1422: Spooning and Forking

[Junkenstein]

BTW, i am pretty 100% convinced that Bachmann is going to win the next elections, sinbce her followers are the type of people who ALWAYS vote, where the rest is abstaining.

[Blitzgal]

There are more than 20 contenders out there right now. The field is seriously wide open at this point.

That Iowa group has removed the slavery reference from their pledge, and softened their stance on a pornography ban. LOL.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Don't be an asshole. If your stance as a libertarian is that the government should not meddle in people's personal decisions, then restricting access to birth control in ANY WAY is wrong, period. But time and time again I see libertarians dismissing these issues because it doesn't affect them personally, and states like Indiana and South Dakota get labelled the "most free."

That's an incredibly disingenuous distortion of libertarian philosophy.

The core tenets of libertarianism DO NOT under ANY circumstances necessitate a support for the dispensation of birth control paid for by the government.

Have you even fucking met a goddamn libertarian? Some of them don't even like the idea of a library or a federal highway system.

Do not try to call liberalism libertarianism and expect anybody who actually understands what those two words mean to respect anything you have to say.

[Blitzgal]

I have met many; that's why they piss me off so much. In the most general terms, they tend to be entitled white dudes whose primary interest in "civil liberties" are how much they have to pay in taxes and whether they can carry a concealed weapon.

With the Tea Party, they're also starting to get hijacked by religious social conservatives who would be squashed under Ayn Rand's heel if she were alive today.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Perhaps you have so much disdain for them because you don't have any idea what they actually think? Or were you really trying to just browbeat someone with rabid partisanism?

[dEadERest]

saying don't be an asshole to me is kinda funny, have you read my posts? it is my milieu. and i don't claim to be a libertarian, i'm not didactic nor ideological enough. I live in NH. It is politically volatile in a good way. It tends to be pretty conservative with the left being rather strident cuz they lose a lot.
sorry.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Here, let me break down the why there is nothing to be up in arms about in that article:

Originally Posted by Concord Monitor

The six Planned Parenthood centers in New Hampshire stopped dispensing contraception last week after the Executive Council rejected a new contract with the organization.

Planned Parenthood had operated under a limited retail pharmacy license that was contingent on having a state contract, said Steve Trombley, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. Two weeks ago, the all-Republican Executive Council voted 3-2 against a new contract that would have provided the organization $1.8 million in state and federal money for the two years starting this month.

Executive Councilor Dan St. Hilaire of Concord, who cast one of the three votes in opposition, said the contract should go to an organization that does not perform abortions. The councilors approved 10 other contracts for family planning services.

It doesn't sound like the government is trying to block access to birth control, and it certainly is not the case that they are pulling the money altogether. The money was just directed elsewhere because Planned Parenthood has practices the government finds objectionable.

I suspect that though you tried to punch up the birth control part of this story, the rage you're attempting to stoke is not actually about the birth control, but about moves against abortion.

The money that previously provided cheaper birth control is still going to "family planning services". If that money doesn't go to providing affordable birth control, the liberal fight for abortion is partially responsible. That money would still be going into Planned Parenthood's birth control if they weren't providing abortions.

Originally Posted by Concord Monitor

The Planned Parenthood contract, which accounts for about 20 percent of its annual New Hampshire budget, would have paid for education, distributing contraception, and the testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. The organization's abortion practice is paid for by private donations, Trombley said, with audits ensuring no public money is used.

Last year, Planned Parenthood provided contraception for 13,242 patients in New Hampshire, Trombley said. The organization also provided 6,112 breast exams, 5,548 screenings for cervical cancer and 18,858 tests for sexually transmitted infections. If the contract is not renewed, Planned Parenthood will drastically reduce its services, Trombley said. The organization employs 80 people in New Hampshire.

Planned Parenthood treats 52 percent of patients whose care is subsidized by the New Hampshire state family planning program, Trombley said. It provides its services on a sliding scale based on income, with 70 percent of patients paying nothing or near nothing for birth control pills because they earn less than 150 percent of the federal poverty line. The federal poverty guidelines vary with the number of people in a household, with a single person qualifying at $10,890 per year and a family of four qualifying at $22,350 a year.

At the Planned Parenthood center in West Lebanon yesterday, Laura Caravella arrived to pick up her patient file to bring it to a physician. Caravella, a 25-year-old paraprofessional at an elementary school in Vermont, had tried to refill her birth control prescription last Friday and learned she could not.

She said she was concerned about the cost of her prescription without the sliding scale offered by Planned Parenthood.

"Financially it's really stressful," Caravella said. "I'm already living almost paycheck to paycheck as it is."

Stephanie Hiltunen, a 26-year-old who lives in Hanover, said she picked up a monthlong supply of birth control last Thursday, the day before the center stopped dispensing it. But future refills will require an inconvenient trip to Enfield, she said. Hiltunen said she would like to have a child but cannot afford it, and she worries there will be a public cost if contraception is inaccessible to low-income women.

"If they can't afford to have a baby, then we'll be paying for them in the long run," she said.

The center has turned away 20 to 30 patients a day who have arrived to refill their birth control prescriptions, said site manager Amanda Mehegan. She said some women have said they will stop taking birth control because they cannot afford the higher prices charged by pharmacies. Seventy percent of the center's patients lack private health insurance, she said.

Liberals seem to want to have you believe that fucking is as necessary as eating. It is not, and attempting to make that case is really disingenuous. This is part of my problems with justifications for abortions: moreso than any other liberal issue, the fight for abortion relies heavily on making a case that isn't true.

Libertarians want intervention when the government prevents access to a freedom, not when someone's wallet prevents access to a freedom. The complete cessation of subsidized birth control (which doesn't seem to be the case here, but I will proceed with the hypothetical) is as much a breach of someone's Constitutional freedoms as a house being priced $1,000,000. I cannot purchase that house, therefore my freedoms have been curtailed? That's fucking absurd.

Sex is a leisure activity. We are not talking about medication for illnesses here, or food, or housing. We are talking about the well-known and intentionally risked ramifications of a leisure activity. A private citizen has the right to purchase condoms, diaphragms, birth control pills, and any other available method of contraception. Those freedoms have not been infringed. And if they lack the funds to purchase birth control, or (rather inconceivably) lack the funds to purchase condoms, there is still zero possibility of a baby just springing from the womb. Unless, of course, that person has sex without using the contraceptives that they know they can't afford.

I personally support the concept of government subsidized birth control, and I support providing it even at places that perform abortions. But do not try to tell me that it is an inalienable freedom or right of anyone. It isn't. The taxpayer is not obligated to give a fucking cent toward birth control. And if you want to talk about the public having to bear the weight of children born into poverty because their parents could not afford birth control, I would say that it is more of a right of the government to seize those children and put the parents into jail for their willful damage to society and an innocent person than it is the right of the parents to be provided materials to mitigate the risk of harm from a leisure activity.

But you're not really here to talk about birth control, you're here to beat your chest about Republicans and abortion. I am probably more liberal than conservative when it comes to abortion, but I fucking hate liars and shady talk, and this sort of thing moves me toward the Republican camp.

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

But time and time again I see libertarians dismissing these issues because it doesn't affect them personally

It is like when stay at home moms get up in arms about innoculations and say they aren't necessary and all nurses and doctors are in the pocket of the drug companies. But have they ever been in a country where there aren't vaccines? Have they had their kid get polio? They don't know that reality so it doesn't concern them. Yet they fearmonger and get less educated families to swear allegence to that cause.

I was actually ok with the current MN Goverment shutdown...maybe after people realize what isn't getting done they will get out and vote so they stop electing polarizing opposites that refuse to work together.

[Blitzgal]

Junkenstein, you're right. Bachmann is leading in Iowa according to the latest poll. But she's trailing Obama in her own home state of MN.

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Junkenstein, you're right. Bachmann is leading in Iowa according to the latest poll. But she's trailing Obama in her own home state of MN.

If the republicans choose Bachmann as their candidate, I might start believing my conspiracy theorist friend who believes the Repubs are trying to throw the election in Obama's favor to get some shady deals done without being blamed for it down the road.