If sterilization saved more money than passing out free birth control, would you be on board for having a taxpayer program to sterilize those needing taxpayer handouts to survive?
BTW When I say "you" it is not directed at any one person, this is the royal you.
How does the conversation go from a program in Colorado providing low cost birth control to women who want it, to suggesting that we euthanize the elderly and mandatorily sterilizing poor people? That is a combination of the worst slippery slope and straw man arguments ever.
I am with Jon on this one. For a party that prides itself on its strong fiscal principles, the Republicans sure don't look at the financials when it comes to providing birth control and its effect on the number of people who will be on the dole down the line.
Looking for an honest answer here. If the government can spend 10$ to save 1000$(numbers I pulled out of my rear) why shouldn't it do it? Getting up in arms over the fact that it is birth control makes absolutely no sense unless you truly believe that within some relatively short period of time, the welfare state will be dismantled as well as ACA, Medicaid, and Social Security Disability. If you honestly believe that will happen, then your arguments make sense. If however, you take a realistic look at the political environment, and recognize that none of those things are going away any time soon, and at best may be minorly curtailed in their implementation, you are tilting at windmills for the sake of appearing to put up a good fight against those vile commie liberal scum.
So again, why is spending a little to save a lot so foreign? You assume that by not spending the money, that people will change their behavior because some old white dude or lady stood up in front of the legislature and said God was against it. It hasn't worked for the past 40 years, what makes you or anyone on the Republican side think it will all of a sudden start working now?