FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 10/02/2002 6:43:02 AM PDT by areafiftyone
The Bush administration has agreed to let the state expand a program that uses federal Medicaid money to provide free birth control and condoms to low-income New Yorkers, the Daily News has learned.
As many as 800,000 more New Yorkers will be eligible for the expanded free family planning services - although federal officials estimate that only 18,000 additional women and men actually will seek them each year.
The Department of Health and Human Services waiver culminates a protracted lobbying battle by Gov. Pataki, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, other members of New York's congressional delegation and family-planning advocates.
"It's an enormous breakthrough," said Joanne Smith, an Albany-based lobbyist for family planning services.
The Bush administration had been portrayed as ideologically opposed to expanding government-funded contraceptive services.
But federal officials denied that yesterday, insisting that their only concern was that any expansion of family planning services would include other health care, such as access to a primary-care doctor. The New York waiver does this, they said.
In addition to providing contraception, the family planning services available under the program include breast and cervical cancer screenings and prevention and treatment of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases. Abortions are not covered.
The waiver is the kind of issue that can help an incumbent like Pataki in an election year, especially as he tries to downplay his Republican label and appeal to female voters. Pataki aide Robert Hinckley said it will "help ensure healthier children and stronger families."
Clinton praised Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and called the waiver approval "a victory for thousands of New York women."
The waiver allows anyone earning up to 200% of the federal poverty level to be eligible. For example, a woman in a family of two earning up to $23,880 could receive coverage without paying premiums.
In any case, do you this is something that needs to be subsidized by yours and my tax dollars? Are you truly a conservative?
Somebody please tell us this one was a better choice than Gore? Constant reminders are necessary.
z
"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers." -- Aristotle, who thoroughly disapproved full democracy."Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms." -- Aristotle
Aristotle understood very well the nature of governments, and the nature of the despotism into which the US is now descending.
Both the Republican and Democrat parties are fully part of the problem, not the solution. They both seek to give the people what they want. A very big mistake.
Republicans have sponsored increases and incremental expansion of socialist programs all along.
Adults learn to judge men by their actions, not by their words.
" "Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the arguement of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." ~~William Pitt
I agree with that. However, this should be a decision made by, and financed by, individual states or communities.
An interesting perspective, but again, in the reality of the nation and society today flawed. Why? Simple, because the cost of those illegitimate and poor children will not be carried soley by the communities and states that decide not to provide birth control. THe only way you can allow it to be a state or community issue is if that state or community is willing to cover all costs related to the decision made, and you know damned well if states/communities had to self fund all welfare and social programs most would be bankrupt in a matter of weeks.
Federal government cannot allow children to just die in the street from exposure and starvation, no matter what a state or local community may decide.
Why not? Why is it the job of taxpayers to foot the bill to provide condom and diaphram giveaways to gangmembers and promiscuous teens, especially when such handouts only encourage MORE sex? Why as a taxpayer do I have to foot the bill for Eduardo to feel free to have some fun with his homey girlfriend Lateesha?
The bottom line is - this is government handouts of the most blatant, liberal sort. And 'conservatives' who support this need to ask what sort of 'conservatism' they truly believe in.
The end result will be the same amount of illegimate children being born, and a even more debauched inner city than we have now.
What's wrong with having the state finance these situations? There'd more likely be a solution if the federal government stopped handing out money for social issues.
Why not?
Your very question shows you to not understand the very foundations of society and citizenry. And you also missed the "Promote the general welfare" clause of the preamble of the constitution as well. No government or society that has the means and ability can stand by allow its child populations to die in the streets of exposure and starvation. That is the behavior of despots and tyrants, not societies. You obviously don't have the most basic understandings of what a society is, and certainly have no concept of what citizenship means.
The "conservatives" who say its ok for children to die in the streets because of the actions of their parents, really needs to not only ask themselves what sort of "conservative" they are, but more importantly what kind of citizen and human being they are. Just because one is conservative does not make one exempt from duties of citizenship and society. I am so sick of "conservatives" who think Anarchy and Selfishness is conservatism.
I see, so your argument is that never has a condom used by a poor or uneducated person ever prevented a pregnancy? Or prevented the spread of a disease? You think that condom access is going to increase the promiscuity among the lower classes? Your argument is ludicrous. You don't like paying for the BC, that's fine, hey, fine.. but reality is you will be paying for the kid or the health care for the infected person. Even if success rate is only 10% you are still saving BILLIONS of dollars a year in social programs. I am not arguing whether its a great thing or not, I am simply stating fact, take your pic... you view the .50 as another .50 on top off the other monies, I see 1 prevented pregnancy or HIV infection more than covering the condom program nationally over the course of lifetime costs of the alternative making up more than the cost of the program.
You can wish for a world to your liking, but it won't change what is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.