« Rental Markets, or, The Fuzzy Math of boadicea at MyDD.com | Main | More Like This, Please »
May 21, 2007
What I Learned From Missouri
In March of 2006, some good folks in Missouri tried to reinstate state funding for contraception for poor women. They didn't succeed.
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - An attempt to resume state spending on birth control got shot down Wednesday by House members who argued it would have amounted to an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles.
Missouri stopped providing money for family planning and certain women's health services when Republicans gained control of both chambers of the Legislature in 2003.
The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending...
"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.
For a long time, I'd thought that anti-abortion activists were generally motivated by a genuine concern for fetal life. I saw this concern as misguided, given that the fetus doesn't have the mental capacities required for us to morally regard it as a person. (If you're interested, I develop this view in my review of The Party of Death.) But I regarded it as something that arose from a very protective attitude towards the lives of others, combined with some unfortunate errors about where other people might be located.
The fact that all the state's major anti-abortion groups opposed reinstating funding for contraception showed them to be motivated quite differently than I had imagined. Birth control pills work by preventing ovulation, and if a sperm never meets an egg, there's nothing -- even on the view I regarded as factually mistaken -- that could count as another person. Even if you think that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception, preventing conception averts the existence of a soul, no differently than abstinence does. So there's no reason for a genuinely pro-life person to oppose contraception. And as one genuinely pro-life representative pointed out, cutting funding would "have the opposite effect of what the intention is, which will be more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions."
So why did the anti-abortion groups come out against birth control funding? The best answer seems to be the one that Rep. Phillips gave us directly. Anti-abortion activists want to discourage single women from having sex, with the threat of an unwanted pregnancy. The fact that birth control pills would actually avert abortions is insignificant to them. What do a few fetal lives matter when you're trying to stop women from having sex before marriage? There are some other bad reasons why one might oppose funding for birth control -- doctrinaire libertarianism, or an extremely short-sighted focus on budget-cutting -- but these motivations aren't especially strong among anti-abortion activists. I'm left with no choice but to take Susan Phillips at her word.
And there's any number of other causes on which the anti-abortion movement has shown its true colors. There's the issue of permitting pharmacists to deny birth control. (I've waited in vain for a similar movement that would allow Jewish, Muslim, and vegetarian food-service workers not to serve pork.) They've supported bizarre abstinence-only programs teaching that touching another person's genitals can cause pregnancy. Worst of all, there's the opposition to the HPV vaccine. If punishing promiscuous women with forced pregnancy isn't enough, why not throw in genital warts and cervical cancer?
I don't doubt that a large number of people who oppose abortion are motivated in the noble and misguided way that I once thought the movement as a whole was. I've quoted one such person, Rep. Kate Meiners, above. I don't bear any personal hatred against these people, any more than I do against people who think that privatizing Social Security will keep it solvent. (Wonky digression: the economic models that have Social Security going insolvent in 2040 or so assume a slowdown in economic growth. If economic growth slows down, the stock market does badly too, and privatizing hurts more than it helps.) I'll vote against them and try to keep them out of power, but I regard them merely as mistaken and not as evil.
But I've come to see that the people who decide how major "right to life" organizations operate have goals far less noble than the protection of innocent life. For all their lofty rhetoric, they're trying to create a world where being a sexually active single woman is punished by forced childbirth, or by cancer. There may be more destructive people in American politics, but there are none I hate more.
May 21, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
(I've waited in vain for a similar movement that would allow Jewish, Muslim, and vegetarian food-service workers not to serve pork.)
Indeed, conservatives certainly haven't lined up to support Muslim taxi drivers' refusal to transport passengers carrying alcohol. See here, here, here, here. (For the record, I support neither those demands nor those of extremist Christian pharmacists.)
Posted by: Christopher M | May 21, 2007 4:11:16 AM
Well, uh...duh. I guess its always worth writing one of these "I'm shocked!" columns but really these people have been telling us and telling us and telling us its all about the loose wimmins and dere morals for quite some time. The fact that they have *always* attacked planned parenthood for its stance on contraception *as well as* its stance on abortion might have given you a clue. The fact that both contraception and abortion are, and always have been, treated as priviliges of the rich and have been attacked and forbidden to the poor might also have given you some insight into this phenomenon. The same groups who oppose a woman's right to control her own medical care and her own body have always opposed the right of teenagers to find out the actual facts about their own bodies,their sexuality, and their health on the grounds that too much knowledge enables free sexual experimentation and that that is in and of itself bad. They've always reminded me of that old joke about the baptists who are said to be "against sex because it might lead to dancing." Let us admit that these people are nuts--they prefer to use enforced ignorance and fear to prevent what they see as the bigger sin (the potential that married and unmarried individuals will have sex without "consequences" merely for pleasure) and they are willing--more than willing--to take a rise in unwanted pregnancies, broken homes, injured and hurt teens, endangered families and pregnant women, and even abortions in order to prove the point that sex is not for fun.
I'll admit to being shocked at the reasoning offered: The idea that the "state" ought to have an opinion about women and sex is quite striking to me but the idea that the state ought to have *that particular attitude* towards women and sex is even more astonishing.
Posted by: aimai | May 21, 2007 7:26:32 AM
they're trying to create a world where being a sexually active single woman is punished by forced childbirth
Not just single women, either. That's the way this Phillips woman read it, but the funding was for FPS for poor women, married or single. Ideally, they want all single women to abstain, and the married ones to be popping them out at ten-month intervals.
Posted by: ajay | May 21, 2007 7:30:55 AM
Neil, I'm flummoxed by your post. You have inexplicably excluded from your first quote the actual reason given by Missouri Right to Life to oppose the contraception language in the bill, stated immediately following the part you quote at the link you give:
Missouri Right to Life said it was concerned with the contraception language because it was loosely written and could have included emergency contraception - often referred to as the morning-after pill.
As I'm sure you know, many pro-lifers, and some others, believe the morning-after pill may be an abortifacient, in that it might prevent the implantation of the conceptus. You overlook that and then come up with a completely different reason that you attribute to them, one that is based on what a state Representative plainly identifies as her own view. And you misstate her view:
The best answer seems to be the one that Rep. Phillips gave us directly. Anti-abortion activists want to discourage single women from having sex, with the threat of an unwanted pregnancy.
That isn't what she said, not even indirectly. I'm sure you think it's a fair inference from what she said, but it really isn't.
And there's any number of other causes on which the anti-abortion movement has shown its true colors.
But you're not describing their true colors; you again leave out important context:
They've supported bizarre abstinence-only programs teaching that touching another person's genitals can cause pregnancy.
From your link:
McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk of pregnancy in mutual masturbation.
And you say:
Worst of all, there's the opposition to the HPV vaccine. If punishing promiscuous women with forced pregnancy isn't enough, why not throw in genital warts and cervical cancer?
You haven't come close to showing that pro-life organizations want to punish women with pregnancy, let alone forced pregnancy (!), nor have you given the actual reasons some groups oppose HPV vaccination, which vary. I haven't heard any say or imply they want to punish anyone with genital warts and cancer.
But I've come to see that the people who decide how major "right to life" organizations operate have goals far less noble than the protection of innocent life. For all their lofty rhetoric, they're trying to create a world where being a sexually active single woman is punished by forced childbirth, or by cancer. There may be more destructive people in American politics, but there are none I hate more.
Neil, it's your own strongly discolored way of interpreting things that is leading you to this, not their "true colors." I'm stumped by your treatment of this. This reads like something you copied from whyproliferssuck.com or something.
If economic growth slows down, the stock market does badly too, and privatizing hurts more than it helps.
Non-wonky reply to your wonky digression: even if growth is at about 2% annually, as the Social Security actuaries predict, the stock market will still grow faster than the special bonds and payrolls, if the past is any guide, so "privatizing" in the sense you seem to have in mind (investing in the stock market) would still work better. The problem as I understand it isn't that stocks would grow more slowly; it's the additional risk. But I may not be following your point.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 7:32:59 AM
Let us admit that these people are nuts
Usually admitting something is more self-regarding. In any case, there are many pro-lifers who aren't at all nuts, and many who don't fit your caricature. If you don't know that, then that would be a telling admission.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 7:41:50 AM
Sanpete:
For all their lofty rhetoric, they're trying to create a world where being a sexually active single woman is punished by forced childbirth, or by cancer.
This is probably the sort of thing you look at when asserting that Neil's claiming pro-lifers want to punish the sexually active with cancer and warts. It's a parsing much less honest than Neil's own reading of his sources. The argument is that among pro-lifers of the ilk, enumerated here, the health of a woman is simply not a factor in their discussions of things like the HPV vaccine or birth control. It's about promiscuity. And, yes, unequivocally, that's pro-lifers advocating for a stance that places much more risk and danger upon single women and those without access to contraception. It's not irrational to see advocacy of that policy perspective as disincentivizing sex by increasing risk - e.g. "Giving this vaccine will promote promiscuity" also reads as "We will discourage promiscuity by advocating an atmosphere where some women do not receive this vaccine." It's not about avoiding abortions, it's about disincentivizing sex. There's the disconnect.
Posted by: Jon O. | May 21, 2007 8:30:12 AM
The "pro-life" movement is and always has been motivated by a childish fear and hatred of sex in general and female sexuality in particular. You can bend over backwards trying to find something else behind what they do and say, but it's a waste of time.
Occam's razor - the irrationality of the anti-choice movement can be explained most simply by a desire to punish unmarried women for having sex.
Posted by: Jason | May 21, 2007 8:33:39 AM
Not that I want to rehash a lot of old arguments with Sanpete, but Neil's not wrong, he's just late. The notion that the antiabortion folks are more motivated by punishing women's sexuality than "life of the fetus" is not a new theory, and it's pretty well supported. I don't doubt that there are some with deep, and sincere concerns for the potential lives being lost to abortion; but the Catholic Church's opposition is to contraception and abortion, and many antiabortion folks - especially the devout Catholics - lump this all in. I'd point out, too, that truly hard-core conservatives don't (just) want to reverse Roe, what they really want to reverse is Griswold v. Connectcut, the case that established privacy rights over the issue of acces to contraception. There's no way to get around the notion that "dirty girl" labelling has a big role in how we talk about abortion, and contraception. As gets said often - if antiabortion folks really thought that abortion was murder, they'd have the woman who wants to get one arrested for it, since the criminal intent is hers. Instead, in America we spend inordinate amounts of time discussing women's intentions (she's loose, she should have known better, etc) and blaming her for her condition. She shouldn't have an abortion because she shouldn't have had sex out of wedlock, etc. It's why I've said for a long time - it doesn't matter why the woman wants an abortion, it's that it's her decision. Welcome, Neil... you're late.
Posted by: weboy | May 21, 2007 8:47:46 AM
Jon, I can't tell what you think I've parsed incorrectly, or why.
"Giving this vaccine will promote promiscuity" also reads as "We will discourage promiscuity by advocating an atmosphere where some women do not receive this vaccine."
Those aren't equivalent. There may be some who believe both, but the first doesn't imply the second.
Occam's razor - the irrationality of the anti-choice movement can be explained most simply by a desire to punish unmarried women for having sex.
No, Jason. Their positions can usually be more simply explained in terms of the arguments they actually give. You're confusing your simplistic view of their ideas with their actual beliefs.
This comment thread appears to illustrate a lack of good will and good faith in interpreting other views.
The notion that the antiabortion folks are more motivated by punishing women's sexuality than "life of the fetus" is not a new theory, and it's pretty well supported.
Not here it isn't, weboy, not even close, and I haven't seen it well supported elsewhere either. What I have seen is that those on each side are typically eager to believe the worst of the other, and will count the thinnest of arguments and evidence as sufficient for that.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 8:57:47 AM
Let's all understand through Neil's hysteria that there are no laws preventing abortion and there are no laws preventing birth control. What you want is taxpayers to voluntarily pick up the tab. That's great if they wish to do so, but make no mistake, there is no obligation to do so.
If you wish to argue that there is a right to abortion upon demand and a right to birth control drugs and that cost should not be a factor, then I would like you to also line up to provide arms for the poor who cannot afford a handgun or rifle as it's their right as well. How is this really any different?
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 21, 2007 8:58:49 AM
As always, if you post about abortion or gun control you get beaucoup comments, usually from those opposing your point of view. I'm most intrigued by the comments of Sanpete, who claims you are misinterpreting of the anti-choice movement, based on the "thinnest of arguments and evidence", but offers no evidence for his claim that you're wrong.
If in fact the anti-choice movement were interested in reducing abortion, then they should support this legislation whole-heartedly. Of course it goes without saying that if they truly respected human life, they would oppose the death penalty and unnecessary wars. Their own statements and actions put the lie to both assertions. What then are we to assume about their real motivation? I think Ezra is right on target and no comments so far provide any evidence or logical argument to oppose that view.
Posted by: Chuck | May 21, 2007 9:20:49 AM
Chuck, the evidence is in my first post. Your own arguments are much thinner than you appear to think. You just illustrate my point.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 9:27:29 AM
there are many pro-lifers who aren't at all nuts
Yes Sanpete, true, but the non-nuts pro-lifers aren't the ones worked up into a fit over the issue of birth control. The topic of this particular post is by definition not about non-nuts pro-lifers since we're discussing the anti-birth control nutters who dominate the movement.
Posted by: Tyro | May 21, 2007 9:50:26 AM
Sanpete,
Your Jesuit like rationalisations aside, you can not avoid the basic point that those who oppose legal medical abortions are not motivated solely by the desire to prevent abortion. Otherwise they would show tremendous open mindedness, empathy and collaboration with methods that reduce the incidence of abortion, including contraception. This moral failure on their part is all the more galling in that contraception is statistically the most effective way to limit the number of abortions per year.
Some other idea, rather than the end of abortions in America, moves their souls. There is a strong case to make that it is perverted Chistian theology and simple obediance to Church leaders that moves them to act. Shame on them.
Posted by: Northern Observer | May 21, 2007 9:58:10 AM
Sanpete,
These people are all about the punishing of sexual activity of which they do not approve. You're deluding yourself to think otherwise.
If they were so reverent about life why would so many of them support the war in Iraq, the use of military force generally, capital punishment, etc? There is a few "seamless web of life" types around but a) you could fit them in a small conference room; b) they tend to be rabidly anti-birth control; and c) when push comes to shove they care a lot more about abortion than they do about war or capital punishment.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 21, 2007 10:01:35 AM
Neil,
Not sure what qualifies one as an "ethical werewolf" but one would hope it would be a knowledge of, say, the field of ethics. And if one were possessed of that, it would not be hard to imagine that a person who was not simply a consequentialist might have principled reasons for opposing both abortion and some means of reducing the number of abortions. That is, even if abortion is the worst evil in one's hierarchy, it does not follow that everything is on the table to stop it.
For people whose most sophisticated moral framework is one brand of consequentialism or another, I suppose that will not be easy to understand.
Posted by: Bill | May 21, 2007 10:08:17 AM
Welcome! You're one of us now. Your free copy of Christina Page's How the Pro-choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics, And the War on Sex should be arriving shortly . . . Well, no, but it's worth a read anyway - especially for Sanpete: if nothing else, a short interview is available here:
"[The pro-life establishment's] aim is not about reducing abortion -- it includes restricting people's access to contraception, it includes transforming our sex lives, it includes transforming our families. That's the goal, and [restricting abortion] is just one vehicle toward that end . . .
. . . [When I was researching this book,] I was happy to make distinctions and say, Well, we do have evidence that there's a wing of the pro-life movement that supports child care. But [what I found is that] there is no wing. And the opposition that we're facing to these issues is from these pro-life groups. An alarming pattern emerges: Not only do they want to take away legal and safe abortion, they want to stop people from having access to contraception. Coupling with that, they want to strip people of opportunities to put their children -- whether they wanted them or not or can afford them or not -- into child care.
Where does this lead? What is the point of this? How can you be against child care if you're against helping people plan their families? If you don't want to help people have limited numbers of children, why are you stripping them of the very things that make that possible? The only conclusion that this path leads to is one: The modern family is deeply offensive to the Christian right. The family structures in which we are living today, in which both parents are equal and they both bring home a living, they get to choose the number of children they have to what they can support and want -- that is offensive to the pro-life establishment. The whole reason why none of their programs are leading to fewer abortions is because that's simply not the point. The point isn't about abortion, it's about the family. It's about what the family looks like, it's about who's in it, who's leading it, who has the power, and who's the spiritual head.
Sanpete says: "As I'm sure you know, many pro-lifers, and some others, believe the morning-after pill may be an abortifacient.
I'm afraid there's a little problem with that sentence . . .here, let me fix it for you:
'As I'm sure you know, many pro-lifers believe the morning-after pill may be an abortifacient.'
In reality, the fact is that scientists are unwilling to say it's impossible that very, very rarely, under unusual conditions, the morning-after pill (ie, Plan B - not RU-486, which is used as an abortifacient) might prevent implantation, since establishing that would be practically impossible. However, the idea that it is (at most) more than an extremely rare occurrence stems from decades-old research and marketing claims. As wikipedia points out,
"Recent studies in rats and monkeys have shown that post-ovulatory use of progestin-only and combined ECPs have no effect on pregnancy rates . . . Studies in humans have shown that the rate of ovulation suppression is approximately equal to the effectiveness of emergency contraceptive pills . . . suggesting that might be the only mechanism by which they prevent pregnancy." (Although it also adds that - despite the lack of any direct evidence, and indeed evidence to the contrary - - one study found that in women who ovulate despite taking ECPs, there are changes in hormone levels that hypothetically might inhibit implantation. Again, there's no evidence for this actually happening, but rather evidence that suggests that it probably isn't.) Of course, most people would try to weigh - however unhappily - the small, hypothetical, unlikely-looking, and never-demonstrated chance that very, very rarely EC might prevent implantation against the reality that in the overwhelming number of cases (and probably all) it's gonna frickin' prevent abortion.
"You overlook that and then come up with a completely different reason that you attribute to them, one that is based on what a state Representative plainly identifies as her own view.
So far I haven't been able to find what Missouri RTL said about this, but yes, it's quite possible that they were PR-savvy enough not to let the craziness shine through. Nevertheless, anybody having any familiarity with anti-abortion folks will know that this is an extremely common point, against not just EC but regular contraception, sex ed., and (whatever other arguments - not all entirely nonsensical - might crop up) the HPV vaccine.
" haven't heard any say or imply they want to punish anyone with genital warts and cancer."
I think this is the key to why Sanpete's comments irritate me quite so much - this kind of otherwordly naivete. (As the hackneyed quote goes, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out). I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, but the pro-life establishment has completely used up their quota, and in fact owes me quite a large amount in overdraft fees. The important thing is to look not just at words (although those tell a lot) but also at deeds, and those are pretty clear.
For example, the book I mention above sprung from an 2003 NY Times Op-Ed, "The Right to Agree" [behind paywall, or go here and scroll down)], by Page and a moderate pro-life activist, arguing that despite fundamental differences both sides could and should work together on such shared goals as reducing the number of abortions and unintended pregnancies. The response from the pro-choice side wasn't overwheming - possibly because they knew what to expect - but the anti-abortion folks flew into a rage, largely because the piece endorsed widespread access to contraception.
Think about that. The best that major 'pro-life' organizations do is not loudly opposing the use of contraception (some individual pro-lifers and a few small, local orgs do support these and other methods that actually do help reduce the number of abortions. What does that tell you?
Now, I'm not saying that anti-abortion folks are simply pretending to be concerned about abortion, as a cover for their evil plans, or something - perhaps the best way to put it is that they have a overarching and internally coherent ideology - involving attitudes about women, sex, gender roles, the family, human nature, etc. - that in practice works out as if that was the case.
Posted by: Dan S. | May 21, 2007 10:30:34 AM
Fred, I agree! While we can all agree that abortion is a horrible thing, paying taxes is much, much more damaging to society. So when it comes to a choice between reducing abortion and using public money to reduce abortion, I'm gonna say that abortion as far as the eye can see is simply a sign of a healthy, low-taxed society!
Posted by: Tyro | May 21, 2007 10:32:17 AM
Tyro,
Can you say with a straight face that outlawing abortion will not drastically reduce its occurance? That is the goal of the pro-life movement. If your goal is to reduce abortions, that is the way to go.
However, you seem to "concern troll" about abortions, but in reality, your concern is only after the 'feminist' agenda has been met and several other liberal agenda points have been met.
The reality is, you're not really that concerned about abortion and it doesn't seem that important to you so cut the crap.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 21, 2007 10:44:30 AM
Yay tyro! I agree completely. And I'd like to add that if my tax dollars are going to be used for anything I'd like to see them used to reduce the burden of unwanted children on society. To that end I'd like to see churches taxed to pay for the unwanted children they are insisting their followers bear--these children strain our schools and our hospitals. My state has at least as big an interest in using our tax dollars wisely to prevent unwanted or dangerous pregnancies and maternal and fetal morbidity as it does in furthering the anti-sex policies of a small but hysterical and vocal religious sect or sects.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | May 21, 2007 10:47:37 AM
Forgot this:
No one owes anyone an abortion. If they want one, it's lawful...knock yourselves out. No one owes anyone birth control drugs. If they want them, they are lawful...there ya' go.
This is truly a ridiculous argument that women are suppressed because someone doesn't foot the bill for their needs. Needs that are not life threatening unless you are the fetus. Needs that can be avoided through behavior or a $1 condom. It's the same ol' liberal "You owe me" meme.
Grow up
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 21, 2007 10:50:15 AM
Fred, if you don't think that the government has any interest or duty in reducing the number of abortions, then just say that and be done with it.
However, given that there is a large movement focused on reducing abortion and using the power of government to reduce it, I find it amusing how when the choice becomes a decision between public initiatives that have a "payoff" in terms of benefits to public health and expenditures, versus continuing maintaining a feeling of righteous superiority and opposing any public expenditure, even if it saves money in the long term, they choose the latter. And that's why no one wants to "dialog" with the pro-life movement to seek "common ground." There is no common ground to be had with them, because when push comes to shove, they care more about screaming about people who have abortions rather than trying to reduce them.
Posted by: Tyro | May 21, 2007 10:59:23 AM
Looking over more recent comments (I'm a slooooow writer):
Jon O: "It's not irrational to see advocacy of that policy perspective as disincentivizing sex by increasing risk
I'd only add that it's also not uncommon to see advocacy of disincentivizing sex by increasing risk, esp. offstage, so to speak.
Jason: "Occam's razor . . ."
In this case, it's Occam's coathanger.
Sanpete: "This comment thread appears to illustrate a lack of good will and good faith in interpreting other views."
Again, good faith isn't - and should not be - an unlimited resource. Do you, by any chance, have a big round head and a penchant for wearing shirts in yellow and black with a zig-zag pattern?
Fred Jones; ", then I would like you to also line up to provide arms for the poor who cannot afford a handgun or rifle as it's their right as well."
If I thought that gun ownership actually was a major (and relatively unproblematic) net help in deterring crime and protecting oneself, I would support legislation to help make them available regardless of income. It isn't, of course, but . ..
"there are no laws preventing abortion"
Yet.
"What you want is taxpayers to voluntarily pick up the tab."
I see that Monsieur Jones is a big fan of " . . . la majestueuse égalité
des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les
ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain."
Posted by: Dan S. | May 21, 2007 11:00:21 AM
I have conversations with a "fred jones" type every day and it never ceases to astound me that they have such a limited understanding of our tax system and what our taxes actually pay for. There are literally thousands of tax breaks and tax giveaways for the rich, most of our tax dollars go to support large corporations and our military without regard to the value of the return to the taxpayer but its "liberals" and those pesky "poor people" who are trying to get something they don't deserve.
I've got absolutely nothing against living in a purely libertarian/no tax state but I actually know of some and they are pretty scary. The Fred Jones's of the world *in reality* would bitch and moan quite a bit about the state of the roads, sewers, police, jails, hospitals, prisons, public buildings, libraries, street lights, electrical grid, food supply, medical delivery system etc...etc...etc... if they were actually forced to pay individually for all the things that we collectively pay for through taxes.
But in any event mixing up libertarian anti-tax arguments (which devolve rapidly into screw you I've got mine) and christian anti-family/anti women fundamentalism (in which tax dollars aren't *withheld* so much as *used* to punish others) is a mistake. These are two separate lines of argument. They are often held by the same people, or advanced by the same people, but they lead in very different directions. The far right christian anti-sex and anti-family groups are demanding tax money for their faith based programs while denying other individuals and groups the right to make their case for the use of tax money for other purposes. Their position can't be taken as realistically anti-tax and spend they are simply using our tax dollars (and their tax exempt status) to try to rig the public policy system against money spent by other groups for other purposes. That's ok, all part of the rough and tumble of the political system, but let us not mistake it for anything other than an abuse of our public policy and other tax payers interests masquerading as a low tax policy. Refuse to pay for healthcare and contraception for poor families and you simply create more poor families whose undeniable needs for health care, schools, roads, services can't be offset by the taxes they pay and will eventually be offset by rising taxes on others with higher incomes. Or, if they are not, we will wind up with an afghanistan/sudan like situation in which the public sector is abandoned entirely and the country sinks into decay. But that is the natural end of all anti-tax libertarians anyway its just that they don't have enough political, historical, or social knowledge to realize how this happens. They think failed states and decaying states happen to other people's countries.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | May 21, 2007 11:15:22 AM
Shorter aimai: Just think of your tax dollars going towards what you want it to go towards and it'll all be ok.
Posted by: Karmakin | May 21, 2007 11:25:41 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
