In an unsurprising move, President Bush appointed somebody opposed to contraception to head a Health and Human Services post responsible for overseeing the nations contraception programs. The only way to reconcile his senseless opposition to birth control with his indifference to the number of people killed in Iraq is that he is worried that he might run out of people to kill.
Got to keep supply up, ya know!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I followed your link but didn't find any info to suggest that Ms. Orr is opposed to contraception. The link suggests that she believes the government shouldn't be paying for it. It also suggests that she recommends abstinence for the unmarried/underage. There is nothing to suggest that she is opposed to married couples using contraceptives. Am I missing something?
Obviously.
Or, less snarkily, you're missing the point that somebody who objects to appropriate and effective methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of STD's is in a position of determining the government's policies on these issues.
It would be like appointing an anti-science person to NASA, or appointing an anti-UN person as ambassador to the United Nations. (Not that the UN matters, but still.)
The cost of birth control and contraceptives is a fraction of what a country pays for welfare and health care. Uganda was a success story in Africa for its ABC (Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom) program, but pressure to remove the "C" has resulted in a resurgence in the AIDS epidemic in that country.
But she doesn't seem to be opposed to "appropriate and effective methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies..." She is just opposed to the government paying for them.
While what a country should or shouldn't do for its citizens is certainly debatable, any act which can 1) reduce suffering, and 2) save money, should be a no-brainer.
Post a Comment