Friday, March 17, 2006

The Roe Effect vs. the Ho Effect

It seems as if campaigning season gets longer and longer every election, but with the way people are talking about liberals being out-bred by conservatives, it appears that political strategy is being planned through the next generation, not just the same election.

And while I sit here frittering away my childbearing years, I observe that Missouri is doing its best to counteract the dreaded "Roe effect."
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.

Others, including some lawmakers who described themselves as "pro-life," said it was illogical for anti-abortion lawmakers to deny money for contraception to low-income people who use public health clinics.
"It's going to have the opposite effect of what the intention is, which will be more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions," said Rep. Kate Meiners, D-Kansas City.
The other alternative is for low-income women to give birth to more children, which is only likely to drive up the state's costs to provide services to them, said Democratic Rep. Melba Curls, also of Kansas City.
While many others have refuted the illogic, disinformation and stupidity being presented by the Missouri state legislature, I do think it's also important to point out that those who voted against funding contraception for low-income women are quite literally breeding more votes against themselves. In a state that previously has been endorsing "promiscuous lifestyles," we have these women running around sleeping with men, not an ounce of self-control in their bodies (how did they become poor, after all?), so they're bound to be producing a kid or three in the process. I like to call it the "ho effect."
Post a Comment