Iliad wrote:It would go under the general welfare part I assume.Night Strike wrote:Iliad wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Nope. I didn't say that because I don't use birth control...
Put simply, taxpayer dollars should not go to fund abortions or contraceptives
You still didn't get it. Please try and actually engage the other side.
Scotty, you'll never go to school again. Yet, you as a taxpayer are forced to fund the education of other children. Don't see you frothing at the mouth about that program. Or literally every other program, just because you don't agree to a war doesn't mean you can just deduct that from your tax. Programs doesn't have to directly affect you for it to be beneficial, and that's such a selfish, blinkered and narrow minded perspective.As Medefe and other repeatedly pointed out increasing the access to contraceptives is beneficial and cost-saving to the entire community.
This is as much about Victorian prudishness and attitude to sex as it is about perceived government spending.
So why, in 2012, are women suddenly unable to pay for their own contraceptives when they've been buying them for themselves for the nearly 100 years they've been around? Why must people buy their own contraceptives AND buy for others who refuse to buy their own?
By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?
Also, it's because suddenly in 2012, a study has come out and shown that it's clearly more cost-efficient to subsidise the cost of contraceptives rather than the entire cost of a child's welfare. That cost, of educating and caring for a child would be pushed onto the state and it's more cost-efficient to subsidise contraceptives instead. For another fucking time, this is efficient budget-wise.
That's specific welfare, not general welfare. And if contraceptives are so much better for a company's budget, they would choose to provide it without governmental mandates. These mandates are for the government to force their views on people who disagree with contraceptives and to earn votes through handouts from another constituency.
notyou2 wrote:Is it OK to force people to pay taxes for road improvements if they don't drive or have a car?
Is it OK to force people to pay taxes for schools if they don't have children?
Hospitals if they never get sick?
Military spending if they are pacifists?
The list goes on..........
The government doesn't have to provide any money for hospitals, but the others are roles of different levels of government based on either specific Constitutional provisions or providing for the general welfare of the country. They aren't specific handouts to certain people based on their sexual organs.