But lots of republicans do. Hell the Republican VP nomination does -- unless that woman can prove it occurred from a forcible rape.
But if the point of assistance is to, you know, assist, it wouldn't make sense for the benefits to reflect the costs, would it? When you get insurance as an individual, you do pay for each person on the plan. Employer-subsidized insurance is different because (1) health insurance is a recruitment/retainment tool, and (2) employees with families tend to prefer stability and are less likely to jump at every little offer that comes their way, and a flat-rate insurance offers an incentive to stay.
Like I said I am cool with subsidizing abortions or permanent birth control, I mean if they can not afford children then stop having fucking children. But families with more children would on average use up more insurance than a family with 1 child, why should that family have to subsidy the family of religious nut jobs that do not believe in birth control?
That's not going to happen any time soon, will it? Of course. But all else equal, your employer prefers how immobile that religious nut job family is if the breadwinner were to receive a job offer in another city or become dissatisfied with the workplace. Anyway, insurance has always been about people who don't need healthcare subsidizing those who do. This isn't fundamentally different.
Not if we keep giving them money for sure. We need to have incentives for poor people to NOT have children that they can’t afford and they become a burden to the state. Now the best incentives would be better education and more jobs, as people move up from poor to middle class 1. They need less help, 2. They tend to have less children on average. Another reason why employers should not provide health insurance, it should be a private company hired by the person (I prefer) or the government (like in most developed countries).
I think this begs a larger question of family planning education and access to birth control. If they are on govt assistance and are getting help, can they afford birth control?
I don't think we should support tougher penalties for their own sake - or for the sake of getting elected. which is what politicians tend to do. they know that something like that always goes over well with the public, because no one wants to be seen as weak on crime. tougher penalties should be based on a careful examination of the existing penalties, their success in preventing crime, and the likelihood of tougher penalties being successful in doing what they're designed to do - prevent crime (and punish crime to a lesser extent - but how much punishment is sufficient for a given crime is up to personal bias).
which is why I don't vote Republican. even if I were a one-issue voter, I would not vote Republican because I think their views are too extreme on this issue.
No, I meant that there's a vocal group of people who have vested themselves into fighting against subsidized birth control and pregnancy termination. Similarly, income and class mobility is something we haven't been into since Nixon beat McGovern. We tend not to like programs that help everyone, because there's a good possibility that they also help people below us. But the whole "well subsidize the sick" is the whole conceit behind insurance. Why does it matter if it's offered through the employer, since buying as a collective gives you more leverage as the consumer? Look, I don't like the employer-subsidized model any more than the next guy, but if you're buying into the concept of insurance, then it's something that makes sense.
If you're suffering from outrage fatigue, this won't help. But in case you thought Mourdock and Akin weren't representative of the GOP as a whole...
FWIW, New England Ivory Tower types aren't much better. But from a totally cynical standpoint, I kinda get it (obligatory Chris Rock I'm not saying it's right but). If a young woman wants to get raped, she should attend college, live on campus and be socially active.
well, she would be passed out (presumably), so she wouldn't be in a position to ask. but when she comes to, in her disappointment at realizing that she was not reaped legitimately, she may indeed have to go back and ask for it to be done for real so that she could abort the fetus that might have been conceived in the illegitimate rape.
I was going to make a joke about at least getting dinner out of the date rape but this is such an asinine subject. Over the past few months since Todd Aiken surfaced, there has been more than a few politicians who are tying Christianity, Reproduction, Planned Parenthood together. The sad part is people are trying to defend them. I can't believe that this is an issue.
I wish I could decide if this is the last gasp of a dying worldview or a harbinger of things to come. Since the 80's, every time some religious nutball thing came up, I'd think, "Well, those people will be mocked out of existence and reasonable people will prevail" and every time I've thought that, I was wrong. If you had told me in 1983 what Reagan and the Moral Majority would have produced by 2012, I'd have curled up into a little ball and stayed there.
Not exactly big on this whole 'god' business myself, (as I believe I've mentioned), but, isn't everything that happens 'god's will', including rape? Can't we assume that a foetus being created by a rape is PRECISELY what he intended? I mean, isn't that kinda the whole POINT??? Seem to remember a dude called Epicurus wrote something about it but I forget the details.
But then why stop at rape? If the life of the mother is in jeopardy, well then tough shit. That's clearly all part of God's great plan.
Well, that raises an interesting question, doesn't it. Maybe god intends us to wash our hands using soap AND abort foetuses?