Women on benefits - including teenagers and the daughters of beneficiaries - will be offered free long-term contraception as part of a $287.5 million Budget package for the Government's welfare reforms.
But critics say the measure borders on state control of women's reproductive choices.
It includes $1 million to pay for long-term contraception measures such as implants or intra-uterine devices. Should contraception be free for beneficiaries?
I don't understand the uproar. I thought contraception was already free for most people -if they went through Family Planning.
I know it used to be.
No one is telling poor people that they can't have children - as the extreme lefties like Sue Bradford are claiming. The government is just giving them something that most women require at some point in their lives - for free.
Is there no pleasing these welfare advocates...
I was watching Campbell Live tonight and they interviewed a woman named Shantalle that would have been about 20 - 25 MAX who is on her third pregnancy and on a benefit. Someone needs to explain to her how babies are made.
I wanted to talk to her myself - and explain to her just how expensive kids are once they are teenagers and how it is impossible to pay for everything they need on one income - let alone a benefit. I wanted to tell her how every single cent i have goes to mine. I wanted to tell her how i have not been able to afford new clothes for three years and how i have to keep gluing the soles of my boots back together, and how long my hair is now but that is only because i can only afford one hair cut a year!
I would have told her how every single time i think i might have five dollars for myself - one of my angels puts their hand out for something.
She wouldn't believe me even if i did tell her though. I know i wouldn't have believed how expensive teenagers could be - until it happened to me.
This is giving women like Shantalle an option - a choice - for free.
What on earth is wrong with that...
Gosh - i wish i could afford a new keyboard so that my question mark would work again!
Posts
1 comments:
The problem with this policy is that nothing is voluntary at the WINZ office. That is what advocates are saying, so why isn't this getting through? Just like everything else case managers have at their disposal this policy will be misused and abused. People don't seem to realise that WINZ is both an opponent of beneficiaries as well as quite a sociopathic organisation. The other problem with this policy is it is yet another swipe at beneficiaries by playing up negative popular stereotypes and caricaturing. There are always some people who are going to do stupid things, but in the popular mind this perception of beneficiaries is totally overblown and GROSSLY over-applied. It's always easier to kick people while they are down than to address complex problems. I think the public will always kick the vulnerable because if they can blame the victim it creates some sort of distance between themselves and the circumstances of the person they're chastising - as well as reinforcing their illusions of control over their own lives.
Post a Comment