The GOP and skewed views on contraception

Somehow Rep Steve King has become a poster child for pretty much all the things/perspectives that currently irk me in the Republican party's leaders' view on contraception. Thanks to Suggestivetongue for bringing these to my attention. I will use some quotes from him as a spring board to a few things I've been thinking lately:

Preventing babies from being born is not medicine. That’s not — that’s not constructive to our culture and our civilization. If we let our birth rate get down below replacement rate we’re a dying civilization,
” King said on the House floor on Monday night.

How in the world does a country flooded with unwanted children constructive to our culture and civilization? Contraception is important to lowering the number of unwanted and neglected children in this world, not to mention allowing couples to actually have family planning and NOT rely on abortions. I can't understand a person who is against abortions and not a proponent of widely spread and available contraceptives. Contraceptives STOP contraception, lowering the number of abortions, does that not make sense?

“We’re $14 trillion in debt and now we’re going to cover birth control, breast pumps, counseling for abuse? Are we going to do pedicures and manicures as well?”

Only a person who has NEVER been a position where they couldn't AFFORD birth control, breast pumps our counseling, could insinuate that these things are as trivial as a manicure and pedicure. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE PEOPLE IN OUR GOVERNMENT - PRIVILEGE. They don't take the time to understand the position that the majority of the country is in. We are all not living cushy with anything at our grasp. They continue to make cuts to things that affect the majority of people, while safe guarding the funds of the smallest percent of the country - the very rich.

“Having a baby is not the worst thing. I think having multiple sex partners without any kind of restraint or responsibility is much more damning.”

I really wish that this notion of the only people who don't want children are people with thousands of sex partners grabbing people off the streets and throwing them into bed! There are perfectly well adjusted, MARRIED, couples who would like to have some say in when they have children. There are people with children already, who don't have the means to have any more, and use contraception to not have another child.

/end political rant


  1. I agree wholeheartedly. If we want to lower the abortion rate, contraception needs to be more easily obtainable. My husband and I have only had sex with each other, but we use contraception! Guess what? Our contraception of choice is the free condoms from our health department! If that got taken away, we'd be able to manage buying condoms, but not everyone can manage that. Some married couples who have hit a financial rough patch want to wait until they come out of that rough patch to bring a child into the world, and I don't see anything wrong with that. If they're using those publicly available free condoms to save their "baby time" for after they get their financial feet back under them, what's wrong with that? Is it really that difficult for the government to help that couple with inexpensive birth control now? What if that couple got pregnant and had a new baby during that rough patch? They'd have to apply for welfare and WIC. That's more of a drain than the occasional free condom. Priorities, Mr. King, priorities!

  2. wow, you nailed it all....what an asshat he is, seriously! great reply piece


  3. True, true, true! One more point to be had, birth control is not solely used by those trying to avoid pregnancy. I have endometriosis and uterin fibroids, both of which cause extreme amounts of pain and discomfort. The fibroids are fed by the hormones produced by my cycle, and the endo flares according to that same cycle. By staying on a schedule of long term contraceptives (3 month pill packs before a period), I can all but eliminate the pain.

    I have frequently made the point you make regarding the disconnect between being against abortion, but also against preventing unwanted pregnancies. It is also those same people who fight the loudest about public aide to those who find themselves in a position of having a child they can't support. SO, you don't want to help prevent pregnancy, and someone ends up in an unwanted pregnancy situation. You have (in this "idealized" world) outlawed abortion, so the woman must have this child. Once the child is born, she cannot afford to properly care for him, so a) she applies for aide or b)she hands him over a "safe haven" location when you drop off unwanted babies (HOPEFULLY this rather than dumping him somewhere). Now you've got a child dependent solely on the government for food, shelter, education, etc. And this could potentially happen to hundreds of women per major city area. All because you didn't want to buy the lady a pack of pills.

  4. @All- thanks for commenting ladies!


Professional Blog Designs by pipdig