Wisconsin Senators trying Stop Birth Control for Poor Women

[Der_Trihs]

@Bricker

Yes, the only reason anyone would favor such moves is to control dirty sexual urges in women. Of course. I see it all now. There is no possible motivation except that.

That, and religious fanaticism and simple malice.

I would think an Intelligent libertarian would think that it was far cheaper to give out some free BC than to have the government help raise another welfare Dependant child.

Wouldn’t a libertarian oppose welfare as well ?

[What_Exit]

@Der Trihs

That, and religious fanaticism and simple malice.

Wouldn’t a libertarian oppose welfare as well ?

Yes, they do. But as a matter of the lesser of two evils, they would rather prevent another welfare baby than have the govenrment pay for it.

Jim

[Green_Cymbeline]

Just saw this in today’s Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801450.html

Unintended Pregnancy Linked to State Funding Cuts
First-of-Its-Kind Study Cites Impact On Teenage Girls and Poor Women

At a time when policymakers have made reducing unintended pregnancies a national priority, 33 states have made it more difficult or more expensive for poor women and teenagers to obtain contraceptives and related medical services, according to an analysis released yesterday by the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute.

From 1994 to 2001, many states cut funds for family planning, enacted laws restricting access to birth control and placed tight controls on sex education, said the institute, a privately funded research group that focuses on sexual health and family issues.

The statewide trends help explain why more than half of the 6 million pregnancies in the United States each year are unintended and offer clues for tackling problems associated with teenage pregnancy and abortion, said researchers who specialize in the field.

Sad… so very very sad. I weep at the sad state of our society.

[Bricker]

@Alma

I would ask you to reconsider. Because I, too, would like to know if there is a tenable reason why birth control should be denied, even if the parents request it.

Sure. For example, there’s a strict libertarian approach: as a matter of policy, the government should not be paying for any of these services. You want 'em? Buy 'em yourself.

[What_Exit]

@Bricker

Sure. For example, there’s a strict libertarian approach: as a matter of policy, the government should not be paying for any of these services. You want 'em? Buy 'em yourself.

But we are paying for unwanted pregnancies and the supplying of BC is a cheap way of preventing them.

Jim

[Bricker]

@Bricker

Sure. For example, there’s a strict libertarian approach: as a matter of policy, the government should not be paying for any of these services. You want 'em? Buy 'em yourself.

…which I see has already been addressed above. And while a practical libertarian might adopt the approach mentioned in the OP as the lesser of two evils, a strict libertarian might well say, “I don’t wish to adopt the lesser OR the greater evil; I want no evil at all.” He might characterize the idea that there are only the lesser and greater evil to choose from as a fallacy of false dilemna.

[Neurotik]

@Bricker

Sure. For example, there’s a strict libertarian approach: as a matter of policy, the government should not be paying for any of these services. You want 'em? Buy 'em yourself.

Of course, we’re not talking about libertarians. We’re talking about the motives of Right-to-Lifers and the sponsors of this bill.

[Bricker]

@What Exit?

But we are paying for unwanted pregnancies and the supplying of BC is a cheap way of preventing them.

Jim

Right, sez the libertarian. So stop paying for unwanted pregnancies.

[Bricker]

@Neurotik

Of course, we’re not talking about libertarians. We’re talking about the motives of Right-to-Lifers and the sponsors of this bill.

Seems to me we were talking about the lack of any possible motive for support of the bill other than invidious control of women’s bodies.

Notice how it’s never about restricting young teen boys from contraception or having to notify the teen father’s parents before an abortion.

Yes, we must control and punish those dirty, dirty girls.

[DianaG]

@Bricker

Sure. For example, there’s a strict libertarian approach: as a matter of policy, the government should not be paying for any of these services. You want 'em? Buy 'em yourself.

Except that the proposal only applies to women between the ages of 15 and 17. So what’s the motivation for this *particular * proposal?

[crowmanyclouds]

@Ferret Herder

In that case, I’ll offer the “doesn’t give a shit about poor women’s health, just as long as his constituents’ taxes don’t pay for it” alternate explanation.

From what I’ve read the Wisconsin Family Planning Waiver is part of the federal Medicaid Program, and if I’m reading this (Family Planning Waiver Repeal Fiscal Estimate DHFS 02/06 PDF) right, it’s going to cost Wisconsin almost 7.5 million if they go thru with this.

It also said this,
“the fertility rate {per thousand?} for waiver participants between 15 and 19 years old was reduced from 91.9 in 2000 to 1.52 in 2003”
CMC

[aldiboronti]

On the front page of the Dope the thread’s title is truncated as “Wisconsin Senators trying …”

I can only agree. Wisconsin Senators are very trying.

[Weirddave]

@Otto

Yes, the right wing has been busy this week, pandering to the base as hard as they can in preparation for the November governor’s race.
Somewhere the spirit of Bob LaFollette weeps.

Who was Bob LaFollette and why was he against citizens voting on laws for their state? And what does this have to do with birth control?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Sure. For example, there’s a strict libertarian approach: as a matter of policy, the government should not be paying for any of these services. You want 'em? Buy 'em yourself.

There’s a word for people who think that way. They’re called sociopaths.

Does the state have any responsibility to ensure that all it’s children are fed, sheltered, clothed and educated? Yes or no? Is it the “strict Libertarian” view that the state should never lift a finger to prevent a child from starving to death? Is every child simply on its own? Please don’t give me any crap about the responsbility of parents. The responsibility of parents is irrelevant to my question. I want to know if the state has any responsibility for the welfare of it’s children or if every child should simply be abandoned to whatever circumstances it finds itself in and be ignored by the state?

Seems to me we were talking about the lack of any possible motive for support of the bill other than invidious control of women’s bodies.

You haven’t suggested any alternative motivation beside this. If you’re honest, I don’t think you can deny that much of this kind of legislation is driven by puritanical attitudes about sex and hostility towards female sexual autonomy.

[Ferret_Herder]

@crowmanyclouds

From what I’ve read the Wisconsin Family Planning Waiver is part of the federal Medicaid Program, and if I’m reading this (Family Planning Waiver Repeal Fiscal Estimate DHFS 02/06 PDF) right, it’s going to cost Wisconsin almost 7.5 million if they go thru with this.

Yeah, well, I’m sure they’ll try to figure out a way to wish that away as well.

[The_Weird_One]

@Weirddave

Who was Bob LaFollette and why was he against citizens voting on laws for their state? And what does this have to do with birth control?

Bob LaFollette was a Progressive politician in Wisconsin about 100 years ago. He was, at various times, a congressman, senator, and governor. He’s still remembered fondly by Wisconsinites.

While governor, he championed numerous progressive reforms, including the first workers’ compensation system, railroad rate reform, direct legislation, municipal home rule, open government, the minimum wage, non-partisan elections, the open primary system, direct election of U.S. Senators, women’s suffrage, and progressive taxation. He created an atmosphere of close cooperation between the state government and the University of Wisconsin in the development of progressive policy. This concept became known as the Wisconsin Idea

[vibrotronica]

People! People! You’re not looking at the big picture here! Of course poor women shouldn’t have access to birth control! What will Wal Mart and the other Holy American Corporations do when there are less poor people to work for the perfectly reasonable wage of $5.25/hour, not counting that hour it took to get ready for work and the hour they were locked in to clean up off the clock? If there’s a shortage of ready, willing, and desperate labor, then Holy Corporations’ Holy Profits will be affected in an unholy manner!

Won’t anyone think of the Holy Corporations? They’re just looking out for what’s best for you!

[Waverly]

@Diogenes the Cynic

There’s a word for people who think that way. They’re called sociopaths.

Sweet fucking jeezus. Everywhere you look, you see a sociopath.

I’m starting to think you are a bot sent here to undermine any non-conservative position through bat-shit crazy reductio ad absurdum.

[Neurotik]

@Bricker

Seems to me we were talking about the lack of any possible motive for support of the bill other than invidious control of women’s bodies.

Nope, sorry. The only mention of people trying to control women’s bodies was to specifically state that it was the right to life camp doing this in the OP and someone specifically quoting the chunk about right to lifers.

[Bricker]

@DianaG

What is another reason that you’d deny sexually active young women birth control?

For the same reason I might deny them lipstick, perfume, and the new Carrie Underwood CD – it’s not the job of the government to buy them these things.

@Neurotik

Nope, sorry. The only mention of people trying to control women’s bodies was to specifically state that it was the right to life camp doing this in the OP and someone specifically quoting the chunk about right to lifers.

I quoted a specific example of the rhetoric in question, and appeared originally in post #5.