expense later on. Oh? Is he going to refuse to pay for prisons and police and courts and other mechanisms of law enforcement? > [@](#): > > But you’re also confusing libertarianism with objectivism. There’s a great deal of overlap. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/86 "2006-03-02T01:26:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Absolutely. A libertarian would most certainly want to do away with public schools. If you want schooling for your kids, pay for it… why should a childless couple be forced to pay for schools? So the uneducated and unemployable _ex_-kids won’t cave in your skull with a crowbar, so they can rob you for food money. > [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. And we had a thread just recently on precisely that sort of arrangement. So what? Sounds fine. In other words, if you’re poor, you deserve to burn, or be rendered homeless. And of course, the fire will neatly obey property lines, and not spread into a city-wrecking firestorm. > [@Bricker](#): > > I’m saying that it’s a principled, consistent position to hold, not the result of a malicious soul or a desire to repress women, children or puppies. And the distinction between libertarionism and malice/repression is ? Very little, judging from what you’re saying. > [@John Mace](#): > > Not the same thing. What’s wrong with saying that if you can’t support your baby, give it up for adoption, but don’t make me pay for it. And if there aren’t any takers ? > [@Bricker](#): > > You can support laws against murder, but not favor public charity of any kind. Only if you want to be logically incoherent. If you are willing to let someone starve to death, why bother with a law against murder ? You’ve already made it clear that human life has no value to you. You are also encouraging murder, by forcing people who have no other choice to use violence to get what they need to survive. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/87 "2006-03-02T01:26:51Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Oh? Is he going to refuse to pay for prisons and police and courts and other mechanisms of law enforcement? Yes. Most libertarians recognize courts, prisons and law enforcement as legitimate government functions. > [@](#): > > There’s a great deal of overlap. There may be some, but there isn’t the philosphical overlap you were assuming. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/88 "2006-03-02T01:30:40Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > And the distinction between libertarionism and malice/repression is ? Personal responsibility. I know it’s a foreighn concept to you, but some of us out here still think it’s an important value, perhaps the most important value of all. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/89 "2006-03-02T01:39:49Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Personal responsibility. I know it’s a foreighn concept to you, but some of us out here still think it’s an important value, perhaps the most important value of all. Please. As individuals, people are near-helpless. They are tiny, weak things in a vast world that can destroy them and everything they care about by sheer chance, much less malice. That’s why an organization is needed to accomplish almost everything of importance. Telling someone who’s being stepped on by someone richer than him or a corporation or something else with far more power than him is simply a dishonest, sneering method of trying to avoid paying your own fair share in the upkeep of society; you just want to be dead weight while the rest of us try to keep everything from degenerating into dog-eat-dog anarchy. “Personal responsibilty” is code for “not _my_ responsibility !”. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/90 "2006-03-02T01:58:31Z")
Regarding the contraception, does the bill call for a ban on contraception to minors? Or to public funding of contraception? Huge difference. If the contraception part of it is that public money won’t be used to provide it for free, I can’t see anything wrong with it. If a kid thinks they’re old enough to have sex, they’re old enough to spend a few bucks and buy condoms. Do diabetics get free insulin from schools? Seems a diabetic has less control over the need for health care. You can decide against consensual sex. You can’t will your pancreas to function properly. Aren’t there laws in most states against underage sex? Statutory rape from what I understand. That means someone, usually, under 18 isn’t legally able to choose to give consent. (Yes, i know it’s unrealistic, I’m looking at what current laws are.) If I have an underage child I’m entrusting to a school for 8 hours a day, I better damn well know what they’re providing my child. And if my 17 year old daughter gets birth control without my knowledge, then becomes pregnant, why am I on the hook for raising the child financially? Shouldn’t the school be responsible to helping condone the sex by implying the contraception is infallible? Sure, they may mention that birth control isn’t 100% effective, but if they think a kid is going to seriously weigh the risk they have no business being in an authority role in any child’s life. As I mentioned in another thread, I just don’t understand anymore the right’s opposition to abortion. Why force the poor and disadvantaged to shoulder the responsibility of raising children? It increases the need for aid, perpetuates the cycle of poverty, and doesn’t do any more than increase the coffers of special interests. If the lowest of our society want to eradicate themselves, who am I to stand in their way? If a pregnant woman wants to smoke crack every day of her pregnancy, hey, it’s her body, her choice. Hell, use the public funds to buy the crack. It lowers her chances of committing a crime to get the money, increases the chance of spontaneous abortion, keeps her sedate and content and ends the ethics issue of a doctor ending a life. It’s a win, win, win. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/91 "2006-03-02T02:01:33Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Please. As individuals, people are near-helpless. They are tiny, weak things in a vast world that can destroy them and everything they care about by sheer chance, much less malice. That’s why an organization is needed to accomplish almost everything of importance. Holy shit. You really do think an orginization is needed in every aspect of human life, don’t you? If you beleive in evolution, you know damn well humans don’t need oversight for survival. You really are full of shit. This is one of the weakest arguments you’ve made so far. And none of them have been particularly strong to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/92 "2006-03-02T02:02:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not my view. I am actually very happy to hear that, I don’t think it was clear and I have a respect for you as a poster and I would have lost it. _{Not that you would really care, but still, you are an intelligent poster and I wouldn’t think that of you if you really wanted to dismantle the Public education system}_ I understand your hypothetical Libertarian but I think most would choose to provide the BC unless they had strong religious objections. The self Proclaimed libertarians I know hate welfare and would like to prevent welfare babies. This is a quote: “Birth Control, hell we should gladly pay for Tubal ligation and vasectomies to ensure we reduce the size of welfare families. A Huge long term cost savings.” I actually agree with the quote above, it is why I remember it. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/93 "2006-03-02T02:12:13Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Yes. Most libertarians recognize courts, prisons and law enforcement as legitimate government functions. Then I don’t understand what you mean by “a libertarian wouldn’t be making that expense later on”. He’s certainly going to be _paying_ the expense, through his “legitimate” taxes, of having to arrest, prosecute and imprison unwanted children who grow up to be criminals, a disproportionate number of whom are born to teenagers and the poor. Giving every teenage girl in Wisconsin free condoms is a downright bargain by comparison. I’m having trouble seeing this as a moral or ethical issue; merely an economic one. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/94 "2006-03-02T02:17:02Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Then I don’t understand what you mean by “a libertarian wouldn’t be making that expense later on”. He’s certainly going to be _paying_ the expense, through his “legitimate” taxes, of having to arrest, prosecute and imprison unwanted children who grow up to be criminals, a disproportionate number of whom are born to teenagers and the poor. Giving every teenage girl in Wisconsin free condoms is a downright bargain by comparison. I’m having trouble seeing this as a moral or ethical issue; merely an economic one. Why would anyone bother with allowing death sentences to be appealed? Just shoot the guy after his sentence is read. I’m having trouble seeing this as a moral or ethical issue; merely an economic one. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/95 "2006-03-02T02:21:51Z")
**Bryan** : In all seriousness, though, I think I see what you’re getting at. A principled libertarian is not going to support or not support a program based on that program’s cost. He’s going to support it depending on whether or not coercion is involved. Freedom is the goal. It’s an end in itself. And while libertarians expect that their kind of government will be much smaller in scale than you typically find today, and that budgets will be considerably smaller, too, they don’t claim that every libertarian position will result in a smaller expenditure. It’s the net effect of all the initiatives taken together. But even then, that’s not a goal, just a likely outcome. If it ends up costing more, so be it. ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_the\_Impaler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Carol\_the\_Impaler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_the_Impaler)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/96 "2006-03-02T02:43:32Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > I see no such evidence - posters don’t seem to be making that claim based on evidence. Mostly it’s “I can’t think of any other reasons for them to do this other than misogynistic views” which I personally would disagree with, since logically a misogynist would try and repeal this program for all women, not just the 15-17 year olds - though it could be a case of “small steps” just as your hypothetical strict libertarian’s moves. But this is, of course, guesswork. > > Likewise there’s a been a few posters who seem to base their assumption on the old “evil conservative are doing something to hurt women, again. Bloodsucking mysognists!” “argument” which is again not based on any evidence (other than past history, but I’m not going to debate entire conservative political views, here). There’s always a few knee-jerkers. > > I don’t claim there’s any evidence supporting these views - just conjecture. I was merely pointing out the flaws in your strict libertarian hypothetical; because while I think both that view and the mysoginist claims are wrong, I can’t prove the mysoginist claims wrong. I could prove your hypothetical to be unrelated to this situation, though. Well, as poster #5, I can tell you that I did not say that all who wish the bill to be passed, all who sponsored/wrote the bill, or even anyone - liberal or conservative - who does not want women to have access to contraception are mysognists. I also did not state that I could not think of “any other reason” why they would support it beyond hating women, or even trying to control and punish them. You’ll be quite pleased, I’m sure, to know that I tend to be quite conservative in thinking that all young men and women should delay having sex for as long as possible, that they should take it seriously both because of the emotional implications and the risks of pregnancy and STDs. I think if they’re not mature enough to handle these very real possibilities, they’re not ready to have sex. In a perfect world, all young men and women should be going to their parents primarily to discuss and prepare for sex. But is it so beyond the pale to think that there are those who are threatened by or resent a woman’s right to choose whether and when to have sex, that are so threatened by or afraid of a woman’s right to express her sexuality that they see no problem in attacking her ability to have access to the means to engage in sex safely whilst minimizing the chances she’ll get pregnant? You think NO ONE who is part of the Wisconsin Pro-life community holds this fear? Holds a hatred of women? Wants to curtail their personal freedom due to their distrust, disregard, and disGUST of women who have sex pre-maritally? Do you think NO ONE who wants to curtail access to contraception wants it done to directly affect (and therefore exact a measure of control) whether or not a young woman has sex? You think that MY reaction was knee-jerk? How about the hijacking of this thread based on misreading what **Bricker** assumed was a liberal knee-jerk??? And my question still stands (honestly, I am asking to be enlightened). Do these people (extrapolating out to the whole who think this bill and other actions like that, not just the extremist right) also actively support educating women, making sure they respect themselves, giving them a reason to look forward to a future, helping them develop themselves and their self-regard so they don’t make babies just so someone will love them? Because if they’re not, and _all_ they want to do is take away the means to prevent pregancy and disease without backing it up with some alternative, then yes, it seems to me that one logical motivation is their desire to control and punish women who have sex. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/97 "2006-03-02T02:57:04Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Regarding the contraception, does the bill call for a ban on contraception to minors? Or to public funding of contraception? Huge difference. If the contraception part of it is that public money won’t be used to provide it for free, I can’t see anything wrong with it… The bill would make 15,16, and 17 year olds ineligible for this program, (warning PDF link!)[ > [@](#): > > Wisconsin Medicaid Fact Sheet > The Family Planning Waiver {Program} > What Services are Covered Under the Family Planning Waiver? > > ``` > * Initial family planning office visits > * Contraceptive services and supplies > * Natural family planning supplies > * Family planning pharmacy visits > * Pap tests > * Test and treatment for Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) and other select lab tests > * Tubal ligation > * Annual and routine preventative primary care services > > ``` > > Who is Eligible for the Family Planning Waiver? > To be found eligible for the FPW, you must: > • Be a U.S. citizen or a qualified immigrant. > • Be a Wisconsin resident > • Be a woman between 15 and 44 years of age (including women 15 and 44 years of age). > • Have a family gross income that does not exceed 185% of the federal poverty level. (For > minors, a parent’s income is not counted). > • Not be receiving Medicaid. > • Cooperate with all requirements of the Medicaid Program. ]([http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/medicaid1/recpubs/factsheets/pdfs/phc10068.pdf](http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/medicaid1/recpubs/factsheets/pdfs/phc10068.pdf)) > [@duffer](#): > > …Do diabetics get free insulin from schools? Seems a diabetic has less control over the need for health care… Well, if your poor you might be eligible for Medicaid, if your not your screwed, just like everybody else! CMC ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/98 "2006-03-02T03:29:38Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Holy shit. You really do think an orginization is needed in every aspect of human life, don’t you? If you beleive in evolution, you know damn well humans don’t need oversight for survival. You really are full of shit. This is one of the weakest arguments you’ve made so far. And none of them have been particularly strong to begin with. Really; so you live in the woods as a hermit, and made a computer and internet connection from twigs and leaves ? ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/99 "2006-03-02T03:43:47Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Really; so you live in the woods as a hermit, and made a computer and internet connection from twigs and leaves ? Are you referring to the Big Corporations that brought cable internet to me? Or the private capatalists that set up the infrastructure and provide the service? Maybe I took your post as different than what you meant by it. Based on your postings, I figured you were talking about government being involved in helping us poor, weak and helpless mortals get by without absolute structure granted from high by Big Brother. Sure, being a member of a clan was what helped humans organize and survive. But what we’re dealing with here is state, and by default federal, leadership. Society isn’t dependant on politics to make us civilized. And politics alone have done more to make us less civilized in the last 50 years. But if you think the government is the answer to all our problems, I guess the world has plenty of message board fodder for years to come. ---
**Author:** ![infamousmom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d6d6ee/32.png) [@infamousmom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/infamousmom)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/100 "2006-03-02T08:09:54Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Somewhere the spirit of Bob LaFollette weeps. Heh. When I was living in Wisconsin (Appleton, circa 1968-1974) they had a “cohabitation” law that authorized the cops to arrest people of opposite genders who were not married, if they were found together in a room between the hours of 2 and 5 am. They also had laws prohibiting the sale of both contraceptives and aspirin except by a licensed pharmacist. Thus, whether you had a headache or not, you still had to go see the pharmacist. Bob LaFollette might be weeping, but ol’ Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy is no doubt dancing a jig somewhere in Hell. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601.md?page=6)