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.
Comments on SD contraception bill amounts to government intrusion »
bwjunior @ 12:11 pm
"Why should the government make the rest of us pay for someone elses reproductive choices?" Probably because it is significantly cheaper for us to pay for their reproductive choices before they reproduce than afterwards.
Steve @ 12:19 pm
junior - sounds to me like you have never read anything about the cost of abortion to the American economy and the benefits of children in the economic system. Kids are a blessing to our econmony not a burden.
Grace @ 1:03 pm
You think I'm Kathi? Hahahahahaha, wrong state buddy. Whatever happened to your STHU reference in your earlier post? Did Steph's "highly inappropriate" comment shame you into taking it down?
Steve @ 1:34 pm
Grace - ha - the stalker is back. Why did you quickly bow out of the conversation you started a couple weeks ago?
Travis @ 2:21 pm
bwjunior -
I grew up poor, lived in a trailer park and at my grandparent’s house most of our lives, because we barely had any money at all. Our family stood in line to get government cheese and we accepted handouts from individuals as well as from the government. My father worked very hard to provide for us, but it was not enough to cover everything we needed. Growing up, my family would have fit the mold that you are talking about. In Margaret Sanger’s, Nancy Pelosi’s, the Federal Democrat’s, and your opinion my parents should not have been allowed to have 3 children, because of our determent to society and the cost to tax payers.
What all you people with low opinions of humanity forget about is that all people are 100% equal in two aspects. We all have 60 seconds in every minute, we have 60 minutes in every hour, 24 hours in every day, 7 days in every week, and 365 days in every year. We also have with that time opportunities to make decisions about our lives. We decide what we want to do, how we want to live, who we want to relate with, and what opportunities we want to pursue or leave behind. I chose to make something of mine and my families’ lives. I put myself through night school while I worked full time in the day in order to provide for my wife and children. I sacrificed sleep and extravagant lifestyles, living in a cheap apartment and then a rented trailer while I finished school.
After school we chose as a family to live a reduced lifestyle to eliminate our debt. We pay our taxes, we tithe at our church, and we help people who are in need financially, emotionally, and spiritually. We are far from a strain on society, and far from unproductive in our community. Yet you, and your like kind, would prefer that we did not exist. You and your kind seem to have forgotten that we are personally responsible for ourselves and our families. You have taken on a governmental mindset that only the Federal Government can help you. This makes me sad, because we have been blessed beyond belief to have been born in the land of opportunity. It seems that the majority of our population has taken on your mindset, and the only ones who see it live abroad. That is why they risk everything to get here. They leave everything behind and make a good life for themselves in America.
If you do not believe in opportunity and personal responsibility, if you do not believe that people can make something of their lives without inheritance, then how do you explain that in America today 80% of all of the millionaires are first generation wealthy, not having inherited anything, and leaving their past of poverty and lower middle class behind them?
It is idiotic statements from people like you who oppress people, by robbing them of their hope and their personal responsibility for their lives. You and anyone who spew such trash should be ashamed to call yourselves Americans, and when you and your like kind imply that we should eliminate our children to protect tax dollars, you should be ashamed to call yourselves human!
bwjunior @ 6:27 pm
Sorry to disappoint you all. My comment on the paying for contraception was not a back handed reason for abortion, nor was it a dig at the poor. I was simply saying that many of those that would utilize government subsidized birth control would do so because they realize that they cannot afford children and in that case it is a whole lot cheaper to provide it to them.
And Travis, it sounds like you have quite the inferiority complex going on there. I made no mention of preventing those that want children to have them. Feel free to procreate to your hearts content.
Travis @ 10:07 pm
bwjunior -
No complex here. Just sick and tired of the people hating Jack-Asses we elect into office. I don't think that even you could deny they exist and I bet you could even point them out!
Your original comment cloaned their view points when you implied that it is cheaper to prevent the birth of poor people than to take care of them. Therefore we should!
Travis @ 10:12 pm
by the way bwjunior, your hero Obama, would have been thrown in the trash if the democrats held the view of people like Pelosi.
How many people with very important purposes have been snuffed out over the last 35 years? How many of our lives would have been impacted if they were allowed to serve their purpose?
Think of the ramifications of the intolerant hate that has consumed our society. It should make you cry.
bwjunior @ 7:05 am
My hero Obama? There you go again Travis making assumptions without a shred of proof. He is far from my hero and only got my vote because the alternative was in my opinion was so much worse. Time will tell what kind of President he will be but if there wasn't so much at stake, it would almost be enjoyable watching folks like you twist everything he does into the most horrible thing ever done in our history as a country. And no I am not going to get into an abortion debate with you. The questions from your 10:12 comment obviously have no answer and no matter what my opinion is, trying to change yours or anyone else's opinions here is an exercise in futility as would be your attempts at trying to change mine.
Amy @ 10:44 am
Steve:
I have my hands on statistical analysis that PROVES that the more federal monies appropriated to "Family Planning" and distributed to Planned Parenthood, for instance - the higher the incidence of abortion.
Making contraceptives more readily available, whether by taxpayers' monies or insurance payers' monies, increases the number of ABORTIONS. In a nutshell, increased funding of birth control increases the numbers of unplanned pregnancies, hence the number of abortions. This is a statistical fact that cannot be spun away by any pro-choice argument.
How can this be? All methods of birth control, including sterilization by vasectomy and tubal ligation, have a failure rate. If contraception is more readily available, more people will feel the liberty to "do it," as the consequence of sexual intercourse, i.e., conception, is supposedly averted. BUT GUESS WHAT! Readily available contraception and the the illusion of living without consequences it provides are a house of cards and the reality, supported by years and years of readily available statistics, is that subsidizing contraception leads to MORE ABORTIONS.
Perhaps that explains why people who are in Planned Parenthood's pocket are pushing for mandated contraception coverage - they know it will increase SD's extremely low abortion rate - maybe to provide more fetal material for Sanford's research in the event they are successful in removing our state restriction on research on dead babies.
Slippery, slippery, slippery slope, folks.
Haggs @ 10:37 am
How is this "government intrusion" while abortion bans are not?
Travis @ 10:41 am
Haggs -
That is Steve's point. Why can Liberals have it both ways?
But the difference is our Government is supposed to protect and preserve the lives of the people within its borders.
Since abortion ends a human life, government should be able to outlaw that practice.
Steve @ 10:10 pm
Travis - FYI, "Grace" thinks you should stop acting like a "goody goody" and be glad that abortion will be there for you next time you need one. I deleted her crappy comment but that was the jist of it.
She is welcome back on when she answers the questions I've asked her.
Travis @ 7:31 pm
Steve -
Thanks, Grace and the other girls at DW really like to hammer me on the lowest most miserable period of my life.
I think it is funny that those of us that have experience with the horrible reality of abortion and the monsters who hide behind the industry, and those of us that can attest to the lies and lack of any resemblance of a Doctor Patient Relationship, and we who have actual testimony of how the after affects of abortion destroys a person's soul, get drug out and beaten in the public arena when we speak out.
In the end it is all about their profits, their lies, and their hatred of people that drives them to continuously destroy people. Shame will not silence me, but it is shame, compassion, and God's love that drives me.
I think Grace is a lot of Gooey, and the ground she stands on will not withstand a shaking. Why can't she see the wrong?