Still, the administration has another motivation to act as quickly as possible: It is eager to court the votes of women dismayed by the rulings. The Democratic National Committee is already urging voters to fight back against the Hobby Lobby decision and to “stand up for Obamacare” in the November elections.Of course, political advantage will be taken. This issue is served up nicely for Democrats. What can Republicans do? Personally, I recommend that the federal government directly pay for all birth control. Take the employers, all employers, out of the process of funding birth control and make it a straightforward public health program.
You know, we ought to be glad that women control their reproductive function to the extent that they do. We can't force women to use birth control. We should at least facilitate the voluntary behavior that benefits all of us. It's ridiculous that we've stumbled into a position where this perfectly wholesome governmental policy is bedeviling religious people.
पोस्ट्स
२०६ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 206 पैकी 201 – 206How about a program like food stamps where you have to show need? I don't see why the large numbers of women who can pay for birth control should get it for free.
The real reason this has become such an issue is the culture war.
Shrinking welfare payments and the size of government via infanticide is repulsive.
So-called pro-lifers who conflate birth control and abortion are not doing the pro-life movement any favors. Do you think a sperm is a baby?
furious_a, you say birth control kills a baby.
What death statute are you using? How do people die in your universe?
Unknown:
It's about political, economic, and social leverage. The Democrats are masters of exploiting and exacerbating real and manufactured issues. It's like homosexual marriage, or abortion, which is good for someone else, but is a dead end for their dynasty.
Ann Althouse said...
"How NOT having kids benefits life will remain a mystery when we're gone,..."
"The benefit is: Women having their children at a time in their life when they have the emotional and financial resources to take good care of the children who will be the future population."
Yet biology says the best time to have children is in early to mid twenties, even as the average age at first birth in the USA continues to incrase (it's increased by about five years since 1975). And that's for all women, not just women who earn advanced degrees.
Fertility declines with advancing age, with the result that more than a few women who postpone childbirth will have just one, or no children at all. Even as the risk of birth defects goes from about (1 in 1400) in the prime years to (1 in 84) by age 40.
The effects of delayed childbirth are seen all over the developed world, as birth rates fall well below replacement rates (as would be happening here, were not for immigrants' relatively high birth rates). Perhaps that wouldn't matter, except that welfare states can't work with low birth rates. European countries all have massive welfare, and all have low birth rates. Mostly they have "solved" this problem by accepting large numbers of non-assimilating Muslims (which partly solves the problem, but not without consequences).
Women with advanced degrees invest more in each child, and to some extent medicine can mitigate the effects of late childbirth. But the facts of reproductive biology are not repealed, and the present situation in developed countries continues to be biologically and culturally unsustainable.
This is, perhaps, one of the stupidest things I've ever seen Althouse write.
Gov't shouldn't pay for birth control. Period. Nor should it pay for liposuction, or hip replacements, or any other medical services or procedures not dealing with HIGHLY, INVOLUNTARILY COMMUNICABLE, LETHAL diseases. The Black Plague is a legitimate public health concern, Sandra's birth control and Bill's Viagra are not.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा