More punishment for sex
Seems like I just wrote about this kind of thing but here we are again with wingnuts killing a program that had a proven track record in reducing teen pregnancy.
Investing in free or reduced cost birth-control is a win-win in that it helps poor or young people from having accidental children, and it also saves states money that it does not have to spend on food-stamps, low-income aid and medicaid.
Supporters of the bill say it actually prevents abortions, with state health officials estimating that the program would prevent about 4,300 abortions per year. They also point out that for every $1 invested in low-cost contraception, Colorado taxpayers save about $5.85 in Medicaid costs.
So why would a party that claims it is for fiscal responsibility cut such a great cost savings investment??
Because some wingnuts are worried about the "moral hazard" of people having sex.
"With incentives, we know that if you subsidize something, you get more of it; and moral hazards refers to the propensity of people engaging in riskier behavior when shielded or insured against risk."
Some people think that offering free or reduced cost contraceptives would encourage sex since they would not risk the punishment of unplanned pregnancies.
“So in this scenario, the government is subsidizing sex… because a woman typically doesn’t get birth control to hold hands and watch re-runs of ‘Gilligan’s Island.’”
So without the threat of unplanned pregnancies, people might enjoy sex and thus might try it out... and we can not let that happen. now can we...