February 17, 2009
SD contraception bill amounts to government intrusion
This from Bob Ellis's South Dakota legislative update over at Red County.
SB 134 is the latest attempt by South Dakota's sexual emancipation lobby to force insurance companies to fund their holy sacrament of birth control. While most health insurance providers already do provide this coverage, even one provider not worshipping at the altar of sexual autonomy is too much unbelief for this lobby. The fact that many, many children are still conceived even when condoms and oral contraceptives are used does not deter them; indeed, the acknowledgement of this reality is why the same lobby works so hard to keep the holy sacrament of abortion readily available.
I'm just going to think out loud here in this post and see if there are others who are thinking as I am about this bill.
Anyone else see this as government intrusion? Why should the government make the rest of us pay for someone elses reproductive choices? If companies are required to pay for the consequences of sexual behavior they have a right to charge people according to the risk and liability they present? What business is it of the government to reach in my wallet to pay for the condom in some other guys wallet or contraception in somebody's purse? Hey, here's a novel idea… let's keep the government out of the bedroom? Let's keep the government out of the reproductive process. What goes around comes around. Let's let families decide if contraception coverage is right for them.
If the company already doesn't provide contraception coverage, those who want it can add it as a rider just like they would vision or dental coverage. Health Insurance is already way too expensive for us to be adding extra benefits. This bill will further the burden on already struggling companies to pay for employee healthcare and they will do what is best for them, pay less and require employees pay more. Last year we had forty-some W-2's here at Church at the Gate between church and daycare staff. That means I lead a small company in our state. It makes me sad to have to make decisions about health coverage that result in employees paying more. SB 134 will only make coverage more expensive further putting the burden on already overburdened families.
(Bad idea alert) Maybe the government should start mandating sizable health coverage discounts or credits for people who abstained from pre-marital sex the previous year and place those who don't in higher risk categories as they already do in the case of those who smoke. I know that won't work because we ought never penalize pregnancy and it's impossible to know who actually abstains, but I throw it out to say the government ought to stay miles away from this discussion. I'll repeat a thought in an earlier paragraph, if companies are required to pay for the consequences of sexual behavior they have a right to charge people according to the risk and liability they present. Do we really want to open that can of worms??
Or, how about giving tax discounts or incentives to companies that have a corporate maternity fund that is available to qualifying employees who choose not to terminate unplanned pregnancies? Anything is better than the solutions Planned Parenthood proposes.
Aren't this bills supporters really saying we all need to ante up so the poor don't concieve as many children? Isn't that the bottom line….just like Margaret Sanger wanted? I think her exact words were: "More children from the fit, less from the unfit—that is the chief issue
Grace Di Nicola, media relations (propaganda) director of Planned Parenthood MN/ND/SD is trying to sell this to our state as a way to reduce abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies. Makes sense. Unless you are told contraception doesn't always work and unless someone informs you how if abortion were out of the equation, unintended pregancies ultimately result in more South Dakotans generating growth in the South Dakota ecomony. We need a long-term view on the benefit and blessing of children to the economy.
Companies in Japan are letting their workers go home early to reproduce because they know something most here have yet to figure out with regard to shrinking populations and economic prosperity. Yet, here we are trying to force dollars to be spent to stifle reproduction. This contraception bill needs to be seen by our legislators as a just another eugenics-driven condom over atop long-term economic growth.