Tuesday, May 08, 2012

"...state should not play a role in women's reproductive lives"?

Sue Bradford says, about the just-announced extra funding for long-term contraception for beneficiaries and their teenage daughters, "There are many in the church and community groups who believe that the state should not play a role in women's reproductive lives."

So the state should discontinue current funding of contraception, family planning services, abortion, tubal ligations, maternity services, Paid Parental Leave, Plunket, fertility treatments, etc ? Is that really what Bradford is saying? It is a highly troublesome argument for her to advance.

In fact it is one you would be more likely to hear from me. Yet she is against this subsidy and I am for it. My reasoning?

I will go along with the latest funding because it is an attempt to reduce the social and economic cost that generally follows the birth of a child onto a benefit.


Anonymous said...

If the State is not allowed to be involved in preventing the child can we be not involved in future costs of child?

Andrei said...

More liberal stupidity - unbelievable.

We have been pushing "contraception" for over a generation and abortion.

And all that has happened is the rate of unwed births and DPBs has gone up and up and up.

And liberals are too stupid to understand why this is a FAIL

(a) contraception is not a 100% proposition

(b) encouraging the use of it culturally encourages the behaviours universally (i.e Those who do not contracept behave in the same way as those that do) that lead to unwed births.

(c) If you are a young woman with no prospects the DPB is a good option - it beats stacking supermarket shelves as a career option

(d) if you want a degree and don't want to be burdened with a student loan DPB is a good way to go.

A substantial portion of the public service drones got their degrees this way.

Which is why we are doubling down of a failed idea and a cultural disaster

Will said...

I wonder if Craig and Carla, the Herald's hapless struggling couple, will take up this offer? I seem to recall they passed up buying condoms, so they could instead buy milk. Sounds like their panacea?

MsRich said...

So NOW beneficaries aren't breeding to take advantage of benefits? I thought the common perception was that they were - which would mean this subsidy is a waste of money and effort.

I agree with Andrei (but point "c" is incorrect as the Training Incentive Allowance is no longer available for degree level study) and I'd add:

(e) low income earners who are on a par with those on benefits don't get subsidised contraception. They are forced to take responsibility. This policy removes responsibility to some extent from beneficaries which is IMHO always a bad move.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

"So NOW beneficaries aren't breeding to take advantage of benefits?"

Some are, hence the policy that brings forward the work expectation if children are added to a benefit. More accessible and effective contraception backs up that policy.

Anonymous said...

There is one simple policy that will have an even stronger effect, will require no new money whatsoever, and in fact will solve NZ's financial problem in one simp step:


There. Done. Problem solved.

Anonymous said...

Right on, wrong reasons. She's all for Nanny State over a light smack.
Government is becoming too big for its booties.

Anonymous said...

What a wonderful initiative. I do not oppose any couples right to reproduce when they want to, with a few provio's they can AFFORD it via their own work, and they can look after their child well, and raise them properly.

That said, isn't Paula Bennet doing a wonderful thing. By providing free contraception, the younger ones and other females, can control their own reproduction as they like, and not leave it up to some random guy. Once they have children, this also allows them to have MORE money for milk and bread, as they won't have to spend money on contraception.

Message to Andrei...... Option (c) How dare you. Where do you think you are coming from. Taxpayers WHO work, YES WORK pay into the DPB some of them Stack Supermarket shelves, as I have and as my wife did so we could afford to have children. My answer to bludgers such as yourself, is NO DPB - go work. sorry if you don't like this, but ultimately, someone has to pay, and YOU need to take personal responsibility