House GOP Bans County Health Clinics From Providing Birth Control

This is just a fictional concept but one might say that if the Republicans fund or subsidize birth control they would be defeating much of their agenda. Birth control in many ways would cut down on the low end work force in America. Therefore they must be against it to keep the division between the privileged and the poor strong.

... what all of you seemed to have missed in all of your bickering about who should pay for what and for whom. Who is the real victim? the tax payer? the poor prostitute?

Before I go on, let me tell you a little about me, and this leads in to where I am going. First, I am a staunch Roman Catholic. I personally am against abortion, against pre-marital sex, and not found of contraceptives. I am pro-abstinence, and pro-family planning based on this method. I believe that parents should look at their finances and plan their families on what they can afford whenever possible, but still accept children willing from God. Furthermore I am happily married and enjoy every aspect of my loving relationship with my husband. (My way of staying I am not a prude either.) This being said, I know I can not force my morals on others, but I can live by example.

In a perfect world morality would not be an issue, but then again neither would taxes, money, or charity. The world in which we live is far from perfect. Still we should each do our part to try to improve our "little corner".

Now to my point... the issue here should not be how much it costs us in tax dollars to allow someone to be sexually promiscuous, or who should get condoms (free or not), or even if sexually active people will change their life style and become moral because they are not getting hand-outs. I personally don't give a hoot about 90+% the postings in this thread. 

My problem with all of this is what about the babies? The "unwanted" children, of which I currently have 6 (...before you get hostile, read on I will explain). If only we could take away contraceptives (bc pills, condoms etc) and everyone who should not be having sex would stop... that would be wonderful, but I am a realist.. (and frankly not that stupid). Even though I don't like contraceptives, honestly, I would like to acquire a Depo-Provera dart gun to prevent a few more unwanted, unloved, and uncared for babies from being born. I have seen far too many of them. Sadly there are too many people now, while we have low cost/ free contraceptives available, who are still immoral enough to have children that they don't want and don't care for. Fortunately there are some women that do use contraceptives and this helps to slow the rate of these children arriving on our door-step.

See, my husband and I are foster-parents. We try to do our part to follow the teaching of Christ, and "give to the unwanted and love the unloved". But God knows we don't need more children born into "bad" homes, where they are abused in the most horrifying ways. If these already immoral people, who are having "immoral sex", do not have contraceptives, how will that make them more moral? Instead it just makes for more "unwanted" children, who frequently end up neglected, abused, and "damaged". Never mind the financial cost to taxpayers to raise these children, never mind the burden to all of society, what about the damage done to each and every one of these children?

How can anyone argue that these children in any way deserve what they are given? Truly these are the most innocent of victims. So what would you be willing to do, or give, to prevent a child from being victimized? I can not make immoral people moral, but if I can prevent even one child from suffering... then that is a no brainer.

I am sad that so many of you, on both sides of the argument, missed this. 

I would like to bring up a point. Removing the ability to provide condoms and birth control could also prevent many other organizations such as Aids Project of the Ozarks from doing a great service to our community. Yes they have a clinic and give out condoms. Simple economics would provide that it’s much cheaper to provide condoms than to pay the average of $3000.00 to $6000.00 per month that it costs patients and the public in medication. I find it very hard to understand the difference between providing condoms and stockpiling bird flu vaccine to give to the public in the event of a pandemic. I have worked in corporate America most of my life as a Financial Director and we always planed for the long term goal. The short term goal in most cases ended by losing money. 

Heres a by the way. Not all but a large amount of condoms are donated to these organizations and clinics by the people that manufacture them. Many by citizens that just want to do the right thing. (Note the fragmented sentences grammar is no longer taught in public schools.)

Heres my take on the GOP and their holier-than-thou attitude.  I know some of those representatives on that list that voted for that ban.  Trust me, some of them in the past have let a foot slip, there is no halo around their head.

If they want to ban any family planning, then heres what needs to happen.  Everyone of them need to take on a foster child or two or three.  If they want these unplanned pregnancies to happen, then put their money where their holy jaw is, and start supporting these kids.  They can be a part of the problem, which they now are, or a part of the solution. 

I, for one, am pro choice, its not up to me to tell any man, woman, or child how to run their life.   If they want a choice and can not provide their own birth control devices, then we need to provide it for them.  Whats better, a condom floating down the road ditch, or a filthy little sick kid at the Emergency Room we are going to pay the bill for.  I've seen both!

DavidRust