You know, I’m not sure I want to dignify this particular bit of wingnuttery by even referencing it, yet it is one of those issues that defines the current thinking of movement “conservatism,” and why I seriously question how any thinking person can subscribe to what it’s become.
The short of this is that the Obama stimulus plan was going to spend money on contraceptives. Let’s talk about why.
Whatever the cost, making contraceptives available to low-income families who want it gives them greater control over whether they’re going to have more kids or not. Perhaps they don’t want more kids, believing - reasonably - that to have more kids would put an additional burden on the family. And it would also put an additional burden on the state. No one is being forced to use contraceptives. But the idea is that this is a long-term, wise fiscal policy - saving those families, and this country, a considerable amount of money down the road.
Now, you can debate this assertion. And an aide to Rep. John Boehner did so:
“Whether or not you think that is good public policy, it has nothing to do with an economic stimulus,” a Boehner aide said.
Fine. But in classic fashion, the populist conservative base is taking a very different tack:
Christian Defense Coalition calls Speaker Pelosi’s decision to add contraceptives to the economic stimulus package bigoted, racist, elitist and anti-child. …
<snip>
Our political leaders should do all within their power to protect, support and encourage America’s children, not crush and destroy them.
This policy would lay the foundation for racism and eugenics because it would seek to reduce the number of children to the nation’s poorest economic groups, which tend to be persons of color and other minorities.
Thus: Hey, free contraceptives are available if you’re interested = Naziism.
More:
Black genocide helps economy?
The entire focus of which is abortion - of course - which has nothing to do with the stimulus package.
And as Think Progress catalogues, this ridiculous demagoguery ain’t even the half of it.
This is intelligent debate?
Conservatives appear to believe that if the poor want to have fewer kids they should simply keep their zippers zipped. That approach has not worked particularly well over the course of history, but nevermind; this is what they are talking about when they invoke “personal responsibility.”
It’s the exact opposite of pragmatism.
And if you want to understand why this country is at where it’s at, consider that this is the conservative prescripton for governance: The way things ought to be, as Rush said, rather than the way they are.
But it’s a rather difficult rhetorical trick, because conservatives here have to pretend to be friend to the poor - all the while upbraiding them for their sexual immorality.
