Everyone's being really ****ing stupid when they argue that if we stop supporting the poor fools in society then the poor fools will stop reproducing. :roll It's not to support the parents and their bad choices - it's to help the kids who are born into such an environment have a better chance at not being stuck in the life they were born into.
I'd rather make efforts to boost kids out of their parent's trap than anything else . . .quality of life matters more than anything.
Maybe if we stop paying for WIC, etc. they'll start making better decisions.
Oh sure - and then kids can die from polio and other things. WIC, etc - does more than just cover birth control and some food.
Babies do not create cycles of poverty. Babies are born in to cultures that encourage dependence and lack a work ethic. Babies are the result, not the cause of, poverty.
As birth control paid for by government or insurance companies, nothing.
Lack of work ethic? You know - in some places being employed FULL TIME still places you in the lower percentile of income and if you have one child or two you're well into poverty.
Take me for example - when I was employed as management I was full time and earned $8.00/hr - around here (at that time) that was doing pretty damn well. That was 40 x 8 = $320/week - over the course of a year that's around $16,000
$16,000 a year - for full time employment . . . that WAS IT. Don't tell me that's a lack of work ethic - that's a lack of adequate income regardless of my work ethic.
People apply for support from the state when they're just temporarily out of work - such as in the recent recession where countless large businesses folded and ditched thousands of employees out of job security. Young couples not ready yet to have a family - widowed parents who lost a spouse and weren't 'single' because they just didn't want to be married - these types of people were sluffed off, suddenly without employment and health coverage not of their own doing - and they still needed support. So what's your argument - what? Is the wife in a marriage because she's laid off of work and suddenly without her healthcare suppose to stop taking her monthly pill and risk pregnancy at the *worst* time for it? Are you actually suggesting that a married couple is suppose to stop wanting to have sex because they were laid off of work?
Quit being ridiculous with your 'welfare baby queen' mantra. Most people on welfare are on it temporarily - only because they really NEED it . . . not because they're lazy.
You're trying to muddy the waters. These pills can be used for the legitimate treatment of disease. For those purposes they of course ought to be covered. But I repeat...pregnancy is not a disease that requires treatment or prevention, and thus the cost of pills that prevent pregnancy are elective and ought not be covered.
Pregnancy is a condition - and it does require treatment and it does require prevention if having a child is not ideal at the moment.
Seems like common sense to me. Quit pretending it's not serious and important to ensure proper nutrition, health and overall care of a mother and her unborn.
