jump to navigation

Some more thoughts about the Texas Women’s Health Program May 2, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, disaster, General Catholic, sadness, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
trackback

When I was researching the post I did yesterday on the Texas Women’s Health Program, and the fact that it is nothing but a vehicle for free contraception, I came across some data that disturbed me.  Or, maybe it was more some thinking I did after reviewing the data that was disturbing.  But the point of the WHP is to make contraception available for women who ostensibly cannot afford it.  While they do some basic medical tests and screenings, the reason for the WHP’s existence is to get contraception into the hands of women, for free.

Which got me to thinking?  Why?  Why is a program like this needed?  Contraception is not expensive.  Despite Sandra Fluke’s claims to the contrary, a month’s supply of oral contraception can be had for $9 at WalMart.  Single use condoms are even cheaper – if a woman had sex 10 times a month, that would cost her about $6, tops.  Even more exotic forms of birth control only range in the $20 a month or so range.  Many of the people who “can’t afford” contraception, then, spend more on a meal at McDonalds than they would for a month’s supply of contraception.

The expense is not egregious.  It could be easily born by virtually anyone.  So what is the program really about?  Could it be about foisting contraception on poorer people?  Could this program, and its heavy advertisement in poor areas, be intended to insure that certain groups of people don’t reproduce too much?  Whatever “too much” is?  Could it also be a tacit endorsement of sexual license among certain segments of the population, encouraging moral decay?

Look on it this way.  There’s an old saying in government – what you don’t want to succeed, you tax, and what you do want to succeed, you subsidize.  The people who have put these programs together are not dumb.  They look beyond surface effects.  And they are subsidizing the heck out of contraception.  Why?  Are people who copulate freely and frequently immorally likely to be more placid, or otherwise more controllable?  Are the effects of such immorality in terms of the breakdown of the family and thus greater dependence on government desirable to certain elites?  What interests does this promotion, this subsidization of something that is very cheap, anyways, serve?  And why is there such an incredible interest in the cultural elites on this subject, so that what amounts to a tiny government program in one state ($40 million is chicken feed in government terms) becomes the focus of national media attention and hand-wringing from all kinds of the self-anointed?

It doesn’t make sense, on the surface.  Unless this little program for free contraception is part of a much larger agenda.

Another thought.  I’ve expressed it before, long ago.  Is there a tendency towards careerism in the pro-life movement?  That is to say, now that opposition to legalized abortion has been around for decades, has it become institutionalized, so that people may have become dependent on the pro-life movement as their career?  Would a person who  makes their prime income off of working for some pro-life cause really want to see abortion go away, forever?  I don’t think the above applies to the vast majority of those who work in pro-life.  But I wonder if it might not apply to some, especially those who steadfastly refuse to oppose the root evil of contraception.  Or those who are at the highest levels of some well known pro-life groups and who serve as the gatekeepers of access to the levers of political and corporate power.

I’m not saying I really have answers for all the above.  But I think these are questions that pro-lifers should be asking.

%d bloggers like this: