Susan Phillips, Missouri Ban Birth Control Spending
POSTED ON 3/16/2006 | PERMALINK |8 Comments |
BOOKMARK
 "If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.That's right. She has decided that her opinion overrides the 98% of American women who have used birth control at some point in their life. "State taxpayers should not be required to subsidize activities they believe are immoral or unethical, relating to contraceptives or abortions," said Larry Weber, executive director of the state Catholic Conference.Actually, state taxpayers should not be handing their government over to Christian extremists. Rather, they should base public health policy on acknowledged research and common sense. |
Filed In: politics religion |
8 Comments:
How ridiculous. Taliban?
She is elected, in a free country.
100% of women will still be able to get birth control, everyone else just won't be forced to pay for it.
If you disagree with her, why not just do so without making stuff up, and without using absurd hyperbole.
Adolf Hitler was also elected in a free country.
she's a religious extremist forcing her personal beliefs down the throats of the people in her state. she's deciding what women can and can't do in the pricacy of home. she's dictating their behavior.
sounds like the taliban to me.
she's deciding what women can and can't do in the pricacy of home. she's dictating their behavior.
What the hell are you talking about? How is she doing this? Are you just not paying attention, or do you just not understand what the law would actually do?
Currently there is provision for the government to buy you a television. According to your illogic, you are therefore being forbidden by the government from owning a television.
Damn, this is pretty basic stuff, people.
[edit: no provision]
you are totallly missing (or dodging) my point.
she IS deciding what women can and can't do in the pricacy of home. she IS dictating their behavior.
this isn't about gov't. this isn't about money. her statements specifically show that she a.)equates being single with being promiscuous b.) equates birth control with promiscuity c.) equates women with children, who need the government to decide what they can and can't do.
and of course there are other ways to get birth control. but step one is always removing access from the poor and uneducated, which she fully endorses. and step one is powerful. she's now established, within gov't, that they are going to be regulating "promiscuity," and that religion, not reality, will dictate policy.
your insistance that this is about $$ and not christian "values" is either naive or purposely misleading. if it was about saving money they'd be delivering condoms/pills/etc. directly to these people's homes daily, as they are just about the cheapest preventative health method on the market.
The issue that I addressed in my initial comment was the absurdity and bigotry of your attack on this woman-- on her religion.
That you continue to posit that she is "dictating behavior" is surreal.
I agree with her approach on libertarian grounds. If she arrived at a sensible view, I could care less how she got to it.
Poverty does not cause personal irresponsibility, and being "uneducated" doesn't mean you're unintelligent. Of course, the left, in their condescension, think the opposite and work tirelessly to see that the responsible citizen is made accountable and sent the bill.
ahh...your "he left, in their condescension" gives you away, my friend.
i didn't imply that these people were stupid. i implied that government subsidies gives them a choice they wouldn't otherwise have. this woman is removing choice, not funding, not methods of birth control. choice.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home