Subsidizing Free Love at Madison
I’ve seen this story floating around for a few months.
Wisconsin college students grappling with the cost of tuition, housing and textbooks now are digging deeper into their pockets for another expense: birth control.
A change in federal policy has eliminated price breaks for many university student health centers, driving the cost of some birth-control products from less than $10 a month to $50 or more.
“That’s a significant, significant increase,” said Cassandra Magar, a student government representative at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Some health center administrators fear that the sudden price increase is prompting students to go without birth control and to risk unplanned pregnancies.
Jason Walker-Crawford, pharmacy manager at the UW-Madison clinic, said more students are resorting to the emergency morning-after contraceptive, known as Plan B, which is taken after sex.
My first thought was, why are we subsidizing birth control for college kids? I can maybe understand doing it for very poor folks, but college kids? Your average Madison student comes from an middle to upper-middle class home and seems to have plenty of money for beer and pot. It doesn’t seem to me that an extra $40/month for birth control is that much of a burden. In any case, I don’t see why I should have to be taxed to relieve them of that burden.
I do think that it would be horrible if more girls are choosing to use Plan B instead of birth control, but I don’t see anything in the story to back up the claim that more girls are turning to it. They don’t cite any decline in the use of birth control or anything. I think that statement may be based on comments from girls when confronted with the price increase, but never acted upon.
This strikes me as one of those subsidies that never should have existed in the first place. Now that it’s being taken away, it reveals how relatively well-to-do people had become dependent on their government handout.
Generic birthcontrol is still avialable on the cheap its only the name brand stuff that is expensive. While reading this article in the UWM Post I was waiting for some Onion like quotes from male students:
“This better not meen I have to start wearing condoms.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 0832 hrs
If they can’t afford it, maybe they shouldn’t have sex. Wait. I’m sorry. That’s so intolerant and judgemental of me. I’ll go back to my cave now…
Posted by Billiam on March 27, 2007 at 0837 hrs
I don’t see why I should have to be taxed to relieve them of that burden.
Because even a $40 barrier could mean that a tiny fraction of young women will go without on occasion…and the resulting pregnancies could very well cost you a great deal more than all the condoms for all the Madison students put together, my friend. So if concern for their well-being doesn’t motivate you, perhaps cost-effectiveness will.
Wait. I’m sorry. That’s so intolerant and judgemental of me.
It’s not intolerant or judgmental, it’s just extraordinarily naive.
it seems to me that the conservatives will all feel very comfortable pointing at those couple of additional unexpectedly pregnant students and saying “gee, you had money for beer and Netflix! Your own fault, I’m not responsible for you.” Whereas to me, that response isn’t good enough, knowing that we could have done a small thing to help prevent this situation.
Posted by scott on March 27, 2007 at 0852 hrs
Because even a $40 barrier could mean that a tiny fraction of young women will go without on occasion…
I don’t buy that excuse. Again, these are college kids - not necessarily poor folks. Most college kids engage in idiotic behavior, like sleeping around and not using protection, because they are young and stupid - not because they can’t afford the $40. In fact, I’m willing to bet that most unprotected sex happens at the end of an evening where the women drank, smoked, and ate at least $40 worth of consumables.
Posted by Owen on March 27, 2007 at 0932 hrs
Not Naive Scott. It’s how I was raised. I guess I grew up in a time when more was expected of a person. So, in essence, it’s not their fault they HAD to have sex, or they’d what, die? What a load. Animals can’t resist having sex. Humans can. Sorry I’m not as enlightened as some…
Posted by Billiam on March 27, 2007 at 0933 hrs
What about $50, Owen? How about $100? Supposing we put condoms behind the counter at the pharmacy? At what point does it become the kind of hurdle that results in 1-in-1000 going without on occasion? You seem to have a pretty sure finger on that pulse. Inquiring minds want to know just where the line is. Enlighten us.
Me, I think we should be moving that line in the other direction entirely. It is humane and financially responsible to make contraception as easy and available as possible. I don’t know of any evidence that it increases promiscuity, nor am I aware of any information that withholding it curbs promiscuity. I frankly think that whole line of reasoning is totally specious. Making contraception easy, understood, available and cheap almost certainly does impact STDs and unwanted pregnancies, however.
Posted by scott on March 27, 2007 at 0957 hrs
I would tend to agree that Madison campus “kids” could buy fewer CDs to afford the pill—or perhaps their boyfriends could chip in, since they have a lot less cost for less-effective condoms over the counter. (This all goes back to the decision, decades ago, that one gender’s birth control, before the pill but just by devices then, had to be by prescription. How about a conservative’s take on that governmental regulation, Owen?)
But you’re conveniently ignoring the part of the story about the many other campuses like UW-Milwaukee, where a huge percentage of students are not “kids” but older adults, many of them married and struggling to keep up with soaring college costs. Perhaps they have to choose not just between buying a textbook or buying birth control but between buying medical care for their kids or buying birth control to be able to afford the kids that they already have . . . and a better life for them if their parents can complete college degrees.
Not saying that it’s a good policy. Just saying that it’s a more complex situation than is suggested by focusing on the most atypical campus in Wisconsin—the campus at Madison.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 1001 hrs
What happens if these adult college students aren’t in college? How do they get their birth control? Is it not the taxpayers’ responsibility to just pay for everybody’s birth control?
I do understand that not every college kid is the so-called “typical” college kid. You bring up a great point. I guess it just frustrates me that by virtue of the fact that somebody goes to college, there’s an assumption that the taxpayers should subsidize their birth control.
Posted by Owen on March 27, 2007 at 1013 hrs
Scott, when you expect bad behavior, that’s exactly what you get. Expecting young adults to be responsible isn’t naive at all.
Posted by Kate on March 27, 2007 at 1016 hrs
Expecting people to be responsible is good, Kate. But believing that they always will be is indeed naive. And sometimes making the responsible behavior easier is good public policy. (And here I’m using the word “responsible” to mean using contraception when sexually active, not “adhering to my personal sexual mores.”)
Owen you spend too much time worrying about whether or not you’re “responsible” to give a nickel to aid someone else’s future and not enough time thinking about whether it’s humane, just or even cost-effective. I find your position on this naive, moralistic and penny-wise-pound-foolish.
Posted by scott on March 27, 2007 at 1024 hrs
I’ll read the posts in a minute, BUT…..LET ME GUESS.
Libs think that if GOVERNMENT doesn’t give UNIVERSITY students subsidized birth control…..
These HIGHLY EDUCATED adults will not know what to do, and there will be unwanted children and it will all be the TAXPAYERS fault.
Well, I see SCOTT has weighed in, this ought to be funny.
Scott, save us from ourselves!!!!!!!Posted by mickey on March 27, 2007 at 1036 hrs
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahhahahahaha BINGO.
Birth control is now an entitlement.
Scott you crack me up.
Posted by mickey on March 27, 2007 at 1038 hrs
Ok, now that we’ve determined that RUBBERS and THE PILL are ENTITLEMENTS, we’ll need a nurse or physician to come to BED SIDE and make sure we are using these FREEBIES correctly. But what if we’re DOING IT in the back seat???
Maybe drive-thru clinics are needed.Just when you thought liberals couldn’t be more absurd.
Posted by mickey on March 27, 2007 at 1040 hrs
Mickey is here to preserve the moral order, while I’m here to improve public health. Take your pick: which is a better guide for public policy?
Put another way, would you rather:
a) pay a nickel to subsidize student’s contraception
b) reassure yourself that that one additional unwanted pregnancy isn’t your moral responsibility
c) tell yourself that subsidizing contraception “sends the wrong message” and increases promiscuity - even if there’s no data to actually support this supposition
Me, I’ll take “a.”
Posted by scott on March 27, 2007 at 1041 hrs
Scott, you’re a moron.
Posted by mickey on March 27, 2007 at 1054 hrs
Asimov said violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. The internet-age corollary is that name-calling is the last refuge of the totally p0w3d.
Posted by scott on March 27, 2007 at 1104 hrs
Being college myself, I still see no need for government subsidized contraception. Maybe we could go back to their sex ed classes. What about then? Maybe abstinence could be the answer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 1123 hrs
A personal choice to be abstinent is a fine way to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies. But unfortunately promoting abstinence as a public policy isn’t.
I say we spend less time moralizing and more time actually helping.
Posted by scott on March 27, 2007 at 1147 hrs
Why can’t Doyle just pass a tax on the condom companies to pay for student birth control and then pass a law that fordbids them from passing the cost on to consumers?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 1213 hrs
Why can’t you win this debate?
Posted by scott on March 27, 2007 at 1225 hrs
Scott abstenance programs actaully work. This link lists ten programs that have had demonstrable success.
(this site will not allow the link I am trying to put in here. I get a pop-up saying it is a blacklisted item. Just google abstenance and heritage it is the first one that comes up)Also I think you can make a morally nuetral aregument for abstenence. It is the only method that is 100 % effective against STDs, AIDS and unwanted pregnancies. When you are dealing with consequences such as AIDS I think we should be certain to tell folks that their is only one completely safe method.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 1246 hrs
Scott you’re a moron, there is no debate. You believe that govt. is supposed to either provide rubbers and birth control pills or WE are responsible for abortions or the cost of raising children. As I’ve said Scott, you’re a moron. A complete and utter moron, not a moron in the works.
You’re level of idiocy is astounding. Have a nice day.Posted by mickey on March 27, 2007 at 1247 hrs
Mickey, every day, you’re more and more red meat for those on the left that think all conservatives are foaming at the mouth lunatics. Less hyperbole and personal attacks, and more serious debate would go a long way.
That being said, I agree with you. There really isn’t a logical argument for the government subsidizing any medication for people that 1.) can afford to pay the full cost, and 2.) probably already have insurance coverage through a parent. This money could be spent far more effectively - and create less unwanted children born into poverty - if it was targeted to low income women and not middle-class college students.
One last point - I am not aware of any data that suggests female birth control helps prevent STDs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 1328 hrs
Just google abstenance and heritage
Hahah! Dude, I had soda in my mouth!!
I’m all for abstinence among minors. But there is no (reputable) data suggesting that promoting abstinence actually results in a lot of actual abstinence. Therefore, promoting it doesn’t actually, you know, help. I suppose it makes some people feel morally comfortable, but it does not help. Therefore it’s a waste of money and a missed opportunity to actually do some kids some good. (Reminds me of DARE, actually.)
Mickey, if you can’t participate without having an apoplectic fit every time someone out-argues you, then you should stay away from web sites like this one. You wouldn’t talk to someone like that in real life, would you? Relax! Take a deep breath and think of Ronald Regan or something.
Posted by scott on March 27, 2007 at 1338 hrs
I’m all about small government, but I’m with scott on this one. If there’s one thing that I’d support government providing to low-income people (college kids or otherwise) it birth control. If there’s one thing that every bit of data we have on the subject tells us, its that having kids when you’re young and single leads to poverty. I think government funded birth controll actually does have a meaningful impact on preventing young single women from getting pregnant.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 1414 hrs
Scott, you don’t out-argue anyone. YOU TAX EVERYONE.
You’re a lib Scott. You have no solutions, you simply tax more and lower standards. Scott, your not even a challenge you’re a lib goof.Posted by mickey on March 27, 2007 at 1454 hrs
What offends me about threads like this is the premise from both sides of this argument: that an unwanted pregnancy is the end of the freakin’ world.
Some of us who made it out alive from the womb of a young single mother before Roe v. Wade might be able to offer you an alternative perspective on these nightmare scenarios you all paint about having kids when it’s not “convenient” for you.
A good parent will be a good parent - whether they waited until they were 35, had 50% equity in a house, and had started saving for your college fund two years before conception, OR, if they got drunk on prom night and you showed up nine months later. “Poverty” has nothing to do with it.
If your capacity to love and care for your child is almost exclusively dependent on how much money you make, you’re a shitty parent. Plain and simple.
Posted by David on March 27, 2007 at 1531 hrs
David,
That is a fantastic point. I expect that a significant part of the population is a result of “unwanted” or “unplanned” pregnancies.
Posted by Owen on March 27, 2007 at 1533 hrs
Mickey,
Nothing in any of your post on any topic I’ve read about in the last half year has contributed anything to any conversation in which it was posted. Talking about how you hate libs and hate Scott and love to use caps ALL THE TIME doesn’t add anything. So just do everyone a favor, and stop posting. I’m sure Owen can add a feature that one out of every 10 posts is something hateful and useless. We don’t need mickey around to do it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 1556 hrs
David, your post was right on the money. Well said and appreciated. There are those who have a child as a result of an “accident” and love that child more than those who tried for 10 years to make a baby.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 1632 hrs
That is not an “excellent point.” It’s a shocking dismissal of the often lifelong hardships of unplanned parenthood. The suggestion that it somehow doesn’t matter if you own a home and are 35 or if you’re a high school student is almost offensive in its disregard for the incredibly real problems that such young people will face in this situation.
And the whole concept of how many of us were planned or not is nothing but metaphysical bullshit, one notch above the freak-outs you played on your college roommate when he was stoned. Shit, I myself was born to a girl of sixteen years of age. You want to know how I like being here versus not being here? I want to know how my life might have been different had I been planned instead of unplanned.
Posted by scott on March 27, 2007 at 1657 hrs
So? Everyone has their cross to bear, Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 1702 hrs
David,
While I appreciate that sentiment, it is statistically untrue. The three biggest factors affecting poverty are whether you are married when you have children, whether you are over 25 when you have children, and whether you graduate from high school. If you are married before you have children, are over 25 when you have children, and graduate from high school, your chances of being in poverty (and the child’s chances) are very slim. While the third factor has nothing to do with birth control, the first two most definitely do.Additionally, how successful a child is in school and on standardized tests correlates very strongly with how old their parents are when they are born.
The thing about both of these correlations is that they are correlations. It’s not that your kid will not be better off if you wait till you’re married to have a kid. It’s that parents that do wait to have kids tend to be better parents. Statistically speaking anyway.
Also, aren’t a lot of you guys the same guys that fight against gay marriage because one man + one woman is the best way to raise kids?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 1713 hrs
BV, I don’t disclose that fact about myself for pity so don’t patronize me. I do it to illustrate the fact that I have first-hand knowledge of how much it can matter whether a pregnancy is planned or unplanned - a direct response to those above who are inexplicably suggesting that it does not.
Posted by scott on March 27, 2007 at 1959 hrs
scott… lifelong hardships of unplanned parenthood.
LIFELONG??? Puh-leeaze!
But really you speak only of the financial side.
Unless (and this goes to both scott and JIJAWM) you actually mean to suggest that the ability to raise a child in loving caring environment and with a sense of right & wrong is some sort of an insurmountable task is the baby wasn’t planned? I call “bullshit” on that claim.
Being poor sucks, but I firmly reject this line of thinking that says being poor makes one become a bad person.
I know what you guys are saying with the statistics and all. But the underlying theme of unplanned children being the end of life, where you may as well put a bullet in your head, is bunk. We all want to bring up a child in a world less conflict and complexity. But life, metaphysically speaking… scott,
will throw unexpected shit your way whether you like it or not.Like you, I was born to a teenage mother. Sure, times were tough growing up. But at heart she was (and is) a good person and ultimately that will have a bigger impact on a child than the size of the parent(s) bank account. I wouldn’t trade the last 36 years for anything, and I know my mother wouldn’t either. Values and the drive to make things right triumph over any adveristy, inlcuding - horror of horrors: being poor!
Posted by David Svendsen on March 27, 2007 at 2001 hrs
Your cavalier attitude toward teenagers having unplanned children is outrageous. Such circumstances can and do lead to radically altered life paths, often affecting one’s income, education, marital status and more - and your indifference to it is appalling.
Your triumph over adversity anecdote would be inspirational if it wasn’t a part of an overall effort to deny and minimize the plight of young people in dire, life altering situations. Yes, having unplanned children at a young age can have lifelong consequences on one’s financial, marital, educational situations. Lifelong. Really. Even good people who work hard and do their best to raise good children - sentimental stories notwithstanding.
Sometimes I think this is the fundamental failure of conservatives - the shocking inability to look at people in unfortunate circumstances and understand that, but for luck or chance, they might share the same fate. Instead they reassure themselves that they are in a better position due to their superior work ethic, intelligence or other personal qualities. By extension, the less fortunate are in their plight simply because of personal failings. This absolves the fortunate from feeling any responsibility to help. In fact help would, in that cold line of reasoning, be counterproductive.
Posted by scott on March 27, 2007 at 2017 hrs
Relax Scott - I am in no way saying it is a cake-walk for a young single woman saddled with a kid.
My larger point is that if a young single mom spends the first 18 years of her child’s life bitching about how the government “owed” her free contraception when she was a teenager, then the kid is probably going to grow up with a serious sense of entitlement and probably not be a very productive member of society. By contrast, if one finds oneself in the situation of having an unplanned child - yes, IT SUCKS - but you do yourself and the child no good by giving up on life and being a “victim” by forever complaining about how “if only they had covered my pills…”
Single moms (and I cannot believe I have to say this to a “liberal”
) deserve a little more credit than you’re giving them. They made mistakes, yes; but many of of them (the majority I would argue) rise to the occasion and do the best they can for their kids.Posted by David on March 27, 2007 at 2156 hrs
if a young single mom spends the first 18 years of her child’s life bitching about how the government “owed” her free contraception
Who the heck are you talking about? Some mythological Regan-esque welfare queen? Sheesh!
Listen, my ex and I had our first child during my FIRST semester of college. I’d never sit for a lecture on responsibility and perseverance by anyone. I should be telling you. The fact that I want to do young people a service by making contraception easy and available as possible in no way contradicts my personal ethics of hard work, responsibility and determination.
And I’d stand my two children up against any 14 and 17 year old on the planet, such is my pride in how they have turned out.
Posted by scott on March 27, 2007 at 2201 hrs
The fact that I want to do young people a service by making contraception easy and available as possible in no way contradicts my personal ethics of hard work, responsibility and determination.
Fair enough man. We may disagree on some methods of implementation, etc., but I agree there is a place for some collective efforts in a society to take care of people. You’re not the outrageous “perpetual-victim-everyone-in-society-owes-me-something” kind of liberal.
I’ll be visiting Milwaukee again April 19-22; we should grab a beer. Owen… are you in?
Posted by David on March 27, 2007 at 2221 hrs
Sure. Drop me an email. owen -at- bootsandsabers.com
Posted by Owen on March 27, 2007 at 2226 hrs
For the record, I’m not advocating putting a bullet in anyone’s head. I’m advocating making birth control as widely available as possible. I also was very clear that I didn’t think raising a kid as a single parent was insurmountable by a long shot. I commented only in terms of what the data say and even concluded that it was a correlation. I also took care to say that young single parenthood correlates with things besides money. Like test scores and grades. Don’t lump my in with whatever your preconcieved notion of liberals is. I’m no liberal, I’m a pragmatist. And doing what we can to limit children born to poor single women, without limiting anyone’s rights or forcing anyone to do anything, is an efficient use of tax money IMHO.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 2228 hrs
Count me in on that beer!
Posted by scott on March 27, 2007 at 2246 hrs
Back after many hours to see interesting discussion—but again, it seems to be a lot about young, very young, unmarried women aka “kids.”
Still don’t see discussion of the majority of users of birth control, adult women—and mothers already. Nor does there appear to be much discussion of the far greater costs of birth control for women than for men, because of the requirement that women’s birth control be by prescription, thus including doctor’s visits, etc. Vs. a condom.
For example, say that one of the young mothers of those writing here had determined that, after having you, she and her husband who both raised you so well could best do so by waiting a few years to have their next child? Perhaps going to college, or to technical school, or just to hold a job toward buying a home for you sooner? (Children can delay education for daddies, too—the good daddies who don’t run from it.)
For that matter, how do you know your parents didn’t do so—practicing birth control? If there was a year, maybe two years or more, between you and your next sibling, do you think that was because of total abstinence all those years? If it was, was that really best for their marriage? Is it best for yours?
Still not saying it’s the best public policy to help fund birth control for students, but the discussion has gone far afield from that, anyway. Btw, it seems, from what I’ve been able to find out, that this may be a cut in subsidies for only one or a few types of prescription medications, while others are not affected. Interesting, that.
But condoms are still a lot more available and a lot less costly, since you still don’t have to see a doctor to get them. They’re still not as reliable, but married already-parents may only have a few more kids, a bit sooner than is best. Or they can just say no. Every night, every day, for the next decade or two. . . .
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 2359 hrs
No Scott, nothing said here absolves the fortunate from responsibility for helping anyone. It absolves them from coercing an uninvolved third party into helping.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 0812 hrs
There are no “uninvolved” parties. You cannot opt out of being a responsible citizen.
Posted by scott on March 28, 2007 at 0820 hrs
That’s exactly the rationale for all sorts of proposed government intrusion into the bedroom, demonstrating once again that the extreme right and extreme left both believ in unlimited government power, differing only in what they would use it for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 0828 hrs
My suggestion that we continue to subsidize contraception for young people hardly makes me a proponent of “unlimited government power.”
Posted by scott on March 28, 2007 at 0909 hrs
And yet in a single thread that suggestion has devolved into “there are no uninvolved parties” thus laying the foundation for government intrusion into anything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 0913 hrs
“There are no uninvolved parties” simply means that when someone in your town is poor or uneducated you pay a price for it along with everyone else. The claim was made above that when I say it’s okay - good even - to spend public money on the prevention of misfortune among young people that it amounts to “coercing uninvolved parties” into helping. I merely mean to say, you’re involved already. Everyone has a stake in this.
Posted by scott on March 28, 2007 at 0925 hrs
That’s nice, but everyone has a stake in everything, and by that standard, anything can be justified. Thus far, your only argument has been you think it’s a good idea, and it may be. But “I think it’s a good idea” is a piss poor way to determine what a government should do and is an argument for, and sets a precedent for, any government action.
I could buy off on condoms as a public health measure, but we all know that condoms aren’t what’s gone from $10 to over $50, unless somebody is buying by the gross.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 0931 hrs
I’m sorry, but there’s too big a logical leap between admitting that there are no uninvolved parties to ushering in “1984.”
And I make no attempt to dodge your accusation that I argue my position because I think it’s a good idea. I’m sorry my good idea doesn’t fit into someone else’s ideological vision of what the government should or should not do, but as long as it improves our country and is constitutional I’ll sign off on it.
Posted by scott on March 28, 2007 at 0953 hrs
No logical leap is required, because the whole thing isn’t based on logic. That’s precisely the point. You’ve finally added the caveat that something must be constitutional, but no expalnation of how this program is constituional.
Realize there are other people who think the country could be improved by constitutional actions of a very different nature. In the end, you and Mickey are two peas in a pod.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1028 hrs
Interesting debate. Now that it’s gotten to whether the government belongs in our bedrooms (or backseats of cars or whatever:-) and whether it’s constitutional for medications to be subsidized (aren’t a lot of them?)—BVBigBro, what is your stance on whether it’s constitutional to guarantee, as we now do, reproductive rights at all?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1109 hrs
The government guarantees no rights, and the constitution grants no rights. Rights are inalienable. The constitution only grants power to the government.
Having said that, and assuming you mean abortion when you say “reproductive rights”, I would say it is a matter for the states to decide. Not because I think states rights is a great idea, but clearly we’ve allowed the states to decide what constitutes a person in the past. If abortion is outlawed, than the charge against someone performing an abortion would be some sort of homicide, and that is state issue. The other issues that people like to complicate the matter with have all really been settled once you regard the matter as a homicide.
I realize that would create a situation where South Dakota outlaws all abortion and Massachusetts legalizes the killing of two year olds, but barring some sort of amendment to the constituion, its’ really for the states to decide.
Unfortunstely, no consensus exists in this country as to what should be legal in this matter, and the proper remedy is to let the states decide, not impose a really contrived court decision.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1119 hrs
Thanks for the thoughtful response, BVBB. By reproductive rights, more than abortion is meant; it includes birth control (thus is relevant to this thread) for both women and men, i.e., access to condoms, for example—as well as hysterectomies and vasectomries and other interventions in reproduction.
Re your argument, I understand it—but I (and others) don’t see it as in accord with the Constitution since the 14th Amendment re states’ rights. Do you disagree with that—the 14th Amendment, and thus the Constitition?
And if you would, please point me to where the Constitution devolves the defining of a person onto the states. I thought that was resolved, too, but you can see the lack of a law degree! Still, bless the founders and so many since for making the Constitution readable by the rest of us wherever we are, if we leave it to the lawyers to argue its meanings in court.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1956 hrs
Barring amendment, we allowed the states to decide if blacks were people, and if women were people with the right to vote. The 14th amendment managed to exclude women, even while using the word “person” liberally. Given that the 13th amendment outlawed slavery, the 14th amendment is an amendment to protect former confederates more than anything else.
My killing of two year olds response is obviously excessive, but there is nothing in the 14th amendment to prevent a state from recognizing the unborn as people, it only forces them to recognize the born, and only men at that, and still doesn’t define person at that. It’s a lousy amendment in terms of its’meaning, but a product of the time in which it was made
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 0809 hrs
I should have added I think it would be a good idea to amend the constitution to clarify what exactly constitutes a person, and a citizen, including women, but no consensus exists for that amendment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 0813 hrs
Again, I understand what you’re saying about the second section, and I certainly deplore the 14th and 15th amendments for making the 19th amendment campaign necessary, when there was so much else for women (and men who fought it) to do for this country. (But they did it all, anyway, and won the 19th amendment, too.)
But I’m asking you about the first section of the 14th, which established federal sovereignty over states’ rights. If so, then whether or how a state defines a person becomes moot, right? That’s what the Supremes have said in upholding fed powers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 0921 hrs
It didn’t become moot and never has. After the 14th amendment states were still able to recognize other people as having rights beyond those explicity in the amendment, as the plains states did when they recognized women’s right to vote. Using this same reasoning, there is really nothing that prevents states from recognizing the rights of the unborn, as was clearly recognized for the first century after 14th amendment passed, and as is recognized now by the existence of states equal rights amendments in lieu of a federal ERA.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 2044 hrs
Owen, sometimes your llimited and dogmatic worldview gets you in trouble. This isn’t about “Subsidizing Free Love at Madison”. This is a federal government policy that even affects the would-be-soldiers marching around at your alma mater in Texas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 2051 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 113
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 04:18 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).