Because state family planning funds only go to pay for the hedonistic lifestyles of Wild Party Girls Who Have Irresponsible Sex All The Time And Want You To Pay For Their Contraceptives (And Sex Toys and Booze and Lube and Drugs).
As opposed to women who cannot afford contraception, even married women perhaps.
And, regardless, what's the result of the county's policy? If we posit that, as was testified to, there are "patients that were not being responsible with existing family planning that was being offered," then the result here is unwanted pregnancies, possibly abortions, or else children brought into the world by irresponsible (and possibly single) mothers.
I'm sure that pleases some great Karmic Judgment Gene on the part of the county commissioners, but it doesn't seem terribly productive, or even moral. #ddtb
Embedded Link
New Hanover Commissioners choose not to accept family planning funds | Cape Fear Watchdog$
Following opinions on public funding of contraceptives, the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners unanimously voted to turn down a state family plannin
I want to meet the commenter named Charlie. He gives good rebuttal.
Let’s see if I get this correctly. I won’t even get to the rape/incest examples. A woman gets wheedled by her fiancé until she finally gives in. She’s only had abstinence-only sex ed. She gets pregnant because she doesn’t know about birth control, and he’s too much of a jerk to use a condom. She lets him know she’s pregnant, and suddenly, he’s relocated without forwarding address…Yup, she sure was irresponsible.
Not. IMNSHO, the people who made abstinence-only the only sex ed she got are responsible for her not having the info she needed to protect herself in just this instance.
@Marina – The obvious answer is that she shouldn’t have spread her legs, the little slut, until she was actually married. Problem solved. As for the resulting baby, well, that’s a whole lemons-lemonade thing. Also, not society’s responsibility, either.
And we all know that only unmarried women want to use contraception. Oh….wait…in Griswold v Connecticut the Supreme Court invalidated the law (against the purchase of contraception) on the grounds that it violated the “right to marital privacy”. Perhaps married couples do use contraception, after all?
@Ellie – Only if they are EVIL married couples. And if they’re married, then the husband should have a good-paying job to afford contraceptives (assuming we’ll keep them legal) or else to support the large, happy, quiverfull family that will result from their marital obligations to one another.