Friday, September 2, 2011

If the government won't pay for it, that doesn't mean they're against it.

This article from AlterNet focuses on the anti-abortion tactics of Prez hopeful Rick Perry. I don't worry too much about that, because I don't believe the Supreme Court will ever overturn Roe v. Wade.

The part of this article that disturbs me is the comment that Perry has a "hostility to contraception and sex education" . This is backed up by the fact that Perry's administration has cut funding for family planning. This doesn't mean that Perry is against contraception or sex education, he is against taking money from taxpayers to pay for it.

The article continues: "These cuts had no relationship to abortion, but are simply cuts in basic reproductive healthcare services and, of course, contraception. The Austin Chronicle estimates that hundreds of thousands of women will be cut off from subsidised contraception. Since these women already struggle to afford basic healthcare, many won't be able to get contraception elsewhere, and will get pregnant. Since it's even harder to afford a baby than a pack of pills, we can expect many of these women to get abortions, even if they have to borrow money or pawn belongings to afford it."

They will borrow money for an abortion, but not for contraception. That doesn't sound like they have a grasp on what "family planning" means.

Read the full article at:
Pushback on Draconian Rick: Stay Out of Women's Sex Lives | | AlterNet

No comments:

Post a Comment