web analytics

Destinations, Dreams and Dogs - International adventure with a fast-track family (& dogs) of Old World values, adopting the Russian-Italian-American good life on the go…!

Less Free Contraceptives = More Abortions?

ContraceptivesShould free contraceptives be a basic American right? The Trump administration, cutting back on employers being required to provide either free contraceptives or free abortions in all cases, should consider some unintended results. Could the limiting of employer-paid contraception lead to the increased need for abortions, or the cost associated with unplanned pregnancies and raising a child?

Makes sense. Possibly. But is any of that really the employer’s or the government’s problem?

In other words, if an employer is paying so little that a woman feels she cannot afford contraceptives, should the employer be required to foot the bill? Why not pay for transportation or rent, as well?

In the case of a student, should the government realize that all of her time will not be spent studying and therefore pay to protect her from pregnancy? These are most likely the same students that want free college tuition, as well. Maybe we should throw in a free cappuccino once a day, as well.

Some would argue that affordable contraception is a basic human right since only women are being penalized with unplanned pregnancies. We need to level the playing field by making no consequences for men or women not taking responsibility for their own sexuality.

Really? Unless you’re going to make it so that men start to conceive, and I’m sure there’s somebody working on that, somewhere, this is contrahow basic biology works.

But the issue of the day involves what costs the government more: contraception versus abortions or live and unwanted babies. And that’s a slippery slope to be on, coming close to Scrooge and disposing of the unwanted surplus population….

This thinking is nothing new nor unique to the US. The UK, Sweden, and many European countries considered “…contraceptive subsidies a means of avoiding the higher costs associated with unplanned pregnancies – both those related to health care for ‘babies’ carried to term and those associated with subsidized abortions” (Sweden, 1974). This echoed the 1973 UK’s National Health Service Act whose provision of free contraception was suggested to “…cut down the number of unwanted pregnancies and…decrease the number of abortions.”

They asked the hard questions of which would be more expensive: contraception or consequences. And yet, the medical studies seem to neglect the notion that certain behaviors contain certain inherent consequences. Without becoming too graphic, there are ways that even the poorest people can prevent pregnancy. The first would include abstinence, which is now viewed as an absolute impossibility in some circles, and after that, it’s not brain surgery: 99% of the time, pregnancy can be averted even without contraceptives.

But we live in a fast-paced, fast-food culture. We want what we want when we want it.

contracostWill less access to free contraceptives cause costly abortions or child care as a result? I mean, if you don’t give free alcohol away, will more drunk drivers result? Did legalizing marijuana result in a better work ethic and more productivity in Colorado, or is homelessness on the rise? Did homelessness in San Diego result in more freedom, or greater health issues and the need for mandatory vaccinations among those using the streets as their toilets?

One thing leads to another. When we loosen up laws and privileges in one area, another issue often crops up.

Here’s a dissenting opinion: the answer lies not in the hands of the government, instead it’s in the hands of the people. When individuals accept the fact that they will need to care for their own families, behaviors can be controlled. At least most of the time, in most of the cases.

Personal responsibility. It’s a win-win starting place.

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.