It always has struck me as a bit of a paradox that the same people who oppose abortion are the same ones who oppose contraception. They may claim it is based on religious principles, but that does not make it any less paradoxical.
Not all women who become pregnant do so willingly. Although a child from rape is considered a gift from God by such luminaries as many Republicans, religious people, and Justin Bieber, the woman herself may have had no intention of becoming pregnant at that particular time in her life for any number of reasons known even to God..
There are those who ideally hold to abstinence before marriage as the only way to go, but, if the history of mankind is any indication, absolute abstinence and the total avoidance of pregnancies out of wedlock can be ruled out.
It would seem that one of the best ways to avoid being in the position to have an abortion is not becoming pregnant, and contraception is a pretty good way to avoid that.
It seems a no brainer that contraception could be one way to avoid abortions.
But, there are those who object unless it is the rhythm method, having the woman go into isolation during her most fertile period, or, yes, the dime between the knees.
In the latest funding bill, House Republicans included a "conscience clause" which allows employers and insurers to opt out of providing health care services that they find morally or religiously objectionable, and this, beyond blood transfusions if your religion objects to them, includes contraception. Just look at the law suit filed by Hobby Lobby and those who are giving the company moral and legal support.
As stated by Dawn Laguens, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Executive Vice President, the move is "desperate, misguided, and extreme. The country wants Congress to focus on jobs and the economy, not on pushing an extreme agenda against birth control".
It would appear, as Senator Patty Murray of Washington said, "Once again House Republicans have found a way to mount an ideological attack on women's health as the clock ticks down on a crisis they created. This is part of the right-wing playbook that's going nowhere in the Senate. The truly unconscionable thing is that Republicans would try to rob women of access to health care while holding our economy hostage”.
But then someone like Paul Rand turns around and suggests that low-income women who have “too many” children should be punished.
Rand and company deny them access to contraception, make their getting an abortion next to impossible, and then want to punish them for having a child.
According to Tea Party darling, Rand Paul, preventing unplanned pregnancies should be in the hands of communities and families, apparently as long as contraception or abortions aren’t the methods the communities and families choose.
“Maybe we have to say ‘enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount. I don’t know how you do all that because then it’s tough to tell a woman with four kids that she’s got a fifth kid we’re not going to give her any more money. But we have to figure out how to get that message through because that is part of the answer”.
How about letting them avoid the pregnancy in the first place?
There are already 16 states that cap assistance that comes through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, or welfare) for families that have more than a certain number of children, and don’t give any extra money for new children if someone in the household is already receiving aid.
The original idea was to get dependent women to have fewer children, but, obviously, just telling them to stop hasn’t been effective. There are quite a few variables both within and outside a woman's control.
Before people go all Howie Carr about this, it must be noted that those who use public assistance have the same average family size as those who don’t. There is little evidence to back the assumption that women on welfare have far more children than those who are not.
In light of this. of those 16 states that have had caps, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Wyoming have recently ended them.
But Paul did not stop with this new idea based on faulty reasons. He went on to say that those “married with kids versus unmarried with kids is the difference between living in poverty and not”.
This is not actually the case, unless he believes that if poor single people got married, they would get out of poverty.
Maybe Paul should reconsider his vote on the Blunt Amendment that allows employers to deny their workers access to contraception through health insurance due to their so-called moral objection, and perhaps the pro-life, anti-“too many” children crowd should allow women to prevent pregnancies if they so choose.
It would be nice to hear from women on this as I am sure the men have strong opinions.