A few random thoughts about the current flap over mandatory birth control for women paid for by employers:
One of the more lame liberal arguments is that not providing free birth control restricts access to birth control.
Nobody is advocating "restricting access" to birth control. Period. Forcing all employers to pay for something -- especially with no opt-out for religious institutions and businesses -- does not constitute access restriction. Think of it this way: The Second Amendment explicitly guarantees Americans' right to bear arms. This right has been affirmed by two recent Supreme Court Decisions. Let's say some gun advocates launched a hypothetical campaign to impose a federal mandate forcing all employers pay for their employees' guns, would it be fair to say that opponents of that effort were "restricting access" to firearms? Of course not. This is sophistry.
Birth control pills, if used for medical reasons are usually covered by employer insurance. The Georgetown student-activist used a medical example to make her case but this is a red herring. What she really wanted was free birth control for her social lifestyle. If she can go to Georgetown, wear nice clothes, drive a car, drink booze on the weekends, and fly all over the country to testify at congressional hearings, let her buy her own birth control pills. On second thought, perhaps, in her case, the public should buy her birth controls pills. The thought of her genes being passed on to make another generation of fire-breathing libs is not pleasant.
Gosh, even in Socialist Canada the gal pays for her own birth control pills! Though it is true that the easiest way to squeeze more milk from the states teats is to have another kid! (fun too!)
ReplyDeleteMaybe you are right...the "state" (whatever that is...I thought the "state" was actually us) should pay for anything which can reduce the welfare rolls. That would include the twenty five cents a day for birth control pills. Lots cheaper than paying for another young mouth. Your mileage may differ.