English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/517061,CST-NWS-birth20.article

That is what the author of this article implies while telling the story of a 20 yr. old college student (Elizabeth Harris) who found that the school issued contraceptives have gone up in price. She said that the price was too high to pay for the contraceptives, but she evidently had a couple of dollars to plan to go to Costa Rica (she can't now because of the pregnancy).

The article states that the jump in prices is due to the 'Deficit Reduction Act' Bush signed last year to decrease federal spending. Basically, they are saying that if Bush had never signed this act, Elizabeth would be headed to Costa Rica (and not pregnant).

What are your thoughts on this?

2007-08-22 03:22:49 · 23 answers · asked by Still Beautifully Conservative 5 in Politics & Government Politics

EXCERPT FROM ARTICLE:
Other schools cut some birth-control options altogether. Northeastern Illinois University spokeswoman Carolyn Bonner said that, as of January, the school no longer provided contraceptives such as Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo for $5, the NuvaRing for $3 or the patch for $30. The school now dispenses generic birth control pills for $12 a month instead.

Some health officials fear students will be forced to rely on condoms, which may not be as effective. "When it's not planned sex, something like a condom may not be used," said Dr. Nandini Khatkhate, UIC medical director at Family Medicine Center.

Harris would agree with the statement. She said that even though UIC provides free condoms she would only use them "once in a while." Other times she and her partner were feeling spontaneous and "it just happened," she explained

2007-08-22 03:23:14 · update #1

goldenrae 9-- did you see the part where it said she would 'wine and dine'? Do scholarships pay for that, too?

2007-08-22 03:30:19 · update #2

23 answers

I am a liberal and believe it's her own fault for getting pregnant. You can't just say that it's another case of liberals throwing personal responsibility out of the window and that we instantly always blame it on Bush, (because now that's a typical republican response) and I'm pretty sure most religious conservatives don't even believe in birth control, and here they are with a dozen children adding to the population problem. But that's neither here nor there. However, it IS Bush's problem if he continues to attempt to outlaw abortion, which IS every woman's right to begin with no matter which way you look at it. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they hand out free condoms at Planned Parenthood.

**update** I don't know why I'm getting thumbs down. It's the truth. Unless you're a part of said population problem.

2007-08-22 03:43:24 · answer #1 · answered by brettoblaster 3 · 0 2

It's a chicken or the egg situation. Women are often judged more harshly for getting pregnant than men are for impregnating a woman. Does this condemnation drive women to be more selective, thus turning them into sexual "gatekeepers"? Or is it just based on their sex drive? Who knows? I don't like pointing fingers or allocating blame, especially through the use of sweeping generalizations. If there is a problem that I could have prevented, I tend to take responsibility for it, regardless of other factors.

2016-04-22 07:05:47 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Bush is defunding birth control programs left and right, not only through spending cuts like you mentioned but by also endorsing "abstinence till marriage only" policies. Even so, if a girl plans on having sex and doesn't want to get pregnant, even though it may be harder to get birth control it doesn't mean its impossible, so I don't think she can blame anyone if she didn't take responsibility.

2007-08-22 03:32:32 · answer #3 · answered by baby.brown_eyes 2 · 1 0

This is just a sad example of lack of personal responsibility. However, after reading the article, I'd say it is a bit of a leap to come to the conclusion that they are blaming Bush.

2007-08-22 03:30:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

That is ridiculous. Harris must realize that it is not the condom or lack of it that matters but the act that makes use of one necessary. Had she not done that in the first place she would not be pregnant and wouldn't need to worry about it. No it is not Bush's fault. (See cons I do back your boy once in awhile)

2007-08-22 03:28:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

You've got to be kidding me? They sell condoms for a $1.....
So we have college students with the latest techie gadgets, cell phones, IPod's, yet they can't buy a condom? Forget the other contraceptives, let's keep it simple, put the sock. Women would also be smart to pack some socks on their own in case the need arises.....

2007-08-22 03:30:01 · answer #6 · answered by Josh_NY 2 · 1 1

Responsibility, integrity, self esteem, and honor are WORDS WITH DEFINITIONS THAT ARE TO BE TOTALLY ELIMINATED, THE SOONER THE BETTER !!!!!
On the first page of THE NEW, UPDATED, REVISED EDITION OF THE LIBERAL MANIFESTO, to be adhered to by all Americans, and without doubt THE WAY OF LIFE FOR THE ILLITERATES,(all Americans are to be considered illiterate unless certified as "TRUE LIBERALS" WITH THE BLESSINGS OF THE LIBERAL LEADERSHIP"!!!!!!!!!
This Elizabeth Harris will be among the first to be so certified, and that way she can continue to live totally irresponsibly !!!!
Uncle Wil

2007-08-22 03:41:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Free market economy at work! I'm using my tax break to buy stock in birth control companies right now!

2007-08-22 03:27:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

That is the Liberal mantra for anything negative, blame Bush. Don't ask anyone to take responsibility for their own actions, it can't be their fault, they are victims. I suppose I should be happy though that she is apparently keeping the baby and not looking for a government funded abortion.

2007-08-22 03:34:55 · answer #9 · answered by SteveA8 6 · 1 1

i think Bush should be recognized as God from all the post i have seen about how he is to blame for EVERYTHING so he must be all powerful.

i saw a couple of post that actually stated bush was responsible for gay's infidelity since bush denied them the right to marry. and they believed this!!

so what not, it relieve them of any personal responsibilities or consequences. next we will see the ACLU suing in her behalf for child support.

2007-08-22 03:37:26 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers