And if you can't afford a baby, you should not be sexually active.
But young sluts on college campus are instead angry that their promiscuity is no longer being subsidized.
In health centers at hundreds of colleges and universities around the country, young women are paying sharply higher prices for prescription contraceptives because of a change in federal law.The increases have meant that some students using popular birth control pills and other products are paying three and four times as much as they did several months ago. The higher prices have also affected about 400 community health centers nationwide used by poor women.
The change is due to a provision in a federal law that ended a practice by which drug manufacturers provided prescription contraception to the health centers at deeply discounted rates. The centers then passed along the savings to students and others.
Some Democratic lawmakers in Washington are pressing for new legislation by year’s end that would reverse the provision, which they say was inadvertently included in a law intended to reduce Medicaid abuse. In the meantime, health care and reproductive rights advocates are warning that some young women are no longer receiving the contraception they did in the past.
Want an example of the ditzy young floozies who are impacted by this change? Here's one.
“The potential is that women will stop taking it, and whether or not you can pay for it, that doesn’t mean that you’ll stop having sex,” said Katie Ryan, a senior at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, who said that the monthly cost of her Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo, a popular birth control pill, recently jumped to nearly $50 from $12.Ms. Ryan, 22, said she had considered switching to another contraceptive to save money, but was unsure which one to pick. She has ended up paying the higher price, but said she was concerned about her budget.
“I do less because of this — less shopping, less going out to eat,” said Ms. Ryan, who has helped organize efforts to educate others on campus about the price jump. “For students, this is very, very expensive.”
Let's see -- you'll go through 13 of these prescriptions a year. Multiply that by the $38 dollar price increase and we are talking less than $500 dollars a year -- about $1.35 a day, by my count. I suppose you could have one fewer bottle of soda a day, or perhaps not drop by Starbucks every day. Maybe you could do what people on a limited income have done for years -- eat out less, economize at the grocery store, and not buy as many luxuries. Heck, Katie -- maybe you could quit doing the horizontal mambo with your boyfriend, or start asking him to chip-in to cover the cost. After all, giving it away for free is not really morally superior to selling it -- and if you think that a buck-and-a-quarter makes you cheap, what does free make you (besides easy)?
Now some folks are waxing eloquent about forcing women to make a decision -- “For them this is like a choice — groceries or birth control.” But the last time I checked, one is a necessity and the other isn't. In the great scheme of things, the choice between food and f*cking is not a contest.
And then there is this absurd comment from New York Congressman Joseph Crowley.
“We’re talking about adults, responsible adults who want to do the responsible thing.”
Congressman, I hate to tell you, but you are wrong. Responsibility consists in taking responsibility for your decisions an being prepared to make hard choices. it does not consist in insisting that you want it all and demanding that someone else subsidize your sex life for you.
Here's a really crazy idea for these girls to consider -- if you can't afford the costs associated with having sex, maybe you need to not have sex.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Nuke's, Three Forces Of Evil, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Global American Discourse, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
 |
Trackback Information for If You Can't Afford The Pill, You Can't Afford A Baby
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/230390Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'If You Can't Afford The Pill, You Can't Afford A Baby'.
Comments on If You Can't Afford The Pill, You Can't Afford A Baby
Today, I give my deepest thanks that I am not as hateful as the right wing, and I am also thankful that I will not face Judgment Day having issued so many of my own judgments.
Happy Thanksgiving, Greg.
|| Posted by Dan, November 22, 2007 11:47 AM ||Gee, Dan, you sound rather like the Pharisee who offers thanks to God that he isn't a sinner like the tax collector. That was one of the most hypocritical, judgmental comments I've ever seen.
By the way -- do you agree or disagree that college kids who can't afford the cost of birth control also can't afford the cost of a baby, and therefore shouldn't be engaging in the act that makes babies?
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, November 22, 2007 12:02 PM ||I think it is a ridiculous decision to reduce the availability of affordable contraception to those who seek it. I think it is an illustration that many in the "pro-life" ranks are not pro-life, but anti-sex. I think that those who sincerely believe that college students will stop having sex if we simply make it more expensive or risky are living in a dream world.
I see what you're saying when you accuse me of being judgmental in being thankful that I'm not like you. The point of the story is not that the Pharisee is a bad guy - he's not. The issue is humility before God. I don't think you want to be judging me there, do you?
|| Posted by Dan, November 22, 2007 12:58 PM ||Actually, Dan, go back and look at what you wrote. Sounds to me like you are trumpeting exactly the same sort of self-righteousness as found in that Pharisee, proclaiming that you are so much a better person that you won't have the very sort of sins to answer for before God that your opponents will.
By the way, if you read the article, you will find that there was no intent to deny birth control to anyone. Indeed, the provision in the Medicaid reform bill is described as "inadvertant".
And by the way, I'm not anti-sex. But I am pro-responsibility, and I don't see a whole lot of responsibility on the part of these young women who are whining about what is, in the great scheme of things, an insignificant increase in the cost of their birth control.
Look at Katie Ryan's comment there -- this is cutting into her shopping and dining out budget. We see where her priorities are, and the most important value is not taking responsibility for her sexual decisions. She wants someone else to pick up the tab for her recreational sex, someone else to pay for her "choice". No doubt she will lament the unavailability of taxpayer subsidized abortion if her contraceptive of choice fails -- and lament how high the cost of raising a child is if she keeps the kid and discovers that a child cuts into her shopping and dining out budget more than $500 a year, even with the government benefits she might be eligible for.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, November 22, 2007 01:31 PM ||And Dan, you didn't answer my question -- do you agree or disagree that college kids who can't afford the cost of birth control also can't afford the cost of a baby, and therefore shouldn't be engaging in the act that makes babies?
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, November 22, 2007 01:34 PM ||I don't agree with the logic of your question. I don't think that anybody unmarried should be engaging in sex, but I am enough of a realist to know that college kids are going to do it, even if they aren't the offspring of rich parents who will pay for their contraception or abortions.
|| Posted by Dan, November 22, 2007 01:55 PM ||In other words, Dan, you essentially agree with my point that this whole issue is not one of responsibility. They are not making responsible choices, nor are they behaving in a responsible manner. What they are doing is demanding that their irresponsibility be subsidized.
Interestingly enough, you and I are both old enough to remember when there were consequences to such irresponsible behavior. And interestingly enough, we both have to admit that those consequences kept the rate of sexual activity outside of marriage and the rate of illegitimate births at a significantly lower rate than today. Maybe we would do well to bring back some of those consequences and social sanctions as a solution to the problems that seem to correlate with their elimination.
So that maybe one school year I won't have to look down my roll sheet and see a half-dozen pregnant 10th grade girls and another four who are already mothers.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, November 22, 2007 02:04 PM ||MfPuhS cbbbzvlfbnzw, [url=http://eldhfegeofgq.com/]eldhfegeofgq[/url], [link=http://vuxqspledack.com/]vuxqspledack[/link], http://fuoyuyflgcij.com/
|| Posted by qxyudffqt, October 20, 2008 11:32 AM ||Post a comment