Oh It’s Good, Good, Good. Like Brigitte Bardot!

Brigitte Bardot responds:

Inflammatory language aside, the argument simply doesn't hold water, for reasons I'll touch on in a moment. There were a flurry of comments on State's argument over on Political Forecast - see Chris Wood's response and the comments thereto. Out of these, Marc D. went farthest in doing actual factual refutation of State's position.

Did anybody read the original story and comprehend what it was about? Here are the finer points from the initial State 29 post. This is all from the Iowa State Daily:

The Iowa Department of Human Services has received approval for a five-year federal project aimed at increasing the number of women receiving family planning services.

Officials view the program, targeted at low-income women, as a means to reducing Medicaid costs...

According to state records, 33 percent of births in Iowa were covered by Medicaid in 2003, or 12,789 out of 38,139 total births in the state.

That was up from 27 percent, or 10,453 births out of 37,610 in the state in 2001...

In a five-year period, federal costs for births in Iowa - which include prenatal care, delivery, pregnancy-related services and services to infants up to age 1 - were estimated to be $568 million without the program.

Federal savings during the program's five years could amount to $11.3 million, according to projections made by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Iowa could also save about half that amount, officials said.

The main point of the program, at least from the Federal angle, is to reduce the number of taxpayer-financed births. The hope is that the Feds reduce their costs by getting more poor women in Iowa checked and, ostensibly, get them on a female-initiated birth control plan. Fewer Fed-paid births equals fewer State-paid bennies down the road.

Can we all agree on that? Good.

If reducing future costs is the goal, then why don't the Feds and the State kick in a little bit more and offer permanent birth control options? Side generally agrees with that one (minus the $2000 rebate option). And yes, tubal ligation is a more invasive procedure than, say, a vasectomy. Perhaps the Big V could be offered to married men? Vasectomies are a relatively cheap and easy procedure to perform. Besides, the guy had his fun. He might as well endure the wearing of a jock and changing gauze for a few weeks until he can bring in a sample that proves his "little boys" are no longer swimming around.

As for all the eugenics nonsense talk that was going around earlier, perhaps those who accused us of dancing close to it should look up who in the United States was subjected to compulsory sterilization in the past before it's trotted out again to make a(n invalid) point.

In closing, the point of the program is to reduce Federal and State costs of bringing another poor child into the world. Right? So all we're asking is that an additional choice be offered.

Choice? Get it? Choice.

Maybe some of you think an incentive from the government is crass, but it's certainly a motivator for some in other areas. Would you be inclined to put money into your 401K without your employer taking it out pre-tax and the government ensuring that any gains remain tax-free until you take it out? Do you think the 77% of college and university students who can't complete an undergraduate degree within four years would continue without Pell Grants and Federally-subsidized student loans with deferred payment plans dangled in front of their faces? How many examples like that do you want? Come on.