Thursday, March 16, 2006

Some days, you just lose all faith in people.

So I found this headline and article while surfing the Internets today:

House (in MO) rejects spending for birth control.

Here we go again.
The religious freaks want it both ways. They want to stop people from having abortions on the one hand, but they don't want anyone to take birth control either.
Oh, sorry, anyone that cannot afford it, of course.

Well, this particular stupid whore does make a splendid argument:

"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Susan Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.

No it DOES not say that promiscuity is OK.

Where do they find these fucking people???
How can you stand up against abortion, and then reject people from getting the birth control that they need??
And forget about single people for a second, what about MARRIED people that don't have the money to pay for birth control??


Tom Harper said...

It's such an obvious connection. How can anyone be so dense? Against abortion AND birth control? These people must've never heard that little lecture about the birds and the bees.

LA said...

They are also against school lunches for the poor, welfare, and money for education.

On the other hand, they are in favor of military spending and capital punishment.

It's like they want us to have 'em so they can kill 'em. Go figure.

Matt Vella said...

Keep em down and keep em dumb. With the right spin, you can get them to wave the flag enthusiastically, too.

Francis W. Porretto said...

Unwillingness to have the government pay for your contraception is NOT the same as saying that you have no right to acquire it for yourself.

It's not that subtle a point...except to a determined ideologue with an axe to grind.

Mike V. said...

The problem, however, is that some couples may not be in a position to pay for the contraception that they need.
I think it's in the best interest of the state to step in here and help them out.
If they are truly wanting to prevent abortions, then to me, preventing pregnancies would be a HUGE step, no?

Mike V. said...

Oh, and another thing, the fascists in SD are also among a handful of states that have said it is perfectly legal for a pharmacist to NOT fill a prescription for birth control based on "ethical" reasons.
Which is utter horseshit.
If you are not prepared to fill a legally obtained prescription, then you should find another line of work.

I work in a large corporate IT department.
What if one of the people there thought that he should no longer have anything to do with Microsoft because of "ethical" reasons and would no longer support that OS?
He would be fired.
So should any pharmacist that will not dispence the drug a person needs.

indoloony said...

People against birth pills are short-sighted. But wait, is that really new though? Stupidity is the name of the game in the present administration. Stagnation socially, dynamic economically. Oh well, South Dakota hopefully will not start a trend.

alyceclover said...

See the assumption is that making abortion illegal will stop people from having sex. "God" made us in his image, so...

The people out there legislating what other people do, foget that, the god they speak for also said "judge not lest ye be judged.."

Too sad, that those who fight to take away others freedom to choose, aren't adopting all those babies.