There is a fascinating chapter in the book "Freakonomics" that links the implementation of Roe v. Wade and decline in crime.

 

First chapter if I recall. However, many economists have said the model used was flawed. Still has to be some truth to it though. Seems logical.

The initial question had nothing to do with abortion nor any question of the morality of birth control in general, rather the liberal policy that all women should have FREE (I have zero problem with any woman using contraception if she chooses) access to contraception. Perhaps I worded the question poorly so let me restate it. Why do liberals believe that free access to contraception is vital to women.

 

Because it is a very inexpensive service to offer, especially to low income and young people, compared to the cost (both in dollars and socially) incurred when having a baby? If you think of it in those terms, there is probably a very good return on investment from offerring free contraception.

If that's the case then shouldn't the government mandate that the deductibles and co-pays associated with having a baby should be increased in order to further deter unwanted pregnancies? To be completely honest I can see your point BUT low income and young women have had access to free or very inexpensive contraception for years and it certainly seems to me (anecdotally anyway) that there hasn't been a reduction in the number of "unwanted" babys born.

If that's the case then shouldn't the government mandate that the deductibles and co-pays associated with having a baby should be increased in order to further deter unwanted pregnancies? To be completely honest I can see your point BUT low income and young women have had access to free or very inexpensive contraception for years and it certainly seems to me (anecdotally anyway) that there hasn't been a reduction in the number of "unwanted" babys born.

 

Why do you think it shouldn't be free?

If that's the case then shouldn't the government mandate that the deductibles and co-pays associated with having a baby should be increased in order to further deter unwanted pregnancies? To be completely honest I can see your point BUT low income and young women have had access to free or very inexpensive contraception for years and it certainly seems to me (anecdotally anyway) that there hasn't been a reduction in the number of "unwanted" babys born.

 

Would this also deter wanted pregnancies?

Women have always had control of their reproductive organs. Lol Sex is a choice.

 

Very well said! You are absolutely right on! To suggest that a woman is somehow in bondage because she doesn't have access to birth control is quit frankly absurd. To suggest this is to insult the strong, virtuous, upright and honorable woman who is absolutely and already free without any form of birth control.

Very well said! You are absolutely right on! To suggest that a woman is somehow in bondage because she doesn't have access to birth control is quit frankly absurd. To suggest this is to insult the strong, virtuous, upright and honorable woman who is absolutely and already free without any form of birth control.

 

Coming from a woman I assume?

 

You can disagree all you like, but the history is the history.

Why do you think it shouldn't be free?

 

I don't think it should be free because it's a personal choice to have sex. I feel that the person making that choice should bear the cost. Now where there is a medical reason I can see it being treated like other prescriptions.

Coming from a woman I assume?

 

You can disagree all you like, but the history is the history.

 

When have men oppressed women by forcing them to have sex? Besides rape.

 

This is absurd. Birth control is avaible to any woman at any community center or pharmacy. I also think the current regulations for abortion is disgusting. If the mother took the baby's life 1 minute after birth, she will be charged with murder. If the doctor performs the abortion 1 minute before birth, it's completely legal.

 

In cases of rape, the woman should go immedietly to the hospital and recieve an injection of estrogen. I would go as far to say that since the fetus hasn't developed it wouldn't even classify as an abortion.

Let me ask this...what do most of you consider rape?

Let me ask this...what do most of you consider rape?

 

When sex is not consensual.

 

there is already at least 2 free options that I know of...abstinence and natural family planning. To me, it's like preventing other medical conditions...certain types of conditions caused by our personal choices.

 

Completely agree. Seems like those options are completely off the table.

Do you count unwilling sex in a marriage as rape?

Do you count unwilling sex in a marriage as rape?

 

Of course. If it's not consensual, it's rape.

Coming from a woman I assume?

 

You can disagree all you like, but the history is the history.

 

First off...it would not matter if it came from a man or a woman. The truth is the truth, no matter the voice. If for some goofy reason what I am saying is void for you, because I am a man, then I will have my wife willingly type it, and/or my daughters, or my mom, or my sisters, or my wife's mom or many of my friends who are females.

 

Secondly, you are right on when you say history is full of women who were oppressed or controlled in some form or another. I will not argue with you there. HOWEVER it is just plain ludicrous to say that greater access to birth control is their source of freedom. If anything, it would only enslave them more by giving them license and permission to be sexually active outside of marriage. What more would a selfish jerk of a man out in the world want but a woman that feels empowered and free on birth control. The end result is a woman, who thinks she is now in control, being "used" more than before.

 

As far as protecting, honoring and helping woman live abundant, healthy and free lives...I am absolutely all for it. Making birth control even more accessible like its some kind of cheap and easy solution is absolutely not the answer but a direct step in making things worse for women.

I think most folks are missing the point. The health care bill mandates that routine preventive care be provided as part of the insurance package without a deductible or a co-pay. Routine exams and birth control are included as part of that routine care. The thinking is that providing routine care without cost will encourage its use and help to lower health care costs, as well as providing good long term care. I suspct they are right. As an interesting aside, several years ago I was negotiating the renewal of the company's insurance plan. We had received notice of a major premium increase. As part of the negotiation I asked how much the premiums would be reduced if we eliminated the routine annual physical coverage. I was told that it wouldn't reduce the cost and might even increase it. The thinking from the insurance company was that encouaging an annual physical would reduce claims over the long term. I understand the objection from the church to paying for something that they feel is wrong and I supported their objection to the rules as presented. Asking the insurance companies to provide the coverage at no cost to their covered women will save the insuance companies money, will provide women with the health care they need and will eliminate any need for the chuches to be involved. A win all around.