Is she serious???

This is Paul Ehrlich's and Thomas Malthus' idea. The jury is basically in on this one after fifty or sixty years; it's all the wrong people who go on having kids.

The problem I see with Pelosi's program is:
1) The stimulus package at an unbelievably staggering cost to the tax payer was sold as something that would stimulate the economy because the economy is in crisis. Please tell me how it will stimulate the economy to divert some of that money to people who would buy their own contraceptives if they don't receive free ones courtesy of the government? And it isn't as if a box of condoms is an exhorbitant expense that nobody will be able to afford if the government doesn't buy them--for normal people, condoms are certainly a whole lot cheaper per day than cigarettes or pot. A box of condoms is about half the price of a movie ticket and less than most fast food orders at McDonalds. And those who are unwilling to be responsible with their own money re contraceptives are also likely to be among those unlikely to be responsible with free ones either.

2) Even if a few people might actually prevent a pregnancy by receiving free contraceptives, preventing unwanted pregnancies this year is not likely to stimulate the economy in any form, much less in any measurable way.

It is simply dishonest to tell the American people that they need to acquire this horrendous debt in order to save the economy and then divert any of that money for other purposes. Of course we aren't seeing any measurable benefit from the first mega billions that may possibly have already been poured into a bottomless rat hole, so maybe receiving a tanglible condom to give away is preferable? But don't think people are so stupid to think that anybody's best interest is at heart here.

When I was a Health Educator in college, I can't tell you how popular free condoms were. But this is not simply condoms as contraceptives.

T
K
O

There is a difference, however, in the ability to get something for free and the necessity to get something for free. I'm pretty sure responsible/careful college kids who took advantage of the free condoms would have bought them had they not been available for free. For those willing to take risks and didn't want to be bothered, free or not, it would make no difference.

The availability and accessibility of contraceptives is something that I believe is not an issue of cost. I'm proud that my generation doesn't typically view a woman on birth control as a slut, but instead a responsible person. I could care less about the cost associated with good sexual health and family planning. I'm not going to try an evaluate every person's motivation etc. I'm simply going to advocate better accessibility for all.

I support proactive plans.

T
K
O

And I support people being personally responsible for their own actions, paying for what they get when able instead of expecting other people to buy what they need for them, and not using government to take care of everything they don't want to do or can't be bothered to do for themselves.

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one uses contraceptives or what good or bad sexual habits anybody has or family planning or who is or who isn't a slut. It always amazes me that the simplest things can conjure up a word like 'slut' to somebody when the subject is about something entirely different.

I'm for people being personally responsible too. I don't think that the responsibility needs to be associated with a cost. With contraceptives, I stand clearly at the conclusion that if you want it, you should have it.

The original point remains though. Pelosi's idea is proactive. It also send s a message to people to make some form of contraceptives a part of their family planning.

I think this is a good idea.

T
K
O

It always amazes me how you and Okie and the like can say this type of stuff with a straight face. Do you think before you speak, Foxfyre, really, do you?

I'm against it because they'll only use those condoms for water balloon fights and other such mischief.

i have a difficult time understanding how the party that is so anti-abortion can also be so anti-contraception; both here and abroad.

they complain that it's only about money, nothing else. but really, how much would it have cost each taxpayer? less than one dollar? is that too much of a burden to shoulder in their goal of protecting the unborn, as they say?

but they don't have any problem with me paying taxes to school their children, though we don't have kids. funny how that works, huh?

so, the conservative's absolute contempt for the concept of Common Good is flabbergasting.