Planned Parenthood: The Pill is an entitlement
posted at 12:15 pm on June 1, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Is contraception a “preventive service”? Planned Parenthood believes so, and wants the government to classify the Pill as such in order to force insurers to provide it for free to consumers. At issue is the intent of Congress in defining prevention, as well as the ability to limit the language of ObamaCare to keep it from becoming yet another runaway entitlement:
As health reform regulations begin to take shape, Planned Parenthood has begun a quiet campaign to ensure that birth control is counted among the free preventive services that health insurers must cover under the Affordable Care Act.
Birth control barely came up in the health care reform debate, brushed aside by the more heated debate over abortion language and coverage. But with numerous religious groups opposed to contraceptive use, this issue is all but certain to become a flash point as implementation moves forward. …
With little fanfare, Planned Parenthood has begun laying the groundwork for a birth control campaign that will ramp up in coming months. On The Pill Is Personal, a website launched in May to celebrate the pill’s 50th anniversary, the group is soliciting stories from birth control users. “In the coming weeks,” the site tells visitors, “federal officials will consider measures that will dramatically increase access. Share your story or comments about how the pill changed your life and how it can change others.”
The women’s stories may soon be used to lobby federal agencies on birth control’s importance.
“This needs to be based on science and medical evidence, but … it is also really important to hear the stories of how women view birth control, the health impact and the affordability issue,” Rubiner said.
This exemplifies what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said that we’d have to pass ObamaCare to find out what’s in it. My God, it’s full of Pills!
Is the Pill preventive, in the sense meant when preventive medicine got debated during ObamaCare? Not at all. Democrats specifically called out early diagnosis of diseases such as diabetes to argue that ObamaCare would be an overall cost saver. A subsequent CBO analysis showed that argument to be a fallacy, but that didn’t stop them from making it repeatedly and consistently during the debate. That never included an explicit argument that lowering the birth rate would be an overall cost-saver, or that it was a legitimate government interest to suppress the birth rate. (The Social Security crisis actually argues that the government should incentivize higher birth rates in order to keep the Ponzi scheme afloat.)
On top of that, the entire idea of mandates is why the insurance companies have so many problems as it is. Imposing mandates for supplying the Pill to women for free will add billions of dollars of new costs onto insurers at a time when ObamaCare threatens to swamp the industry in red ink already. Furthermore, it is entirely elective, just like nose jobs and Lasix. The actual preventive measure to avoid pregnancy is abstinence, which costs nothing to anyone. If women choose to be sexually active without desiring pregnancy, then they should shoulder the responsibility and costs of that decision themselves, not shove them off to everyone else.
What do you think? Should women get the Pill for free? Take the poll:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Increase access?
Last time I heard, it was pretty damn easy to get the pill.
blatantblue on June 1, 2010 at 12:17 PM
LOL!
TheBigOldDog on June 1, 2010 at 12:18 PM
This will lower the cost of health care.
//
artist on June 1, 2010 at 12:19 PM
I’m all for means testing to have intercourse.
Inanemergencydial on June 1, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Isn’t this a little counterproductive for Planned Parenthood? If all women were using birth control they would never need an abortion. Wouldn’t PP go broke in short order?
And why shouldn’t men get free condoms?
rockmom on June 1, 2010 at 12:19 PM
I think poor women can already get birth control pills for free at Planned Parenthood and other community clinics. PP must want to be able to serve insured women and get private plan reimbursement for their services?
PP does offer the cheapest place to get annual Pap smears and other (truly) preventative care for women without insurance because they receive federal and state subsidies to do so. Their STD testing is also inexpensive and readily available in many areas.
This is just another example of overreach.
funky chicken on June 1, 2010 at 12:21 PM
OK PP, you provide them then.
thebrokenrattle on June 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Want to stop abortion?
It’s easy…every female gets to have one abortion, no questions. While the baby killer is in there, he takes the uterus also. Recivitism rate for women having abortions drops to 0.
To be fair…the male partner gets snipped as a bonus. Abortionists will then breed themselves out of existence.
BobMbx on June 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Remember the language in the ObamaCare bill pertaining to pre-existing conditions?
Here’s a “pre-existing condition”.
BowHuntingTexas on June 1, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Not at all. The contraceptive culture has greatly increased abortion. Father Euteneuer explains it far better than I could.
http://www.catholicdestination.com/article_info.php?articles_id=243
pannw on June 1, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Its even easier to keep your pants on.
BobMbx on June 1, 2010 at 12:25 PM
If it’s “personal” why do the welfare recipient wannabes demand to loot their neighbors?
MNHawk on June 1, 2010 at 12:26 PM
“The Pill” is the one serious environmental pollutant–causing hormonal disruption in both humans and animals–that the hard left never complains about. Isn’t that odd?
RBMN on June 1, 2010 at 12:27 PM
For those women who have adverse side effects from the pill, they of course will need to have access to other forms of female birth control. This won’t stop at “just” the pill.
Bishop on June 1, 2010 at 12:28 PM
However, you see, we are only to abstain from other things such as salt, sugar, fast food, oil, gasoline, incandescent light bulbs and other similarly destructive vices that exist in this world. There is no virtue in abstaining from sex—and prevention, is meant to include preventing population growth. Abortion, the pill, condoms all point to that end result—kill a baby, control; prevent conception, control; elective sterilization, control….
see the hypocrisy and see the desired end results and you will see the left for who they are.
ted c on June 1, 2010 at 12:28 PM
nope, there will be “incentives” offered for vasectomy and tubal ligation as well. Tax breaks, credits, etc will be offered as a trade. Mark my words.
ted c on June 1, 2010 at 12:29 PM
Since I was in college, PP has provided free or very low costs birth control pills to anyone who asks for them. So the issue isn’t about access or the purported cost to the consumer, but whether PP can get money from the government or insurance companies to continue doing what they have been doing for 20+ years.
LASue on June 1, 2010 at 12:29 PM
How far are we from being a society that wants every woman to have free access to birth control to being a society that forces woman to use this (or any other) form of birth control. Are licenses for babies next? Perhaps a tax on new parents?
The funny thing is, this from the same people who want to do away with trans fat, salt, etc. In California they can substitute these for those annoying toys in Happy Meals
Tommy_G on June 1, 2010 at 12:31 PM
see the strategic end result of “planned” parenthood….They want to plan it, so you don’t have to. Prevent a pregnancy, kill a baby, use a condom—the same same same end result—”planned” parenthood….they don’t want anybody to be parents—and that is the plan…or The Plan
ted c on June 1, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Ha, do they want stories from women who had strokes in their 20′s due to the pill?
No, I thought not.
ORconservative on June 1, 2010 at 12:31 PM
OT: Tipper is finally sick of Al’s nonsense.
John the Libertarian on June 1, 2010 at 12:32 PM
It’s what Jesus would have wanted.
mankai on June 1, 2010 at 12:32 PM
There should have been a poll option for “there is no such thing as free”.
myrenovations on June 1, 2010 at 12:33 PM
You know what? For all the aid programs and welfare and school lunches and midnight basketball and crap we get stuck with the bill for, birth control is the one thing I’m DELIGHTED to pay for.
Seriously.
It’s on me.
You could probably keep a whole CITY on the pill for the cost of one unwanted child going through the system. Not counting the human misery.
S. Weasel on June 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Malthus smiles.
Inanemergencydial on June 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM
“We should let PBHO act like a Chinese dictator just for one year to make everything better. Bring on the one child policy right here in America, you know, to save the Earth and all that.”
-Friedman
Bishop on June 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Giving away contraception would likely be the most effective legislative action possible for reducing abortions.
dedalus on June 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM
wha..? that house isn’t big enough in SD?
ted c on June 1, 2010 at 12:35 PM
hey I dont think Medicare should cover Viagra either but they do
just sayin’
recreational activities should be self pay
ginaswo on June 1, 2010 at 12:36 PM
About to be heard at the PP Board of Directors meeting:
“We need to increase our share of the abortion market ………these community clinics are chipping away at our revenue”
BobMbx on June 1, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Jesus Gonzales from Milpitas?
RBMN on June 1, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Yes, we need a separate thread on the Gore’s.
Mirimichi on June 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM
–And what’s wrong with that? Seems like a good idea to me.
Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 12:39 PM
You know, I always figured that when/if I get married, I’d want 3 or 4 kids.
Stories like this make me want to up the number around 9.
lonesome_pine on June 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM
He won’t be alone for long. Money/power attracts cheap tarts. If I were him I’d demand a quick test for potential girlfriends. “Here, honey, dechrome this trailer hitch.”
Extrafishy on June 1, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Don’t have sex. It both free and preventative.
Rocks on June 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Global Warming causes divorce. Eat it, Al.
BobMbx on June 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM
preventive medicine = preventing disease.
So Planned Parenthood views pregnancies as disease?
rbj on June 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM
This, and the thousands of other things that go along with Socialized Medicine aren’t bugs, they are all features.
Once the collective is responsible for each individual’s health, then they are responsible for EVERYTHING about each individual, from cradle to grave — no matter how short that journey may be.
logis on June 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM
I’m sure that observing the natural progression of syphilis in black sharecroppers in Alabama would also be a good idea to you. Conversely, it would also be a good idea to understand the limits of human tolerance to cold immersion????
.
good ideas for research and intervention may violate ethical principles. Both of the above examples occurred and resulted in laws concerning human treatment and research.
ted c on June 1, 2010 at 12:48 PM
I’m entitled to a million dollar home.
I’m entitled to all my food.
I’m entitled to a broadband connection to the internet.
I’m entitled to a luxury auto.
I’m entitled to health care.
I’m entitled to anything I want.
All at taxpayer expense, and I won’t lift a finger to thank you.
rightside on June 1, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Nothing but overreach.
ladyingray on June 1, 2010 at 12:50 PM
“… if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Our President
WitchDoctor on June 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM
That’s all preventative care. It prevents people from voting against Socialists. So, yeah, it’s covered.
logis on June 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM
–How are either of those applicable to voluntary vasemtomies and tubals? I had a vasemtomy knowing exactly what I was doing and why, and suspect that almost no one undergoes that procedure without understanding the planned results.
Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Great point!
rightside on June 1, 2010 at 12:56 PM
The baby gets punished too when the parents are unprepared teens. Contraception enables women to put off parenting until they are better prepared, and to do so without facing the moral problems of abortion.
dedalus on June 1, 2010 at 12:58 PM
O/T
Al and Tipper getting divorced.
If there be a god above, this will get messy and we will all get to witness little financial discovery. Like Al’s oil holdings.
Doorgunner on June 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM
Great. Lawyers will have a field day with all the blood clot suits to come.
The main reason many women are not on the Pill is because they can’t keep their lifestyles and take the Pill, too. You can’t drink and smoke and screw around when you’re on the Pill. All the Pill lets you do is screw around. Without the drinking, which goes with the smoking, there isn’t much screwing around.
Jaynie59 on June 1, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Oh, golly…Happy LGBT Pride month, everyone. /
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-month
Seems to fit right in with the theme of this thread. Our culture is so scr*wed. Why do we keep tempting God?
Romans 1:18-32 could have been written specifically for the USofA.
God have mercy.
pannw on June 1, 2010 at 1:01 PM
Assuming you meant vasectomy, I think can speak for most here: Thank you.
Doorgunner on June 1, 2010 at 1:01 PM
It’s what Margaret Sanger would have wanted…in certain communities.
MNHawk on June 1, 2010 at 1:05 PM
–It was after two kids. Don’t get your hopes up.
Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Viagra for Men
RU-486 for Women
Kini on June 1, 2010 at 1:06 PM
Hasn’t anybody even heard of condoms? Diaphragms? Foam?
Heck, shouldn’t you use a condom with a new, untested relationship anyway? If the thought of having someone’s baby makes you wonder what your local PP office number is:
1) WHY ARE YOU SLEEPING WITH HIM?
2) And WHY are you not still “wrapping that rascal?”
Studies were showing that the Pill caused increased rates of HPV infection. Nothing about the Pill itself, in all likelihood, but women on the Pill being protected from pregnancy ditched condoms too soon in relationships.
Sekhmet on June 1, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Whether you think birth control is wrong or not (and I DO believe it is wrong), why are researchers ignoring the “side effects” of the pill? Strokes, heart disease, probably linked to breast cancer, etc.? And then there is the issue of increase in abortions due to the licentious lifestyle birth control engenders. You would expect “feminists” to be outraged by the pill, not demanding it for “free”.
And since when is pregnancy a disease that must be prevented? Last I looked, it meant things were functioning as intended.
tcn on June 1, 2010 at 1:12 PM
I guess that Viagra should be sold as “preventative medicine against flaccidity”. Right?
Physics Geek on June 1, 2010 at 1:14 PM
So does personal responsibility, as in, keep it in your pants.
tcn on June 1, 2010 at 1:14 PM
I’m not convinced that’s true. With greater access to contraceptives and abortion, unplanned pregnancies have still gone up. In fact, a large portion of those who have abortions do so because they were on some sort of contraception that failed (often due to imperfect use, but that’s not something free pills will change).
Besides, PP already does give out the pill for free to those who can’t afford to pay, and those who have to pay, pay less than a dollar a day. It’s not expensive and doesn’t need to be covered.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Interesting that you bring up nose jobs and lasik surgery Ed.Neither of those have ever been covered by insurance, save as a restorative for injury. Yet these two area where service must be paid for are the most competitive in the meical profession. One can shop around for the best deal because there is no 3rd party payer. Here the free market works very well.
xkaydet65 on June 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Any woman can get free birth control from the county health department, regardless of her insured status. This is nothing but overreach.
ladyingray on June 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM
When did being fertile (or pregnant) become a medical disorder?
agmartin on June 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Oh, she’ll keep that one, and probably a few others.
It’s cheaper to keep her, Al.
tcn on June 1, 2010 at 1:16 PM
Then fix the damned system.
Seriously, do you have any idea how hard it is to adopt a child domestically these days?
Fix the real problem, not the one that makes more problems.
tcn on June 1, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Soon Planned Parenthood will be ready to finally achieve its intended purpose. Simply require contraceptives to qualify for government assistance, so as not to punish the baby.
pedestrian on June 1, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Much of that is overblown or specifically related to frequent smokers.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 1:19 PM
Does this also mean alcohol should be an entitlement so all the ugly people can get laid.
ouldbollix on June 1, 2010 at 1:20 PM
It’s not clear what the government can proactively do to get a quick improvement in personal responsibility. However, easier access to the pill would likely reduce abortion rates, and that is something the government can do.
dedalus on June 1, 2010 at 1:21 PM
I’ll echo doorgunner……thank you.
ted c on June 1, 2010 at 1:21 PM
–Then why is Viagra covered in most plans?
Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 1:22 PM
Not all pills are the same.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 1:22 PM
A woman on assistance is punishing her existing children if she is having sex without contraception. If she can’t take care of herself or her young children she’s irresponsible to have more.
If the woman was dependent on family instead of the government, likely her family would tell her the same thing.
dedalus on June 1, 2010 at 1:24 PM
It’s absurdly easy to get, it’s cheap, and you actually can get it for free if you go through certain channels and can prove necessary circumstances. My mother taught me not to have premarital sex, but she also would often make the offhanded point that girls who got pregnant were not too bright, because birth control was readily available and had been for decades. Sneaky woman, my mother. Kept all her bases covered.
Anyway, you can get BC for $10/month at Wal-Mart. Cry me a river, PP.
Animator Girl on June 1, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Won’t the insurance companies just use their own preferred provider to supply the pills if they have to do it for free? Why would they pay PP to do it, when it will be much cheaper to eliminate the middleman and they won’t have the controversy of dealing with PP.
rockmom on June 1, 2010 at 1:29 PM
It hinges on whether free access to the pill reduces unwanted pregnancy. If, as you say, it doesn’t then the government has no reason to give it away.
Properly used, though, the pill does reduce the chance of pregnancy and seems like the clearest legislative path for reducing abortion.
dedalus on June 1, 2010 at 1:31 PM
Blue Pill for Men
Red Pill for Women
Kini on June 1, 2010 at 1:33 PM
Oh, I thought I’d send in my story of blood pressure elevation on the pill, and maybe my neighbor’s friend Liz Dixon can send in her story of getting pregnant with quads while on the pill.
Quisp on June 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Why the hell is planned parenthood advocating government involvement with what I choose to do with my body?//sarc
On a different note though-the pill helps with many more female health issues besides preventing pregnancy, and yes I think it should be included in prescription drug coverage/free. Anything that reduces the need for abortion is good.
canditaylor68 on June 1, 2010 at 1:44 PM
I don’t know why you put in the “free” qualifier. If it’s available and being used, wouldn’t that count as well? In fact, if I’m paying for it out of my own pocket, aren’t I more likely to use it responsibly instead of taking it for granted?
I’m merely saying that though we’ve had increased access to all forms of contraception, even those that require little thought (a monthly shot or even a five year injection) and a ridiculous amount of innovation so that even a patch is an acceptable option, we continue to see an increase in both teen pregnancy and abortion (it’s down from a high during the sexual revolution and another peak in the 90s but is currently rising).
That’s true if properly used, but you can’t mandate proper use, and those who are too irresponsible to even learn how to get it for free on their own are more likely to use it irresponsibly with the false sense of security that seems to lead to a disproportionate number of abortions.
It just seems to me that when over 53% of those who have abortions claim to have gotten pregnant while on contraceptives, contraceptives aren’t the solution to the problem and might in some cases even be the problem.
It seems like it should. It makes logical sense. But it just doesn’t fit with reality.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 1:46 PM
I don’t know why you put in the “free” qualifier. If it’s available and being used, wouldn’t that count as well? In fact, if I’m paying for it out of my own pocket, aren’t I more likely to use it responsibly instead of taking it for granted?
I’m merely saying that though we’ve had increased access to all forms of contraception, even those that require little thought (a monthly shot or even a five year injection) and a ridiculous amount of innovation so that even a patch is an acceptable option, we continue to see an increase in both teen pregnancy and abortion (it’s down from a high during the sexual rev*lution and another peak in the 90s but is currently rising).
That’s true if properly used, but you can’t mandate proper use, and those who are too irresponsible to even learn how to get it for free on their own are more likely to use it irresponsibly with the false sense of security that seems to lead to a disproportionate number of abortions.
It just seems to me that when over 53% of those who have abortions claim to have gotten pregnant while on contraceptives, contraceptives aren’t the solution to the problem and might in some cases even be the problem.
It seems like it should. It makes logical sense. But it just doesn’t fit with reality.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 1:47 PM
A pregnancy is not a disease. It is life.
publiuspen on June 1, 2010 at 1:56 PM
–Esthier, not sure if you meant to refer to “teen abortions” or all abortions in the US, but the number of all abortions has been dropping from 1990 to 2005, which is the last date that statistics are available: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html
Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Not according to about 50% of the people…it’s a disease that burdens the women to a point of desperation.
The only way to relieve that burden is to destroy it, before it causes irreparable harm…the irreparable harm is loving it.
right2bright on June 1, 2010 at 2:01 PM
All abortions. They have been down from 1990 to 2005 but have started to rise again since 2006. I mentioned this in my post: (it’s down from a high during the sexual rev*lution and another peak in the 90s but is currently rising).
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 2:04 PM
A gentle plea to those that think pregnancy is not a disease. I agree completely with the premise, but pardon my sharing of personal events.
It took me a long time to conceive and carry. Once I got started I couldnt stop I had 4 children within 5 yrs. In between the 3rd and 4th I had major medical problems. The best obgyns that work with high risk pregnancies recommended I not conceive again for at least 5 yrs(3 very high risk pregnancies along ending in 3 c-sections). The problem was I wasnt near a military hospital and tricare didnt pay for certain forms of bc such as iud(which I couldnt have) and bc implants or shots. They also refused to pay for sterilization because I was too young(under 25).
I didnt take anything, I put things in G_d’s hands. My fourth came along and his pregnancy was life threatening to me-previa. I remain grateful for an extremely supportive husband and that child will be 16 yrs old in Dec. But to some pregnancies, even within marriage, even to parents that adore children– can be life threatening/a disease.
Sorry I have written so much but my experience has led me down this road. Thanks for letting me share.
canditaylor68 on June 1, 2010 at 2:14 PM
If 53% of people in fatal car accidents had seat belts but didn’t use them properly, we’d try to improve that number. In fact, public campaigns to increase seat belt use, reduce drunk driving, or reduce smoking have been effective–though, despite decades of work, not 100% effective.
Married people seem to use contraception with some degree of success, judging by the decrease in family size during the decades since the pill. Perhaps there is more teamwork involved when both people have a stake in the outcome.
dedalus on June 1, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Uh, Ed? I think you mean LASIK (refractive eye surgery to replace eyeglasses or contact lenses), not Lasix (furosemide–a common diuretic used in treatment of heart or renal disease).
Glenside on June 1, 2010 at 2:19 PM
So, PP is looking for women to post their stories about how they “were saved” by taking the pill and preventing that horrendous disease called pregnancy that all women are at risk of getting?
ptcamn on June 1, 2010 at 2:44 PM
This is shear idiocy, there are tens of thousands of couples who want to adopt but who cannot.
Not to mention, we spend billions on feeding, sheltering and coddling murderers, rapists and other worthless criminals in this country, think of how many pills we could buy with the money we waste on them.
NoDonkey on June 1, 2010 at 2:45 PM
That’s not really an appropriate comparison. We’re talking about something designed to create children. Cars on the other hand, aren’t designed to kill people.
I’m sure that is one help. I also imagine the type of people who get married are more often the type of people who will be more cautious in general.
I’m not against birth control. I’ve used it myself for several years and haven’t had a problem.
I just think it’s not a solution in the hands of irresponsible people, and I believe that it creates a false sense of security for those people who might otherwise be more cautious in their approach to sex.
But this is a problem I believe is prevalent in society in general. We get used to FDA warnings and safety precautions in businesses and often let those types of organizations do our thinking for us when in the past we might have been more proactive in guaranteeing our own security.
So long as it’s dealt with properly, everything’s fine, just like the pill. But in the hands of irresponsible people, there’s far more potential for danger.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 3:12 PM
I don’t think anyone is under the impression that giving birth is never life threatening. We’ve made such advances in medicine that it’s actually shocking when a woman does die from these kinds of complications, but I do believe it’s a well enough established fact in spite of that.
I think the comments on that are specifically about people who view it as a disease in general, just because the woman doesn’t want to get pregnant.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 3:18 PM
And exactly what disease are we trying to prevent?
Life?
barnone on June 1, 2010 at 3:18 PM
barnone on June 1, 2010 at 3:18 PM
The natural consequences of intercourse, which is life.
Many people have an absolutely warped sense of what life is about. They trade moments of impersonal physical pleasure for a lifetime of love and memories that a child brings.
The legality of birth control is irrelevant to me, what is truly tragic is how sick and unnatural our popular culture has become.
NoDonkey on June 1, 2010 at 3:23 PM
It seems better to help irresponsible people learn to deal with the pill than to help them learn how to be a parent.
Even for married adult couples with resources children are a real challenge. For young single women without an education, husband or career the demands of parenthood seem beyond their capability.
dedalus on June 1, 2010 at 3:36 PM
Those who feel the need to prevent this disease should move to Washington State. I understand they have legalized a pill which will cure this disease (life) in later stages.
If this is a disease which is to be prevented and they discover they have a terminal condition of it, they should rush for the pill to cure it.
(Feeling very sarcastic today.)
barnone on June 1, 2010 at 3:36 PM
dedalus on June 1, 2010 at 3:36 PM
Stupid, irresponsible people do stupid, irresponsible things and their stupid decisions compound one another.
You can “educate” all day long and twice on Sunday, but people will misbehave regardless.
As long as there are drugs and alcohol (which both are frequent predecessors of unprotected sex), we’ll have both STDs and pregnancies, there’s no getting around it.
NoDonkey on June 1, 2010 at 3:46 PM
The either or is unnecessary. It’s not either take the pill or be an unprepared mom. It’s not even either take the pill or get pregnant.
Besides, the instructions come with every packet. You simply can’t force anyone to be responsible.
That’s just a cop out. Sure it’s not ideal and generally actually a completely horrible idea for a young single woman to become a mother. But it happens, and though they often don’t believe it at the time, it’s not impossible or at all beyond their capabilities.
Parenthood changes people, so does being coddled.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 3:50 PM
Then perhaps we should be teaching them to refrain from using their bodies as a jungle jim trampoline, then.
Because young, stupid people make stupid decisions continually and it’s ignoring reality that they are going to use birth control responsibly in every instance.
NoDonkey on June 1, 2010 at 3:59 PM
We’d agree on the “completely horrible” part. Some moms do a heroic job, but in aggregate kids do better when there are two parents who are ready to devote their attention to a family.
Whether one agrees that a teen mom is “punished with a baby” or not, it seems more accurate to say that babies get punished when their mom turns out to be a teen and unmarried.
Teens who are too irresponsible to use properly contraception are likely too irresponsible to be good parents. Teaching them the former seems much cheaper than teaching them the latter.
Abstinence is also a great idea, though many of the teen moms don’t have great role models with their moms who were unmarried teens when they became pregnant.
dedalus on June 1, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Another thing… with that 53% number, we’re obviously talking about people with access to clinics, who know where they are and how to get the help they need. Every clinic I’ve ever been to spends a good deal of time educating those who come in before ever handing over a pill.
I’m not really sure what more can be done on that front aside from forcing women to come into the clinics to take their pills, and of course that would obviously make women less likely to take the pill.
In college, I had a friend who had an abortion. She was just a year or so away from graduating and knew exactly what she was doing when she said “f- it” and had sex with her boyfriend even though she knew she had forgotten to take her pill the night before.
When I first got on it, I was hyper vigilant. If I ever missed even one or took one a few hours late, I made extra precautions up to abstinence. I’ve always kept the idea of pregnancy as a part of my decision to have sex, not obsessing over it but understanding that it’s a natural outcome of my decision, one that becomes more likely if I ignore it.
Treating sex as something other than that is a likely cause of this kind of irresponsibility. Maybe that’s where the education should start instead.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 4:04 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »