“Birth control provision survives in Supplemental, upsetting some in GOP”
I reported May 20 that Congressional Democrats were trying to sink a birth control pill subsidy into the War Supplemental Appropriations bill.
Here’s the latest, from CQ Politics, today:
A proposal that would restore government subsidies for birth control pills and devices at university health clinics and Planned Parenthood centers was retained in the Senate version of the war supplemental spending bill sent to the House on Thursday….
The provision seeks to undo part of a 2006 deficit reduction law… that squeezed a total of $38.9 billion in savings from a variety of programs, including federal student loans, Medicare and Medicaid.
That law removed university clinics and private birth control clinics from the list of entities eligible for “nominal” pricing under the Public Health Service Act… which outlines a series of federal health program partnerships with states, localities and nonprofit schools, among other provisions….
Proponents of the drug discounts that benefited low-income women and college students say those discounts were not intended to be discontinued by the 2006 law.
The administration saw it differently, and roughly 400 college, community and Planned Parenthood clinics lost birth control discounts.
An amendment to the supplemental war spending bill adopted, 75-22, by the Senate on Thursday would restore the drug price discounts. That amendment would also provide a variety of domestic spending.
The move angered some Republicans….
Echoes of Obama Language
The provision… mirrors legislation… introduced in November 2007 by Sen. Barack Obama….
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton… is also a cosponsor….
Obama’s legislation was cosponsored by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, and Bob Casey, D-PA, who are both abortion opponents….
Although the White House has broadly expressed its opposition to the inclusion of non-war items in the war supplemental… it has not issued a specific veto threat on the birth control proposal.
Democrats sought to include the repeal of the birth control restrictions in a previous war funding bill, but it was removed during the House Appropriations Committee markup last year.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The administration saw it differently, and roughly 400 college, community and Planned Parenthood clinics lost birth control discounts.
[rolling eyes]
Well, that’s just great, isn’t it?
Discounts should definitely be available to college students for birth control. Heck, I have a full tuition/fee scholarship and I’m STILL going to be near broke paying rent/bills. College students typically don’t have all that much money to spare, and should receive those discounts for that reason. It’d be nice if everyone could receive discounts, but that just doesn’t seem feasible right now.
Dan,
I really think that just maybe students should re-evaluate their priorities. Either they act responsibly and pay for the essentials in college. BC pills don’t fall into that category in my books.
You wanna have sex, buy your own pills. But don’t expect the taxpayers to subsidize students to have sex.
Patricia-
there are teens who are sexually active before college who can get the pills cheaper from PP, or those who cant normally afford it can get them cheaper at pp. College students however, should be able to access that discount on campus. A) there may not be a PP near by, b) they cant get to a PP due to lack of transportation, etc. It isnt just college students affected by this, though they are the ones seemingly most affected. Tax payer subsidized or not, students are going to have sex, girls simply will have to hope the condom doesn’t break, or there could perhaps be a spike in abortions from those who choose not to follow through with any pregnancy that occurs.
You’re shooting yourself in the foot if you think getting rid of the subsidy is going to stop students from having sex and lower abortions, my prediction is the rate would go up.
“College students however, should be able to access that discount on campus. A) there may not be a PP near by, b) they cant get to a PP due to lack of transportation, etc.”
tough. too bad.
Either they act responsibly and pay for the essentials in college. BC pills don’t fall into that category in my books.
You wanna have sex, buy your own pills. But don’t expect the taxpayers to subsidize students to have sex.
Posted by: Patricia at May 23, 2008 8:31 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s right!
…And when people have unneccesary kids they can’t afford, they can give birth to them alone, and be forced sign them over to the state so they can be given to GOOD kind of people who can afford to raise them rather than the lazy, stupid people who cannot.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for anyone’s brats? Why should poor people be allowed to engage in an expensive hobby like child rearing at someone else’s expense?
I was taking BC pills before I even considered having sex. Why should I suffer from killer cramps just cause I was born with a uterus? I mean, I still get cramps but I can actually get up and walk now and not be crippled with pain. And don’t even start with that “other options” thing. I have an almost perfect and almost completely natural diet of fresh fruits, veggies and whole grains. As far as exercise I definitely get enough, and a variety. So yeah pills were the best thing that really helped improve my life.
Laura, those are the same people who call childless people selfish and say there kids will be paying for them when they get old. Well those “selfish” people are working and putting money into social security so they can pay for themselves when they get older.
And using that logic, can we decide how a child raised on welfare is brought up because we are paying for him or her? Can we say, “Well we’re paying for you and your family to eat and have a home and we don’t want you believing in God so no more going to church.”
And whose to say those kids won’t grow up to go on welfare either?
As an atheist pro-lifer, here’s usually where I diverge from the rest of the movement. Easy access to birth control prevents abortions, and I kinda thought that’s what we were shooting for, and this is where I feel a lot of pro-choicers get off thinking we’re the ‘morality police’, and trying to walk around slapping chastity belt handcuffs on everyone. It’s true I would prefer college kids not to make the mistakes I have and screw around in such ways, but they were my mistakes to make, and I’m glad for that, and don’t mind people making their own mistakes for themselves. I would also rather the lawmakers be forthright about their intentions instead of sneaking this measure in on a bill that has nothing to do with subsidized birth control, but I suppose that’s a bit much to ask from a democrat majority congress.
HisMan? *Looks around* HisMan? HisMan I want to respond to something you wrote on a previous thread about feminism:
“By the way, the same definition applies to a “real man”.”
If a real woman to you is someone who knows and loves God and a real man should know and love God then that is feminism. Saying men and women are equal in the eyes of God, unlike some religious sects that preach that women don’t have the capacity to really know or love God. So if you believe a woman is equal to man (you know, has a SOUL), then you are a feminist. Welcome to the club, oh reluctant one.
BTW, no one’s giving me encouragement trying the whole abstinent thing. I feel like I gained 5 lbs since I started it. I think I’m doing it wrong : /
Xal, 9:50p, said: “Easy access to birth control prevents abortions, and I kinda thought that’s what we were shooting for….”
Xal, I know you mean well, but can you look back over 40 years of easy access to birth control and point to it preventing abortions?
In fact, easy access to birth control has led to wanton sexual habits, which has led to more abortions.
Comprehensive sex ed is taught in 75% of American schools, according to Guttmacher, so I expect the percentage is even higher. Why is it this proven failure is not seen as a proven failure? Why is it we say this proven failure is really not a proven failure, we just need to spend more money on it? Why is it we say the fault of this proven failure lies not with what and how it is being taught but with its recipients?
…And when people have unneccesary kids they can’t afford, they can give birth to them alone, and be forced sign them over to the state so they can be given to GOOD kind of people who can afford to raise them rather than the lazy, stupid people who cannot.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for anyone’s brats? Why should poor people be allowed to engage in an expensive hobby like child rearing at someone else’s expense?
Taxpayer monies going to save a life? Taxpayers paying for people to have sex?…hmmmmmmm…decisions, decisions….
I wouldn’t want to cramp college students lifestyles. I think we should give them discounts on Wii, Ecstasy, beer and convertible mustangs too.
Jaspers quote of the day made me cry…
“When we come to the other world and meet the millions of Jews who died in the camps and they ask us, ‘What have you done?’ there will be many answers. You will say, ‘I became a jeweler,’ another will say, ‘I have smuggled coffee and American cigarettes,’ another will say, ‘I built houses.’ But I will say, ‘I didn’t forget you.'”
@Laura:
Dont want to have babies – don’t have sex.
Young adults are at university to achieve an education and prepare for living in the world. Sex should be very low on the priority list.
I had a boyfriend my first year of university. My marks nosedived. I ditched the boyfriend and made the decision to concentrate on my work – I was there to get educated and make some cool friends. I did just that and more – I graduated first in my class.
And Dan, you’ve just presented the argument that PP and most other sex educators use – teens and young people ARE gonna have sex, so lets help them do with free BC pills in this case. This is extremely disrespectful of young people because it says that they don’t have the self-control to wait. Lets set the bar high for them and ask them to wait. It’s not unrealistic, but PP has a vested interest in seeing it be made so.
Excellent post, Patricia!!
Hi MK,
that was Jill quote today…it’s a good one..
“BTW, no one’s giving me encouragement trying the whole abstinent thing.”
Good job Jess! we are proud of you!
Jess,
It certainly takes a lot of courage today to remain chaste. In fact, it’s now counter-cultural. It will be difficult but I am sure you will find many rewards and maybe an inner peace. You are worth it- to save yourself for someone who really loves and respects you as a person, not as an object.
Good job! BTW, I’ve been single for 10 years this Nov.! (Of course, I’ve got 4 children to scare off any man lol)
I am proud of you too, Jess!! Very wise decision!
Patricia-
Notice, I didnt say are GOING to have sex (at least, I think I didn’t) but ARE having sex, as in they already are. A majority of high school students are sexually active by the time they graduate. If they already are having sex, which, as I said, is a pretty high percentage, they should be able to rely on themselves through the use of birth control and in combination with a condom, rather than relying on condoms alone.
And patricia, as a soon-to-be, chaste, high school graduate (about a week, woo!), I don’t find it disrespectful at all. People are having sex, it’s that simple. Without the expenses of college birth control is still pretty affordable, or they at least are able to get it without too much concern over travel expenses, etc. Sex is quite simply now a fact of life. To think a majority of teens are going to stay abstinent all the way to marriage is honestly a pipe dream today. Even in highly conservative christian areas, there are still sexually active teens. If I recall correctly, something like 60% of high school seniors report being sexually active. People here seem to always reference the will of the people whenever talking about things like gay marriage or court cases, etc. So why does that suddenly stop here? Why do that majority of sex-having teens suddenly not get to have easy, affordable access to birth control when they go off to college the following year?
Patricia-
What a coincidence, I’ve been single about 3 years too :p lol.
I’m with Pat. It’s time that we hold our children to a higher standard not giving them ways to take short cuts when it comes to their sex life. We must send a message of love that holding off sex until you are in a committed marriage is the only way to not be faced with a premature decision that will affect the life of a child. When someone that we love smokes we don’t tell them that it’s ok. We tell them to stop and until they do they’re risking their health. The same is true with Sex before marriage. It’s like rolling the dice and for many one day they have to face the repercussions for their decision. May God bless you, bob
I didn’t say anything about comprehensive sex ed. I never said I agree with it, because I don’t. I firmly believe it is solely a family’s responsibility to educate a child as much or as little in that subject as they deem appropriate, which is where I think the real problem lies. A lack of proper parenting has been rasing multiple generations who have no respect for life. They refuse to see that their own lives have enough value that they should respect themselves enough to be adequately discerning about their sexual habits, and subsequently have no respect for the life claimed in an abortion afterwards. I’m not saying college-aged kids should be given a free pass to give it up arbitrarily and irresponsibly (I’m also not saying I did that myself, please don’t get me wrong). I just think it should be easy for precautions AGAINST pregnancy/abortion to be taken by those that need to take them as they responsibly explore the physical aspect of a loving and long-term relationship, while keeping in mind that no birth control is 100% and being ready to take responsibility for whatever child might result from that physical relationship.
[C]an you look back over 40 years of easy access to birth control and point to it preventing abortions?
Yes. I can. In fact, in countries where abortion is broadly permitted, fewer women have abortions! How can you explain that? Perhaps contraceptives aren’t taboo. Perhaps sexual health isn’t a myth. Perhaps people aren’t so wrapped up in Christianity they can’t see the truth in front of them.
In fact, easy access to birth control has led to wanton sexual habits, which has led to more abortions.
Perhaps in America, where sex is taboo, and therefore more strongly desired.
Comprehensive sex ed is taught in 75% of American schools, according to Guttmacher, so I expect the percentage is even higher. Why is it this proven failure is not seen as a proven failure? Why is it we say this proven failure is really not a proven failure, we just need to spend more money on it? Why is it we say the fault of this proven failure lies not with what and how it is being taught but with its recipients?
Wait a second… so you’re saying that abstinence-only education, with its higher STD transmission rate and equal numbers of people having sex at the same time, was more of a success than comprehensive sex ed?
You’re saying that spreading misinformation and scaring teens is more successful than telling them the truth and giving them honest and accurate information?
You know, sometimes I think the only reason are teens are so sexually screwed up is because people like you want to keep it a secret from them. Meanwhile, porn stores make a ton of money (most sexually repressed countries have lots of porn stores), the media makes a ton of money teasing everyone with sex, and teens are getting mixed messages.
Tell them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and watch how many teens stop being so curious they have to try it. Watch how many teens use protection. Watch how many teens stop having abortions — because the ones that often do have unintended pregnancies are the ones who were uninformed.
I wouldn’t want to cramp college students lifestyles. I think we should give them discounts on Wii, Ecstasy, beer and convertible mustangs too.
Posted by: mk at May 24, 2008 6:31 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah!
Time to go back for my Masters!
Comprehensive sex ed is taught in 75% of American schools, according to Guttmacher, so I expect the percentage is even higher. Why is it this proven failure is not seen as a proven failure? Why is it we say this proven failure is really not a proven failure, we just need to spend more money on it? Why is it we say the fault of this proven failure lies not with what and how it is being taught but with its recipients?
Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 24, 2008 3:55 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Considering that the teen birthrate has dropped every year for the last two decades, I’d hardly call sex education a failure.
Considering that the teen birthrate has dropped every year for the last two decades, I’d hardly call sex education a failure.
Posted by: Laura at May 24, 2008 12:45 PM
Consider abortion, Laura.
Wait a second… so you’re saying that abstinence-only education, with its higher STD transmission rate and equal numbers of people having sex at the same time, was more of a success than comprehensive sex ed?
Posted by: Edyt at May 24, 2008 11:41 AM
No, re-read what Jill wrote, Comprehensive sex ed has been a failure.
Why are you convinced that kids who are taught abstinence (at home or at school) are sexually more curious, therefore active, than kids who are taught CSE at school?
Kids aren’t stupid.
“If they already are having sex, which, as I said, is a pretty high percentage, they should be able to rely on themselves through the use of birth control and in combination with a condom, rather than relying on condoms alone.
That’s fine – then let them pay for the BC. I don’t want to be forced to pay for someone else’s abortions or BC. If that is their “choice” then they need to be fully responsible for it. They don’t pay for my choice to go out and by a sympto-thermal thermometer, take the course and get the NFP charts.
“Kids aren’t stupid.”
@Janet: Yes they are. When’s the last time you’ve been to a high school or middle school.
Once, when I was in high school I recall a girl sitting next to me asking where the country of “Euthanasia” is. And the girl next to her says, “Sounds like it’s in Asia.”
That’s fine – then let them pay for the BC. I don’t want to be forced to pay for someone else’s abortions or BC. If that is their “choice” then they need to be fully responsible for it.
Posted by: Patricia at May 24, 2008 1:10 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah! …And when people crank out kids they can’t afford, the babies should be seized and handed over to responsible people who can afford to care for them.
Why should I have to pay for someone else’s expensive child-rearing hobby?
Rae, I think the country of Euthanasia is closer to Anastasia but I could be wrong. I haven’t been in skool for a loooooong time!! :)
Carla,
Maybe she had pregnancy brain, what with all the sex ed the kids are getting. She likely knows how to put on a condom but couldn’t find her way out of the US.
There was a girl in my speech class this year who didn’t even know what abstinence meant. Seriously, she asked me what it was. I was shocked. She’s in college and had never even heard the word “abstinence” before.
She has 2 kids and she’s probably younger than me.
Anyway, in regards to this thread,
Now while I agree that people in college SHOULD have different priorities, we can’t very well MAKE anyone have those priorities. They have to come to that conclusion on their own, which usually comes after some challenging experiences and personal growth.
Don’t you think that giving people information and access TO that information/supplies will help them make more informed/mature decisions?
Jess,
Congrats on the abstinence girlie! It’s really not that hard after a while..I’ve been abstinent for about 3 years now!
One thing I’ve seen in the high schools here is teens carrying a baby doll around as part of health class to mimic being a teen parent.
It’s the stupidest thing ever as far as I’m concerned.
Use to be that teens saw first hand how much work a baby was by watching their baby siblings at home.
Elizabeth said: Don’t you think that giving people information and access TO that information/supplies will help them make more informed/mature decisions?
How much information does a kid need to just say “no”? :)
*************************************************************
If a college kid is planning to be in school for four years, why are they risking a pregnancy?
Patricia:Use to be that teens saw first hand how much work a baby was by watching their baby siblings at home.
No kidding!
Janet said: “Kids aren’t stupid.”
Rae said:@Janet: Yes they are. When’s the last time you’ve been to a high school or middle school.
Last week. OK, I should have said the majority of kids aren’t stupid!
Yeah! …And when people crank out kids they can’t afford, the babies should be seized and handed over to responsible people who can afford to care for them.
Why should I have to pay for someone else’s expensive child-rearing hobby?
I’m confused. If the child is taken away from the mother and given to a couple that can afford to care for it, then how are you or any of us footing the bill?
If a college kid is planning to be in school for four years, why are they risking a pregnancy?
Janet,
I think that may be why they are called “unplanned” pregnancies, cause life doesn’t always happen according to our “plans.” Now, just because you engage in a behavior that may change your plans doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have the information and resources available to avoid such things that aren’t included in your “plans.” That includes knowing all the risks so you can decide that that behavior is just not for you.
How much information does a kid need to just say “no”? :)
Well, I’ll compare this to another common college activity: drinking. Nobody really tells college kids not to drink (I mean, BESIDES your parents), they tell them to what? “Drink responsibly” and give them criteria for what that may include: not leaving drinks unattended, always having a sober friend/driver with you, not drinking too much, etc. SO, if we inform college kids about the dangers of drinking, why would we not inform them of the dangers of engaging in casual, unprotected sex? And why would we not encourage them to follow the criteria (i.e. using correct protection, getting tested for stds, etc.) necessary to do so?
I find it far more irresponsible to stick our heads in the sand and pretend these problems don’t exist. Sure, plenty of people go through college and do the dumb crap and nothing bad happens to them as a result, and their “plans” go accordingly. BUT, for plenty of people, they don’t. So why would we not encourage people to do the 2 best things possible? #1) Don’t engage in the behavior at all and #2) IF you do, take precautions to still maintain a certain level of safety.
It would be just GREAT if everybody did the right and most responsible thing allll the time, but let’s face it, especially in college (which I am convinced is just summer camp that doesn’t end), we should give these boneheads some speed bumps so they don’t completely crash and burn. :)
Oh and Janet, I’ve been to 4 colleges, and YES, all kids are stupid! (lol) I say that in the most loving way possible of course!
I’m confused. If the child is taken away from the mother and given to a couple that can afford to care for it, then how are you or any of us footing the bill?
Posted by: mk at May 24, 2008 8:20 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That would keep us from footing the bill.
I think it’s ironic that people don’t want to subsidize birth control, but they DO want us to subsidize everyone’s expensive children.
My compromise? I won’t ask the taxpayers to cover anyone else’s birth control as long as you don’t make them pay for anyone else’s kids.
Laura,
But isn’t that what adoption is all about?
Okay, so if these kids are all so stupid, tell me again why they are mature enough to be having sex?
I wouldn’t give my 6 year old a fireproof suit and say, I know you’re going to play with matches, wear this and you’ll be safe.
Or I know you’re going to drink drano, so always carry this charcoal with you.
That’s just crazy thinking.
If they are stupid, why are we giving them birth control and condoms and saying have at it?
Writing that post made me think of Hippie (She would vehemently deny that young people are stupid)…
Where is she? Anyone know?
I’m not saying, give them this and this, and have at it at all.
They don’t have to have at it in any way.
Do you explain to your 6-year old why they shouldn’t play with matches or why they shouldn’t drink Drano?
Well, if you don’t, and you expect them to know the difference then you’re fooling yourself. You explain to them why they shouldn’t do that, and what will happen if they do that, and I’m pretty sure they know well enough not to do that. However, your 6 year old may still set themselves on fire or drink Drano.
Also you, as the parent, are watching a 6-year old (hopefully) and can assist the child in NOT doing those things. In college, there’s nobody standing over your shoulder making sure you’re not doing the nasty. It is a little bit of a different ball game once they don’t live in the house anymore, right? Don’t you think that it’s beneficial to have some nets out there to cushion your kid’s arse when they land on it?
E,
I’m not arguing the education, just the free or discounted birth control.
And yes, when my six year old goes for the drano, we’d have a long talk…but I wouldn’t trust the school to have that talk for me.
But everyone was saying that these kids are stupid, so now lets take it down to a two year old. They aren’t mature enough to understand what I’m telling them. So I gotta put the drano out of reach.
If these kids are old enough to truly understand what sex is all about then they should be old enough and wise enough to afford birth control.
If they aren’t mature enough or wise enough to get and afford their own birth control, then they aren’t mature or wise enough to be having sex…
If they aren’t mature enough or wise enough to get and afford their own birth control, then they aren’t mature or wise enough to be having sex…
Posted by: mk at May 24, 2008 9:46 PM
Amen. Give them free condoms and the next thing, they’re on welfare with 10 kids. Where does it end?
If they aren’t mature enough or wise enough to get and afford their own birth control, then they aren’t mature or wise enough to be having sex…
Well, yes, but the fact of the matter is that they ARE regardless of whether me, you, or even THEY think they’re mature or wise enough to be doing so.
So how does that problem get solved?
Actually, I’m just going to tie Gabriella down to a chair when she turns 13 so this really isn’t going to be a problem for me. :)
Give them free condoms and the next thing, they’re on welfare with 10 kids.
Sure, if they don’t use them…
If they aren’t mature enough or wise enough to get and afford their own birth control, then they aren’t mature or wise enough to be having sex…
Posted by: mk at May 24, 2008 9:46 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…And they sure as HELL aren’t mature or wise enough to be having kids.
Should we offer them free birth control or perhaps mandate abortion for those too irresponsible to care for children? That’s not exactly pro-choice.
@MK: We could always strap college students in “Everlast” chastity belts a la “Robin Hood Men in Tights”…
I don’t care what hippie thinks- kids ARE stupid. Actually, I take that back- all humans are stupid be they kids or adults.
Humanity is stupid. :-p
Rae,
Yes, humanity is stupid. But it’s all we’ve got.
Besides, look at you. Proof positive that some of humanity is BRILLIANT!
“Well, yes, but the fact of the matter is that they ARE regardless of whether me, you, or even THEY think they’re mature or wise enough to be doing so.
“So how does that problem get solved?
This problem gets solved by starting when they are young and teaching them that sex is for marriage (you know that thing were man and woman commit to each other for life). We tell them over and over again why this is best.
We tell them that what they see in movies and on TV and read in magazines is the big lie – it will never make them happy. We make them into critical thinkers. Kids are pretty smart, much smarter than we give them credit for, they just lack experience.
With sexual experience outside of marriage comes disease, pregnancy, broken hearts and cynicism. No wonder they get turned off marriage.
This lifestyle is promoted in society because marriage is seen as patriarchial and sex outside of marriage is destructive to marriage.
Patricia: 8:16: With sexual experience outside of marriage comes disease, pregnancy, broken hearts and cynicism. No wonder they get turned off marriage.
This lifestyle is promoted in society because marriage is seen as patriarchial and sex outside of marriage is destructive to marriage.
You hit the nail on the head on this one, IMO. If we promoted marriage in our society in a more positive light, maybe teens would postpone their first sexual experiences with the idea that waiting for marriage would be the best idea. This would also require bringing back some of the romanticism surrounding marriage. Let’s discourage couples from living together before marriage. That itself takes away from the unique, exciting experience of getting married. We are no longer in the same “patriachal” society of the 1950’s, and the ability for a husband and wife to be equal partners is a reality now more than ever. The last thing, IMO, is we need change our society’s view that marriage partners are disposable. Let’s look to those couples who have been married 50-60 years as proof that marriage can work.
Correction: This sentence should be in parenthesis above @ 8:48:
(Patricia said) This lifestyle is promoted in society because marriage is seen as patriarchial and sex outside of marriage is destructive to marriage.
You anti-choice people are so self-right-
eous when it comes to other people’s privare
lives.It’s totally unrealistic to expect
every one to be chaste before marriage.
You can’t stop human nature.This would avoid
a lot of problems,but people have ALWAYS been
unchaste.Illegitimacy,abortion,and promiscuity
have been common from the very beginning.
Contraceptives have prevented countless
abortions.Whay object to them?
Patricia: 8:16: With sexual experience outside of marriage comes disease, pregnancy, broken hearts and cynicism. No wonder they get turned off marriage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gee, Patricia know all about the benefits of marriage – it’s worked out so well for her.
Laura,
Anything nice to say?
Laura,
Anything nice to say?
Posted by: Janet at May 25, 2008 10:08 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You don’t find it ironic that she spends half of her time here whining about her miserable marriage and the other half ranting that everyone should get married?
What’s her point? Does she want everyone to get married so they can end up as bitter as she did?
I’ll pass…
You anti-choice people are so self-right-
eous when it comes to other people’s privare
lives.It’s totally unrealistic to expect
every one to be chaste before marriage.
You can’t stop human nature.This would avoid
a lot of problems,but people have ALWAYS been
unchaste.Illegitimacy,abortion,and promiscuity
have been common from the very beginning.
Contraceptives have prevented countless
abortions.Whay object to them?
Posted by: robert berger at May 25, 2008 9:31 AM
I said “promote” marriage, and “discourage” couples from living together before marriage, not mandate it. You admit this would avoid a lot of problems. Would you rather continue to see these same problems or try to correct destructive behaviors for the good of society? We have an obligation to at least try to make a better society, don’t you think?
Self-righteous? Did I claim to be perfect or have all the answers? No. These are suggestions on my part. I don’t expect everyone to be chaste before marriage. But there are many people who might be able to remain chaste if given a bit of encouragement from society instead of the attitude, “well they’ll do it anyway”. And these people might even appreciate marriage a bit more if they don’t have the baggage of failed intimate relationships. I’d rather not comment on the contraceptive issue, because it’s not specifically relevant to this point I’m trying to make.
Whether we like it or not, our private lives do influence our public lives sometimes more than we realize. Our personal mistakes can impact more than just our own families. Drinking and driving for one. Sexual promiscuity, chat rooms, embezzlement, burglary, etc… Am I being self-righteous to say these things could well be avoided?
Laura, My response to Robert might explain how I feel. I don’t think Patricia spends half of her time speaking about marriage. Only when it suits the discussion. It would be nice to hear your opinions instead of criticizing others’. Explain why you feel the way you do. Have you been married? How old are you, if I may ask?
@MK: Bah- I may be “book smart” but everything else- well…I’m just a little bit “speshul”. :)
xalisae, hi! Pro-life atheists represent!
We have such an incoherent attitude toward sexuality in this culture. You’ve got the one side saying any sex outside of marriage is sinful and shameful, and impairing access to education and protection even for those who don’t share their religious views. Then you’ve got the dehumanizing messages in advertising and entertainment that present people as nothing but warm bodies to score with, and sex as something everybody is or should be doing — with nary any STD protection or contraception in sight. Sometimes I’m amazed anyone manages to negotiate this environment and conduct their sex life in a free and responsible manner.
Laura,
For the record I am divorced and annulled. But I was divorced against my will – I had absolutely NO say whatever as to what happened to my marriage, nor did our 4 children. My husband left when I had 4 children under the age of 8.
To be quite honest, I’m very glad my ex is gone. He is now someone else’s problem (and trust me he’s a big one). Am I bitter – no, but I’m angry for my kids and for how much they’ve suffered. I’m also angry because so many people in society and the Catholic Church who should have worked to help us save the marriage in fact, did not. There is almost a laissez-faire approach to divorce.
Secular humanism has been very successful in destroying marriage. It has done so through liberal divorce laws, promotion of homosexuality and homosexual marriages and common-law relationships, premarital sex, contraception and abortion. Divorce was enshrined in our society by feminists to supposedly give women the power to escape abusive marriages but like abortion for the “health” of the mother, it has been grossly misused.
Marriage for the most part was protective for women – in the past it gave us security, allowed us to raise our children and focus on people and to serve the community. What do women do today? – they work outside the home, rarely have time for their kids, themselves or their marriages. Any woman who says this isn’t so is lying. I know because they tell me, that can’t figure how I manage on my own with 4 kids.
Women today often no longer have the choice to stay at home or even to have children they want. I can’t begin to tell you the number of women who came to LaLeche meetings grieving about having to return to work under the threat of being abandoned by their “partner”. And this is choice? I’ve also met many women whose husbands sterilized themselves(against their wife’s wishes) so that there would be no more children even though they had only two or three children! And this is supposed to be better for women?
I see great hope in the younger men and women, whom I try to encourage – the Bobby Bambino’s of this world. It’s my hope they will undo some of the terrible damage my generation has done to marriage and family.
“You anti-choice people are so self-right-
eous when it comes to other people’s privare
lives.It’s totally unrealistic to expect
every one to be chaste before marriage.
You can’t stop human nature.This would avoid
a lot of problems,but people have ALWAYS been
unchaste.”
I don’t think it’s unrealistic at all Robert. I think we should expect people not to act like animals and act on every urge they get! Which appears to the case in many people’s lives.
It’s true that people have always struggled with purity and there’s no doubt the sexual urges are among the strongest. But in the past, people were restrained by society’s norms which today are almost completely lacking.
OK I’m back BUT just to say this:
Taxpayers dollars or not, we’re forgetting some important benefits to birth control pills here…
My sister has a hormone imbalance. If she doesn’t take birth control pills, she gets dark hair under her chin like a beard (too much testosterone). Pills have let her lead a normal life- then the price skyrockets at college and they’re suddenly unaffordable. Let’s not forget girls like Jess who get debilitating cramps and rely on the pill for relief, or girls whose acne can only be controlled with the pill. Doctors are responsible and tell women the risks of blood clots. Not nearly enough (unless you’re over 35 and smoke, of course) to discourage the types of women above from seeking help.
So please open your minds and stop seeing birth control pills as a type of candy that we promiscuous, stupid slutty college girls pop so we can have all the sex we want. Give the younger generations some credit. And stop generalizing college kids! I’m graduating soon and have seen first-hand the brilliant women of my generation, who work hard, devote time to their communities, and still manage to be social and experience the growth opportunities of college (for me, meeting people I’d never get the opportunity to meet in suburban New York). I got the best grades of my college career when I had a boyfriend, and my two best friends are virgins. Take that!
Patricia,
You speaketh much wisdom.
*hi-5 for Ali*
Sorry if this is personal, but does your sister have PCOS?
Ali,
by those criteria, most women would NOT require BC pills
“Give the younger generations some credit.
Indeed, this is my feeling exactly – that’s why we should have high expectations for young adults
I really am bothered by this term “purity”. It implies that anyone who doesn’t live according to a particular religious view of sexual morality is impure, tainted. Is that what you mean to say?
Jen R: I really am bothered by this term “purity”. It implies that anyone who doesn’t live according to a particular religious view of sexual morality is impure, tainted. Is that what you mean to say?
No, I don’t think anyone is implying that. Here’s a great web site that I would recommend to anyone who has a Q&A about chastity. It was started by a young man named Jason Evert who travelled around the country three years giving chastity talks to teens, and is now joined by his wife Crystalina. They are both Catholic, but you can ignore the “Catholic parts” and still get some very useful information.
http://www.pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7
To Rae,
It’s not PCOS, just an overabundance of testosterone. Don’t know if there’s a name for that. BUT her friend had PCOS and thus is on pills. My best friend had an ovarian cyst at 16 and has been on the pill since then to control her other cysts and keep her other ovary intact (I dunno, doctor language would explain it better). Another reason I’m sooo pro BC.
To Patricia,
By what criteria? And ‘requirement’ is a tough issue. I don’t require pills to get through every month, but not having mind-numbing cramps is a plus. Also, BC pills help safeguard against endometrial cancer. Sign me up.
Thats fine ali, if you want to dose yourself every month with synthetic hormones, go right ahead. Just don’t expect a handout from the taxpayers for it.
Two ob/gyn’s I know never prescribe BC pills as a solution to a gyn problem. Their patients may take some kind of hormone treatment for certain problems but don’t use a regular BC pill as such for these.
One thing I’ve seen in the high schools here is teens carrying a baby doll around as part of health class to mimic being a teen parent.
It’s the stupidest thing ever as far as I’m concerned.
Use to be that teens saw first hand how much work a baby was by watching their baby siblings at home.
Haha, so true. When I was in highschool my mom came down with leukemia and was hospitalized. So on top of AP/college classes and my own high school classes, I was homeschooling my three little brothers and taking care of them while my dad was at work.
Maybe THAT’S why I don’t want to parent today.
Hi everyone!!!
Hope you all had a wonderful Memorial Day.
I feel like I have so much to say on the subject, but a friends in town just for tonight…
somone be on in the wee hours to talk too!
Thanks lg, same to you!
Haha, so true. When I was in highschool my mom came down with leukemia and was hospitalized. So on top of AP/college classes and my own high school classes, I was homeschooling my three little brothers and taking care of them while my dad was at work.
Maybe THAT’S why I don’t want to parent today.
Posted by: Edyt at May 26, 2008 12:57 PM
Actually your situation is rather sad Edyt. I remember when I was in my twenties, I met a co-worker who felt as you do. She and her husband did not want any children ever! One day we got to talking about it and it turned out that her mom and dad had died when she was quite young. I think she was around 17. Her brother was about 10 years old, and no relatives would step forward to take the boy and raise him. So she had to – she worked and got him through university. That did it for her – too much responsibility at too young an age? Who knows. I don’t know if she ever had kids but I do remember her having a very strong aversion to children of ANY age. It was quite sad to me.
Patricia,
Why do you think that’s sad? Children have been raising their younger siblings for centuries. Deaths in the family, single parents, lack of community aid, illness, or even neglectful parents… kids usually pull themselves up and find ways to help themselves.
I don’t think the cancer was why I don’t want kids though. I never really was mothering. Never played with dolls, never enjoyed holding babies or playing with 4-year-olds… I just don’t have that instinct. No big deal. Just not my thing.
Edyt:
I think it’s sad that because of this woman’s experience she has decided that she doesn’t want children herself. It appeared to me that she was quite bitter about what happened. Children bring so much joy to life. In her mind, she’d already had her child and raised him – that was her 10 year old brother.
Correction: Children bring so much joy to your life.
See, this is the problem a lot of you guys have, where you think everyone gets all googlyeyed for children and everyone should want one or two or six.
Well, lots of people just don’t! We don’t have those feelings around children. We don’t have the urge to have them. We don’t enjoy being around them.
I mean, you saying children bring so much joy to life is like me saying cats bring so much joy to life and we all know some people, for whatever reason, don’t like cats.
I may think they’re crazy but the fact of the matter is that people enjoy different things. For your co-worker and I, we just don’t enjoy children. They are not a joy to us. I have no particular urge that says “go out and multiply!”
Or in the great words of comedian Margaret Cho …. “I look at kids and feel nothing! I ovulate sand!!”
Oooooh Edyt-
I have noticed this little phenomenon in my sibling, friends and coworkers. It’s a dirty little secret:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1941195/Marriage-without-children-the-key-to-bliss.html
More dirty little secrets.
(Check out which women are the LEAST happy):
Published: 16:27 EST, May 07, 2007
Childless women fare as well psychologically as mothers at mid-life
For one day each year, motherhood brings flowers, cards and Sunday brunches, but a new University of Florida study asks, how important is it for women
Laura :11:36: For mothers, psychological well-being also was heavily influenced by when they had their children. Women who gave birth early, before age 19, reported being least happy, more depressed and lonelier than mothers who had their children later, Koropeckyj-Cox said. Slightly more than one-third
Laura, they forgot to add that when you delay having children, you have to learn to become independent and happy without external partners or children justifying your life.
It’s a lot harder for mothers to form an identity in their later years once the children have grown up if all they’ve ever known is motherhood.
Nice articles, btw.
Janet, I’m sure you could argue for abstinence before marriage, but in general, abstinence-pledgers get married much younger than their peers. So that fact negates your argument.
EDYT 12:03: Janet, I’m sure you could argue for abstinence before marriage, but in general, abstinence-pledgers get married much younger than their peers. So that fact negates your argument.
I said nothing about abstinence-pledgers. I don’t even know anyone who has done that to be honest. If you really mean it, you don’t have to take a pledge, IMO. My point about abstinence still stands.
Laura, they forgot to add that when you delay having children, you have to learn to become independent and happy without external partners or children justifying your life.
It’s a lot harder for mothers to form an identity in their later years once the children have grown up if all they’ve ever known is motherhood.
Many women love being Grandmas love their new found independence. You can’t generalize.
Or in the great words of comedian Margaret Cho …. “I look at kids and feel nothing! I ovulate sand!!”
Posted by: Edyt at May 27, 2008 11:11 AM
That’s not even funny, IMO. From the little I’ve seen of her act, she’s a very unhappy being a woman. Depressing.
Oops, I can’t get a sentence right lately!
It should read “From the little I’ve seen of her act, she’s very unhappy being a woman.”
What’s the concern with whether Margaret Cho – or any other woman for that matter – jokes about not feeling maternal? I agree with some posters here…don’t assume that because I’m a woman I automatically want to have children (because I don’t) and because of that, I lead some sort of ‘sad’, soul-less life. I quite like my life, thank you.
Frankly, more people have kids for the wrong reasons that our society cares to admit. If only men and women were honest about their feelings about parenthood BEFORE they had kids…
Danielle said: What’s the concern with whether Margaret Cho – or any other woman for that matter – jokes about not feeling maternal?
I didn’t say she didn’t feel maternal, I said she doesn’t like being a woman. There’s nothing wrong with choosing to remain single with no children. She makes fun of her mother all the time which is distasteful to me. I hope her mom has a good sense of humor. I don’t consider her as funny at all. That’s all.
Planned Parenthood subsidy stripped from War Supplemental bill
I’ve written before (here and here) about the Democrats’ attempt to reinstate taxpayer subsidies of college and Planned Parenthood birth control pills in the War Supplemental Appropriations bill. Recall PP CEO Cecile Richards famously lamented that wit…