Use A Condom -- Go To Hell

Oh, and ace, congrats on 17,000.

 

Yeah, make sure to update that on your Plain-Dealer resume.

 

Well, you certainly aren't living.

 

Done.

 

Holy god.
A couple of billion (and climbing) on a useless war and we're going to pinch pennies on disease-prevention and contraception. Besides, this woman doesn't oppose them on economic grounds. She opposes them because she believes that people who do bad things with their pee-pees should get sick, die, and go off to hell where they belong.

 

You know what else chaps my hide? Paying for someone else's anti-depressants.

Unless those fuckers are going to buy my whiskey after work, they can cheer up on their own or pay their own freight.

 

Wow, you're really reaching here.

 

How so?

 

People choose to get laid.

Most people I know who have battled depression did not choose to get put on Xanax or Prozac or some other "wonder" drug.

 

I'm not sure how this became another referendum on who's responsible for the cost of what. The root of the story for me is that you've got another hardline fundamentalist in a government science position. Teaching abstinence only - without regard to science and prevention - doesn't work. Faith alone is not enough, as the skyrocketing statistics for teen chlamydia and syphillis and gonhorrea show. Abstinence alone doesn't work concerning contraception, and it doesn't work concerning disease.

As to the costs, government sees fit to provide vaccinations and immunizations to those who can't afford them. Those that can, pay as they go. Some remain free for everyone. The government sees the preventive value in them.

Sex, though, comes under the heading of another "faith-based" initiative in this administration, in which we preach teens at home and abroad to ignore the most powerful human impulse on the planet, cross our fingers, and rely on a 2,000 year-old book of poetry to ward off evil.

 

Of course, the other prong on the fork is that we are ruled by a governing philosophy that simply doesn't believe in the concept of the common good of the commonwealth.
And Ragu? The "why do we spend on this when we should be spending on that?" argument really doesn't apply generally -- why am I paying Clarence Thomas's salary? -- but particularly not in this case, as jmac illuminated.