Ok, let’s say you with your spouse, or I with my spouse, or somebody else with their spouse, in coming to agreement on family planning, arrives at the decision that you/we/they do not want to have a child at the present time. Isn’t it natural that you/we/they go out and buy contraceptives? If I and a spouse decide that we won’t have kids now, I’m not going to expect that the federal government will issue my wife the pill or issue me a pack of condoms. That’s something I can buy when I go get toilet paper, or vitamins, or laundry detergent. What’s the big deal?

If the community has a need for free contraceptive distribution, because of poverty or some other factor, then the local government can procure it for distribution through their health department or other designated distribution point. If the citizens of a community petition a school board to have free contraceptives available to the students in the school nurses office, then let the school board make the purchase. I think most communities wouldn’t make that request of their school board, but, if the community thought the need was urgent enough, it would be handled at the local level, not the federal level.

I’ve also been on the record in opposition to government funding of faith-based initiatives, so you’ll get no argument from me on that score. I’m not even sure why you bring it up in the context of this discussion.

I acknowledge that, though the ideal is for every adult to be informed, and for all adults to inform their families, there are a majority of communities that don’t meet up to the ideal, as ignorance of reproductive choices can be spotted in many communities. Thus, education about human reproduction is mandated for school instruction virtually anywhere one looks. I’m not saying that there’s a problem with that. What I am saying, though, is that such programs, if they are to be optimally effective, are community-based, and are best provisioned at local and state levels. If handled at the federal government level, a scattershot, less-targeted effect is likely to result. Community needs are not uniform across the United States. I don’t see the wisdom of assigning such a role to the federal government.

The book I recommended by Dr. Miriam Grossman is not a religious view of sex ed. It’s a physician’s view of sex ed.

Did Boehner oppose the spending on contraceptives at the federal level because he’s advocating religion? I thought his argument was that it’s not an economic stimulus.

There are some local governments that buy contraceptives to distribute for free. I don’t think Boehner said anything about putting a halt to that. I think he just questioned what the federal government was doing by procuring boatloads of contraceptives. For the record, if I were a local government official and the community expressed a heartfelt desire for free contraceptive distribution, I’d be much more inclined to approve of the expenditure at the local level than I would at the federal level if I were a member of Congress making federal appropriations. I just don’t see this as part and parcel of the role of federal government.

I don’t think we had injected any religion into this discussion, did we? Hasn’t our discussion been totally secular?

I think I’m confused, because I don’t know the connection between scriptural citations inscribed on a gun sight and what we’ve been discussing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/trijicon-will-remove-secr_n_432349.html

Daniel – this is opening a HUGE Pandora’s box of suggesting that we review EVERYTHING that the Feds given money to re: what it procures for citizens.

I’m very against the faith-based and community-initiative office. Citizens can procure faith on their own too. (JUST AN EXAMPLE – no time to explore further in lots of comments – but I would love to sometime)

We agree on this, really: “The key is having informed citizens, and the responsibility starts with oneself, then spreads to one’s family, and, if it’s clear that knowledge still hasn’t fully propagated, to one’s community.”

But we must acknowledge and cannot ignore that for those citizens who remain uninformed or choose to not educate their kids or follow the education, the broader community winds up paying one way or another, and the innocent kids that are born also often suffer from this reality.

It is in all citizens’ best interest that there be a national tone set focused exactly on what you and I agree on, in recognition of the reality that not all citizens take the actions we wish they would and then the consequences affect us all.

That is reality – I’m not saying it’s the best or the preference.

I’m laughing so hard – they are separate – completely don’t belong in the same sentence but with this lengthy thread now things are getting conflating – and I’m not necessarily innocent in that.

My point of the post was that Planned Parenthood wouldn’t be stepping up its education steps if folks like Boehner didn’t talk about contraception with such contempt. My point about Iran was that the danger in a knee-jerk policy of just “Ban Contraception!” is that it’s completely unrealistic and is unlikely to achieve whatever contorted goal might be devised to justify it.

That’s all.

Education is good- getting from the family is good – getting from outside the family is necessary as reinforcement – suggesting that our government has no role in supporting these things is unrealistic.

Global kinds of thoughts – no darts at any one thing in particular.

Does that help at all?