# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 6
**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, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/101 "2006-03-02T08:11:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My motive is not to repress women’s sexual expression – it is to preserve the life of unborn human beings. So, exactly how many adopted children do you have, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Jurhael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@Jurhael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurhael)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/102 "2006-03-02T08:31:26Z")
> [@](#): > > So, exactly how many adopted children do you have, anyway? Don’t you see? The BORN children are not anyone’s problem except the mother’s. Bah. That being said, I could have sworn it was established that the fetus is NOT actually a “baby”, only a potential one. It’s obvious that sexual repression is one of the reasons. Birth control made unavailable, abortion illegal. People who believe this nonsense hope to control the lives of others. It’s always been clear to me that it’s about using the law to bully others around and hopefully force them into a lifestyle that might not be desirable to many people. Except it doesn’t work. People think it does, just as they thought it did in the past, but it didn’t. Never has and never will. At least not in a country that pretends to be free. ---
**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, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/103 "2006-03-02T08:39:54Z")
> [@infamousmom](#): > > So, exactly how many adopted children do you have, anyway? None. And I assume you’ll be withdrawing your support for abortion rights since you have personally never conducted an abortion? You’ll be withdrawing your support for laws against armed robbery because you personally have never stopped an armed robbery in progress? Do you think you’re advancing some sort of rational argument with that question? Do you believe there is some sort of imperative that one may only favor a law or policy that he has personally furthered in some way? I donate a great deal of time and resources to an organization that assists needy pregnant women. We buy cribs, diapers, baby clothes, bottles, and the like for free distribution to those in need. No questions asked: show up and you can take what you need. Even if I didn’t do that, it wouldn’t change the validity of my position. But - relevancy aside - I do. ---
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/104 "2006-03-02T17:27:23Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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. I can only imagine what the true libertarian Scotsman would do. In any case, I don’t see how refusing to do even a fairly simple risk/benefit analysis is evidence of anything but pointless stubborness. If the “coercion” in this case is taxation, consider the three possibilities: [list=#][li]Pay _some_ taxes toward distrbuting birth control to teens.[/li][li]Pay _no_ taxes toward distributing birth control to teens, pay _higher_ taxes later on for more police, courts and prisons to deal with criminals (a disproportionate number of whom are born to teenage mothers).[/li][li]Pay _no_ (or minimal) taxes toward police, courts and prisons and have criminals (a disproportionate number of whom are born to teenage mothers) roaming unchecked.[/list][/li] A _true_ libertarian might be okay with that last outcome, figuring he’ll pay for his own home security and shotguns and body armor and replacing stolen stereos and whatnot. That’s not exactly the kind of freedom I’d see as ideal, though. > [@](#): > > If it ends up costing more, so be it. So… the libertarian doesn’t mind paying more taxes, when he could have paid less? Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what “coercion” you were referring to. ---
**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, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/105 "2006-03-02T17:41:24Z")
**Bryan** , I’m at a loss. If you can’t understand that some people put moral or ethical or legal considerations above economic considerations, I don’t think I can explain that to you. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/106 "2006-03-02T18:58:40Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If you can’t understand that some people put moral or ethical or legal considerations above economic considerations, I don’t think I can explain that to you. It’s easy to understand _that_ some people do. What’s harder to understand is _why_ some of those people put their ideological beliefs ahead of everything else when their chosen course is plainly very harmful. Sure, Libertarians might offer support for these bills because it suits their ideology. [No argument that they _wouldn’t._](http://www.libertarian.ca/english/positions-social-concerns.html) > [@](#): > > We call for an end to all government subsidies for child bearing, and an end to any provision of tax-supported services for children. We oppose any government intervention in the private or commercial dissemination of contraception information or of supplies used for voluntary contraception. We oppose all coercive measures to control population growth. What is harder to understand is how rational creatures can come to hold these views, and not see that the practical application of their philosophy would set back civilization several hundred years. Sure, shut down the schools and eliminate all social spending. That provides an attractive short-term benefit to those of us who are educated and secure – we get to keep more of our earnings. Yay! Except that things will naturally tend towards a small perilously-privileged class, the impoverished class will grow and grow, and the progress of society will be greatly impeded. Bring on the new Dark Ages. Even that’s not _too_ hard to understand. There will always be short-sighted loons. Luckily, they’re so marginalized as to be politically irrelevant. What’s hardest to understand is why we’re talking about these bills in terms of Libertarian political philosophy. The bills’ authors are Republican, and their voting records don’t reflect the possibility that they might be crypto-Libertarians. Even if we _are_ talking about this proposal in Libertarian terms, I don’t see an increase in “Liberty” to be gained by making this bill law, unless one places an entirely disproportionate weight on taxation’s encroachment on personal liberty. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/107 "2006-03-02T19:09:08Z")
As opposed as I am to a welfare state and to funding every need that people refuse to take care of themselves, I think birth control should always have been, be now, and always be free to anyone who wants it. Hell of a lot cheaper than feeding and clothing their offspring! ---
**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, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/108 "2006-03-02T19:12:36Z")
> [@niblet\_head](#): > > 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. Then I don’t see why you’re arguing with me. I agree with that, there are many potential reasons for why they acted the way they did. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, in my perfect world, those young men and women should be going to doctors or local healthcare workers for that discussion and preparation. Other than that, agreement with you here. > [@](#): > > 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? Not at all. It’s quite possible that they do hold these views, and i’ve said that, while it’s not an opinon I hold, I can’t prove it wrong. It’s perfectly possible. But there’s no actual evidence for it, just as there’s no evidence against it. > [@](#): > > 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? See above. > [@](#): > > 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??? Did it escape your notice that the post you quoted was in reponse to Bricker? Whom up to that point (And indeed, at the end of that post) I’d been disagreeing with? And I don’t recall calling you specifically a knee-jerker. In fact, my other suggestion for posters holding these views - that mostly people were saying " I cannot think of any other reason they would hold this position" seems to be the one you hold; that your opinion is based on the premise that they have no other motivation for doing this. > [@](#): > > 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? I don’t know. Do you have any information on sex education bills that they’ve tried to stop, or the halting of funding to such programs? Provide to me some evidence, and I may well just agree with you. > [@](#): > > 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. I agree, that would be one logical motivation - and i’ve said so before this. Provide me with some evidence beyond just their actions in this situation, and I may just agree with you that it’s the likely motivation. ---
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/109 "2006-03-02T19:24:17Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **Bryan** , I’m at a loss. If you can’t understand that some people put moral or ethical or legal considerations above economic considerations, I don’t think I can explain that to you. Wouldn’t the true libertarian leave moral and ethical decisions to the individual? Given that, I can imagine a true libertarian reasoning “Well, if you’re gonna behave like sluts anyway, at least cost me as little as possible in taxes so my own personal freedom (a large part of which is purchasing power) is maximized.” ---
**Author:** ![furlibusea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@furlibusea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furlibusea)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2006, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/110 "2006-03-03T02:45:32Z")
One way or another you wind up paying for unwanted children. You can pay for them with birth control. You can pay for them with abortion. You can pay for them in increased social programs, or you can pay for them in jails and increased insurance. The farther you get down the list the more expensive it gets. As I said before, in my high school, roughly 1/4 of our girls are pregnant or have children. For some of them, the ones with remotely functioning families, and who have any academic skills at all, it is a wake up call. Several of these girls are on our honor roll. For most of them, however, it is the end of an education that failed them before they were even born. Those are our children born of parents who aren’t much older than 30 now. They are our children of crack and addiction. They are our children of absent parents and overwhelmed grandparents. Some of them are bringing children into this world in order to be the center of attention for once in their chaotic lives. We pay to keep their fathers and boyfriends in jail. We pay in one of the highest murder per capita rates in the country. We pay to keep the police visiting our school every other day. We pay to test them with tests they can’t read every year, and we pay for the jobs they do badly or can’t hold for the rest of their lives. It seems like the way we are paying right now is the minimum payment on a maxed out credit card. We are falling farther and farther in the hole. Eventualy the violence will not be contained by the inner cities of this country. ---
**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 3, 2006, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/111 "2006-03-03T15:06:12Z")
**Revenant Threshold** , my post was an attempt to once again clarify that I did not say, and do not believe, that all people who support the bill are monolithic in their motivation. And I felt I needed to clarify it again, because this whole hijack about why Libertarians might - hypothetically - support the bill was based on a (deliberate?) misreading of my response to **furlibusea**. I did not read your post as making it clear that not everyone in my camp was not a knee-jerker. Which I guess was a misreading of _your_ post, but not deliberate. Although fueled by frustration, I admit. > [@](#): > > Not at all. It’s quite possible that they do hold these views, and i’ve said that, while it’s not an opinon I hold, I can’t prove it wrong. It’s perfectly possible. But there’s no actual evidence for it, just as there’s no evidence against it. Do I need to have evidence to support every opinion I have? Maybe in GD, but in the Pit? There’s no evidence that the bill supporters are coming from a libertarian POV, yet this thread is going round and round about it. > [@](#): > > Did it escape your notice that the post you quoted was in reponse to Bricker? Whom up to that point (And indeed, at the end of that post) I’d been disagreeing with? It did not, and to be honest, I just saw in your post many specious opportunities for **Bricker** to go off on a tangent. In retrospect, I should have answered \*\*Bricker’s \*\* objections in advance directly to him. > [@](#): > > And I don’t recall calling you specifically a knee-jerker. In fact, my other suggestion for posters holding these views - that mostly people were saying " I cannot think of any other reason they would hold this position" seems to be the one you hold; that your opinion is based on the premise that they have no other motivation for doing this. Wait. Are you saying I seem to believe there’s no other motivation? Because that’s why I was so annoyed in the first place. > [@](#): > > I don’t know. Do you have any information on sex education bills that they’ve tried to stop, or the halting of funding to such programs? Provide to me some evidence, and I may well just agree with you. > > I agree, that would be one logical motivation - and i’ve said so before this. Provide me with some evidence beyond just their actions in this situation, and I may just agree with you that it’s the likely motivation. I am talking about those types of people who do things like this in general, **Revenant Threshold**. Not just this group at this time in this situation. ---
**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 3, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/112 "2006-03-03T15:16:10Z")
> [@niblet\_head](#): > > **Revenant Threshold** , my post was an attempt to once again clarify that I did not say, and do not believe, that all people who support the bill are monolithic in their motivation. And I felt I needed to clarify it again, because this whole hijack about why Libertarians might - hypothetically - support the bill was based on a (deliberate?) misreading of my response to **furlibusea**. > > I did not read your post as making it clear that not everyone in my camp was not a knee-jerker. Which I guess was a misreading of _your_ post, but not deliberate. Although fueled by frustration, I admit. No worries. I’m sorry I didn’t make my post clear enough. > [@](#): > > Do I need to have evidence to support every opinion I have? Maybe in GD, but in the Pit? There’s no evidence that the bill supporters are coming from a libertarian POV, yet this thread is going round and round about it. You don’t need evidence to support an opinion, but if you want to convince others of the rightness of your opinion, then you’ll probably get asked for evidence. And yes, sorry about continuing that hijack with **Bricker** ’s libertarian hypothetical. Like I said to him, I may disagree both that they were coming from a libertarian perspective and that they definetly hold mysoginistic views, but it was only the libertarian part that I could actually argue against. > [@](#): > > It did not, and to be honest, I just saw in your post many specious opportunities for **Bricker** to go off on a tangent. In retrospect, I should have answered \*\*Bricker’s \*\* objections in advance directly to him. That’s what I was trying to do myself - but as you saw, it did end up as a pretty big hijack. Apologies to you and others in this thread that weren’t interested in that. > [@](#): > > Wait. Are you saying I seem to believe there’s no other motivation? Because that’s why I was so annoyed in the first place. No, I simply meant that _seemed_ to be your opinion. I think I got the wrong end of the stick, there, so sorry again. If you think there are possibly other motivations, i’m in complete agreement with you. > [@](#): > > I am talking about those types of people who do things like this in general, **Revenant Threshold**. Not just this group at this time in this situation. Ah, ok. I took your posts to be talking about these particular senators, and not these “types of people”. It’s understandable to have that view, really, and I do share that position. I just don’t think, in this particular case, that the motivation was mysogynistic views - just an opinion - but if you expect me to change my mind you’d need evidence, which is what I was talking about. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601.md?page=5)