In response to so much knee jerk opposition to a Presidential legislative proposition, I must once again voice my position on the subject of distraction du jour.
The proposed legislation was to require insurance companies to provide birth control, not the state. Any statement made about "your taxes" is moot. That being said, as a "fiscally conservative" taxpayer, I insist that the government spend it's tax revenue as effectively and efficiently as possible. Obviously the label "fiscally conservative" is meaningless because all citizens regardless of their political ideology want the money spent as effectively and efficiently as possible. A society costs money. Taxes are necessary in order to maintain society. I WANT my taxes spent on supporting Planned Parenthood and any NGO or state funded program that provides birth control. I WANT my taxes being spent effectively and efficiently so that all citizens, men and women, have access to affordable birth control in all of it's forms. Preventative birth control should be encouraged in our society. Why? Because it is more efficient and effective to spend our tax dollars on birth control then to have to pay for the cost of welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, child care, health care, education and unfortunately the criminal activity and incarceration that will occur with some unplanned pregnancies. If every pregnancy in our country (and in the world) was a planned pregnancy, then the need for many of the social programs that rely upon tax dollars would virtually disappear. To say that the taxpayer's burden, in order to maintain society would be greatly diminished would be the understatement of the century.
What a tragic irony it is that those within the Pro-Life Movement, particularly the Catholic Church, that are also opposed to providing citizens with the tools needed to prevent unplanned pregnancy. There are "realists", there are "idealists" and then there are "absurdists". To think that the only message to the human race, is that the only option in life is to not be a sexual being unless you are planning on conceiving a child is absolutely absurd. The Catholic Church does do an amazing amount of charitable work around the world, but with a global population that will soon reach 7 billion, and according to The World Bank, 80% of the human race lives on less than $10 a day, the message should be "prevent pregnancy" not "abstinence".
Rush Limbaugh, the most infamous of all knee jerk reactionary opponents of anything said by anyone that is identified as a Democrat or a Liberal, has committed in my opinion the greatest of all offenses, hypocrisy. How often has he ranted about welfare moms leaching off of the system? How often has he claimed that much of our financial burden as taxpayers comes from people who are on state assistance and continue to have children so that they can continue to stay on assistance and not have to work? It is a fact that there is abuse within the system, I'm not denying that. There is lots of abuse throughout the entire economic system, but Rush never complains about subsidies to already profitable oil or pharmaceutical corporations. He just rants and places blame, and creates an Us vs.Them mentality. That's his job. Again, tragic irony that he is not the loudest voice advocating that all people on state assistance should be on birth control. Republicans in several states are demanding that everyone on state assistance be drug tested, at their own expense (and to a net loss for the state of Florida) But none of the conservative pundits are advocating for encouraging citizens on state assistance to be on birth control.
So here is my proposal: Let's pick a county in the center of Maine. Let's fund all forms of preventative birth control for all of the citizens in that county. How do we fund it? I don't know, that's what our elected officials are for, figuring out a budget. I will accept an increase in one of the state taxes. Let's encourage the young people that as they become adults to use birth control. Commit to doing it for five years. Track the number of teen pregnancies, the number of abortions, the crime rate, the number of new applicant single mothers and families on state assistance. After we have the data, let's talk about the effectiveness of the program and whether or not it was cost effective. If it works, then let's implement it on a state wide level. If it's not, I'll admit that I was wrong, but at least I was willing to try something to fix the problem. To all of the conservative pro-lifers out there, if it prevents one abortion, wouldn't it be worth it?
What I like most about your proposition, is the simple fact that you see the problem in it's scope, understand it, and are working to help present a solution... Look around you, and see the rest of the class with their eyes downcast, avoiding the question. Thanks for representing Mark! Your proposal sounds quite modest and reasonably achievable. Now what would it take to scale it, refine it and get it in play? That's the question aye?
ReplyDeleteHmmm? To label the Catholic Church as "absurd" for wanting no birth control (which isn't what they believe mind you) and then offer solution where the state provides/funds it for everyone is tough to swallow as "realistic". I'd say I'm a pro choice fiscal conservative for the sake of this discussion. I do believe that the government should fund birth control and make it more accessible to low income individuals who otherwise wouldnt be able to get it. However, I don't think that's what's under discussion or at stake with this issue. Is it absurd to believe that "with no consequence, there can be no virtue"? It may be idealist to believe that there could exist a world where people actually make choices based on more then the short term fullfilent of physical needs, but if we have to progress towards something Id rather it be a society rooted in reality and personal choice then entitlements and taxes
DeleteDezzi, thank you for responding. I was not raised Catholic, but to the best of my knowledge is that it is the teaching of the church that people are to only have sexual relations after they are married. In marriage the couple cannot do anything other than be aware of the woman's menstrual cycle if they want to avoid pregnancy. It is a reality that we as taxpayers pay into a system that pays for welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, schools and prisons. It may cost us less if citizens are encouraged to use and are provided with birth control. I do not propose an entitlement, I propose an investment to lower our taxes.
DeleteNicely written.
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of fundamental assumption behind what you're saying here, however. These are assumptions that I believe to be incorrect even though they are definitely part of the current predominant paradigm, if there is such a thing.
The first assumption here is the reification of "society" into a thing that has needs and goals. There is no such thing. What you or I end up experiencing as society is an organic emergent set of properties that come from the individuals involved.
That leads me to the next assumption - that there is anything good or bad about how many people there are. Overpopulation is a myth; it is a myth perpetrated by humanity-haters that don't understand the concept of the non-zero-sum game that we all play for mutual benefit.
Bottom line, there is nothing WE can do about judging the morality of this whole thing one way or another. All we can decide to rely upon are the personal choices of individual people.
The next assumption - if we assume that birth control is something that people want, are mandates the best way to ensure that it is "available and affordable". Not at all. Mandates CAUSE costs to rise, because they effectively subsidize the product or service in question. Birth control is expensive precisely *because* we interfere in the medical market so much. The best way to get anything that anyone wants to be available and affordable is to get out of the way of its production and consumption.
No one has a right to this stuff. No one has a right to health, to life, to anything. What we do have is respect for each other's desires - and you cannot force someone to respect you, else it not become respect at all.
Some people do not respect abortion, nor do they respect the idea of birth control. At the heart of it, it does not matter what their reasons are - either it will play out in the long run for them or it will not. Forcing anyone to do anything presumes that what you value is more valuable than what they value - which is *impossible*, since you're not them.
What the contraception argument boils down to is forcing a PRIVATE organization, who is buying a PRIVATE service from a PRIVATE insurance company, to buy something they don't want. That's it. The insurance I have through my company isn't that great and somewhat expensive, but you know what? I have other reasons for working there. I'm making a value judgement, *which we all have to do, all the time*. If someone feels strongly enough about they insurance they get from their school or workplace, strongly enough to bitch before Congress about it, you know what? They should probably go somewhere else. This whole thing is a smokescreen for monied interests anyway.
First, Thank you for the compliment and response. In response to your response I say...
DeleteThe first assumption here is the reification of "society" into a thing that has needs and goals. There is no such thing. What you or I end up experiencing as society is an organic emergent set of properties that come from the individuals involved.
*Semantics...There are people who live in my town, county, state, nation...whatever size land mass that you want to choose, who are receiving money from publicly funded programs to help then survive. The only reason that some of these people receive some of these funds is that they have a child(ren) that they cannot financially provide for. Our towns/counties/states/country have within their budgets, schools and law enforcement.
That leads me to the next assumption - that there is anything good or bad about how many people there are. Overpopulation is a myth; it is a myth perpetrated by humanity-haters that don't understand the concept of the non-zero-sum game that we all play for mutual benefit.
*This is an entirely different discussion and your statement is by far the most absurd denialist statement I have ever heard from you. It is hard to not respond in a way that would invoke Godwin's Law.
Bottom line, there is nothing WE can do about judging the morality of this whole thing one way or another. All we can decide to rely upon are the personal choices of individual people.
The next assumption - if we assume that birth control is something that people want, are mandates the best way to ensure that it is "available and affordable". Not at all. Mandates CAUSE costs to rise, because they effectively subsidize the product or service in question. Birth control is expensive precisely *because* we interfere in the medical market so much. The best way to get anything that anyone wants to be available and affordable is to get out of the way of its production and consumption.
*My proposal is to test the actual dollar cost of publicly provided birth control vs the cost of social services.
No one has a right to this stuff. No one has a right to health, to life, to anything. What we do have is respect for each other's desires - and you cannot force someone to respect you, else it not become respect at all.
*I never said that anyone has a right to birth control. I agree that people have the right to refuse to provide it in the private sector.
Some people do not respect abortion, nor do they respect the idea of birth control. At the heart of it, it does not matter what their reasons are - either it will play out in the long run for them or it will not. Forcing anyone to do anything presumes that what you value is more valuable than what they value - which is *impossible*, since you're not them.
What the contraception argument boils down to is forcing a PRIVATE organization, who is buying a PRIVATE service from a PRIVATE insurance company, to buy something they don't want. That's it. The insurance I have through my company isn't that great and somewhat expensive, but you know what? I have other reasons for working there. I'm making a value judgement, *which we all have to do, all the time*. If someone feels strongly enough about they insurance they get from their school or workplace, strongly enough to bitch before Congress about it, you know what? They should probably go somewhere else. This whole thing is a smokescreen for monied interests anyway.
*Agreed that this whole argument is happening in the private sector, which is why I propose a public sector, non profit alternative. My statements were pointing out what I see as hypocritical positions of those who are arguing.