Be Careful What You Wish For

Deroy Murdock follows up on my piece on rights for me but not for thee, pointing out that ObamaCare is a double-edged sword:

Imagine, as Jonah does, that Rick Santorum is elected president and becomes the reincarnation of Cotton Mather, just as Nancy Pelosi probably fears as she lays her coiffed head on her high-threadcount pillows every night. Imagine further that instead of repealing Obamacare, the former GOP senator from Pennsylvania decided to keep this law in place and modify it along much more traditionalist, even puritanical, lines.

Santorumcare could involve — say — a federally mandated, five-day waiting period before women could have abortions. This parallels the original five-day interlude that potential firearms buyers faced under the Brady Law. How could the Left object to that?

How about a requirement that every American who receives free condoms from any federally subsidized health center first must receive 30 minutes of mandatory abstinence counseling?

And why not a rule that those who visit Gay Men’s Health Crisis cannot accept any services until after completing a two-day course on gay conversion, so that they can be “cured” of their homosexuality?

I seriously doubt that President Santorum (or President Brownback or President Palin) would do such things, but then I never envisioned President Obama ordering free birth control for any and every adult female who wanted it — regardless of income — and paid for under federal orders by health insurers, over the objections of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Actually, I think that was pretty predictable.

36 thoughts on “Be Careful What You Wish For

  1. MPM

    So what is the big problem with free contraceptives? I can see the religious angle, but is it really such a bad idea? It could prevent a lot of misery caused by unwanted pregnancies (for mother, child, society as a whole) as well as the cost of partially cleaning up the mess.

      1. MPM

        So would you be less opposed if it didn’t involve employers, if the government itself handed out contraceptives for “free”? I can understand the issue of principle, but it seems to me there are far worse examples of governments interfering in the lives of their citizens.

        1. Gregg

          “but it seems to me there are far worse examples of governments interfering in the lives of their citizens.”

          Therein lies the problem. That you allow government to interfere any more than necessary to fulfill Constitutional mandates is to ask for trouble.

          Human nature is well known and there are thousands of years of experience to go by. And one thing this experience tells you is that when people are given power, they want more. They grab for more. And if allowed they get more.

          You might not think this particular interference is onerous. But what if they choose another method of interference that you do not like? What basis do you have for denying the government that power since you were happy to give them a pass this time?

          Once you give the government more power do something, they have the ability to do more and in a way you might not like. If you think you can THEN fetch back the freedom you gave away – think again.

          This is so basic to humankind that it’s amazing to me that people need to re-learn it.

          Why do you think there were despots and dictators to start with?

        2. Gregg

          ….and if you think governmental mission creep is a silly notion……..

          check out the school lunch Nazi story in Carolina…

    1. Jason Bontrager

      Condoms are cheap. Forcing taxpayers to purchase something that any idiot can buy for himself is a massive over-extension of federal power. And there’s no such thing as “free”.

      1. MPM

        How is it massive? And I meant free to the kids / dumb-asses who wouldn’t otherwise use contraceptives.

        1. Jason Bontrager

          Because it’s unnecessarily coercive. It’s expensive (multiply the what, $5.99 for a box of condoms by the millions that will be handed out). It requires more bureaucracy to administer. It just feeds the beast Leviathan.

          As for those kids/dumbasses, if the government wants to help them not breed then buy them tubal ligations/vasectomies. Initially more expensive, but ultimately cheaper for society.

        2. Leland

          How is it massive? And I meant free to the kids / dumb-asses who wouldn’t otherwise use contraceptives.

          If kids are dumbass, what makes you think they’ll know how to get the “free” contraceptives? Will they be delivered to their home? Why does the government get to decide if my “kids” (do you define this as minors, as most people do, or just people supposedly more juvenile than you?) can have contraceptives? Why can’t I teach my children to avoid temptation until they are smart enough to handle it, rather than assume they have no self-discipline and hope they’ll muster just enough to stop for a moment and employ a contraceptive?

          Or again, is this all virtuous because it is “free” which means provided by the government’s taxpayers, and with this virtue, which is supposedly cheap (I guess the industry that makes them is altruistic and non-profit?), we have no acceptable rationale to exceed its virtue?

          1. Curt Thomson

            Will they be delivered to their home?

            I hadn’t even thought of that one. They’re free, and generic. Volume goes through the roof. 16 year-olds just need to fill out a form. “Free” PO Box provided.

            Jay Leno’s contemporaries have nothing to worry about.

          2. Titus

            The problem with condoms lies not in their expense, but in their usage. Perhaps a Federal agent in every backseat to remind them?

    2. Larry J

      According to some on the left, a year’s worth of contraceptives can cost $600. Multiply that time tens of millions of women and you’re talking about perhaps several billion dollars that the insurance companies are supposed to pay so the women can have their “free” contraceptives. Of course, the insurance companies are going to pass those costs on to everyone else, so nothing is “free.” Only a moron like Obama would think that’s a reasonable idea. It’s pure pandering buy the votes of women.

      1. Daveon

        And isn’t it working well! Anybody would think the GOP intend to throw this election and hope they’re in better shape in 2016!

    3. Leland

      society as a whole

      So what other things besides contraceptives (and as the distopia mentions, abortion) can we as society do to prevent unwanted things and call them virtuous because it is free?

    4. rickl

      There’s no such thing as “free”. Those contraceptives are going to be paid for by somebody, probably through higher insurance premiums. This is yet another instance of redistribution of wealth, most likely as an attempt to buy women’s votes.

    5. Der Schtumpy

      MPM,
      I’ll bite, who pays for them so they CAN be free? Contraceptives don’t fall out of the sky. Someone has to pay for them to be manfactured, moved and sold or even handed out for ‘free’.

      Here’s how it SHOULD work. So there can be free contraceptives, YOU need to decide how much of YOUR income YOU will give to cover “X” numbers of contraceptives for “Y” numbers of men and women.

      What you can’t decide is how much of MY income should go to pay for contraceptives. But currently, that’s precisely how it works.

      I’ll help pay for contraceptives IF, YOU let ME decide how much of YOUR income YOU will give to cover “X” numbers of guns for “Y” numbers of men and women who want them.

      1. MPM

        I’m not saying contraceptives *should* be available for “free”, and I agree there is no such thing as really free, because in the end someone would have to be coerced to pay for it. I’m wondering why there’s such an uproar over this in particular. It’s not the first time governments have interfered in their citizens’ private lives.

        For example, I’m personally much more offended by my local neighbourhood cop who fined me for riding my bike without working lights. Especially by the self-righteous and condescending tone in which this civil servant (whose salary is partially paid from my hard earned money) told me that it was for my own good and that some people never learn unless they are fined. I couldn’t even tell this fine gentleman how I felt about him or I would have incurred another fine for insulting a police officer.

        This felt like a slightly more sophisticated form of mugging. I was mugged by criminals once, which cost me 10 guilders and a great sense of humiliation and indignation. This latest little episode cost me 40 euros, and infuriated me, because the criminals at least didn’t pretend it was for my own good. All thanks to the fine civil servants who are supposed to serve and protect and to make sure my goddamn bike isn’t stolen, which has happened about 7 times in the past 20 years. A couple of weeks later I witnessed two teenagers stealing a bike in broad daylight thirty meters away from where I was fined and not a damn cop in sight.

        By contrast handing out free condoms to kids and dumbasses so they won’t breed early and unintentionally sounds like the much lesser of two evils, and not a very large evil in the larger scheme of things.

        1. Leland

          By contrast handing out free condoms to kids and dumbasses so they won’t breed early and unintentionally sounds like the much lesser of two evils, and not a very large evil in the larger scheme of things.

          Why abide it at all. It wasn’t an evil previously. Why allow it now? Should we allow it now because it’s not as bad as others we haven’t stopped previously? Better to stop it now before it becomes a normalized thing.

  2. Curt Thomson

    When I buy car insurance, or homeowners insurance, I’m allowed to choose a policy that best meets my needs, with certain restrictions based on ownership of the asset. Higher deductibles result in lower premiums. I’m encouraged to educate myself on different aspects of coverage, and the impact that certain behavior or choices I make will have. As a result, the companies that offer the policies compete for my business, and everyone benefits from lower prices.

    Obama doesn’t believe in this system. He believes the government can do a better job of all this if it were allowed to remove all the messy competition that normally exists. He would prefer a single-payer system where there is no insurance at all. He can’t get that in one shot so he’s trying to achieve it in steps. This is one such step.

    1. Larry J

      Remember from the 2008 election, Obama is so stupid about insurance that he didn’t know the difference between a liability policy and collision insurance.

  3. wodun

    Even if you think free bc is needed why would it be the responsibility of the federal government? This would be the perfect cause for like minded individuals to form a charity.

    The country would be better off if there were free soccer boots and video games but no one wants the feds to provide them. Thankfully, there are charities that seek to help those that can not afford either.

    1. Der Schtumpy

      OH nice Josh! And where were YOU 25 years ago when I saved up my beer money for my vasectomy!? I was sober for weeks. It was horrible.

      I can openly say that I am a full and total believer in vasectomies. It’s quite liberating and much easier for us than similar procedures are for our ladies. I’m so much a supporter, that I hitch hiked to my ‘procedure’ when my old truck over heated. Seriously.

      Rescheduling was just putting it off that much longer and I didn’t want to wait!

      (this is a stupid story and kind of ‘weird’, but what the hey…for the uninitiated…after a man has a vasectomy, he must wait 6 or so weeks and take a ‘sample’ to the doctors office so they can be sure that ALL the little swimmers are deceased, and that no more are gettin’ through.

      When I told my wife, after that date had come and gone, that I was released for ‘duty’ and that there were no new swimmers. She said to me, “…but weren’t you supposed to take a sample to the urologist?” “…yes, but I did that two weeks ago and they called me at work today, I’m good to go!”
      This beautiful, very smart, well educated woman who can build computers, fix her own cars, make mean pancakes and great peanut brittle, says to me, “…but, how did YOU get the sample?”…….I’ll just stop there)

      (did that silliness diffuse the argument?)

  4. Thomas Matula

    Maybe a brokered Convention will draft Senator McCain for a rematch. He is looking better and better every day compared to this field :-)

  5. jsallison

    Hmm, free vasectomy/tubal ligation for all holders of public elected office and political appointees upon confirmation. Now there’s change I could believe in.

    1. Der Schtumpy

      If that’s the way we’re headed, I propose retroactive abortion for certain members of Congress and ‘other’ elected officials.

  6. Brad

    Isn’t it great how the adults are in charge now that NEO is Prez? What competency they demonstrate! From Cash for Clunkers, to the Gulf Oil Spill, to Operation Fast and Furious, to Solyndra, to the Keystone Pipeline to this latest blunder.

    I like to call the basic operating principle of the Obama Administration, the ‘Cash for Clunkers Administration’. The taxpayers cash for Obama’s clunkers.

  7. MfK

    Actually, I disagree that the Texas law is “innocuous.” If it’s like the recently passed Virginia law, it requires that a woman undergo an invasive and unnecessary medical procedure designed to impose some people’s sense of guilt and shame on a (in some cases very young) woman facing a terrible choice. It’s more Hitlerian than the waiting period for a handgun.

  8. Fletcher Christian

    Well, one problem with a compulsory five-day waiting period for an abortion comes into play if one considers the “morning-after” pill to be an abortion – which fundies normally do.

    What’s the problem with that? The pill won’t work after five days, that’s what.

Comments are closed.