The Logical Deficiency of Birth-Control Freedom Fighters

Here is a question I would like to ask of all liberals: What is more important, food or birth control?

At one point in time it would have been hard to fathom a person even hesitating to say food is more important. But now in the 21st century, in this, the Sandra Fluke Dynasty, in which young women (and middle-aged schoolchildren) have a greater obsession with their reproductive organs than do their gentlemen callers, would any of us be surprised to hear a person tell us that birth control is more important than food?

This question of Food vs. Birth Control is non-debatable. Food is absolutely and infinitely more important than birth control, and there can be no argument to the contrary. If you don’t have food, you will literally die. Everyone will die if he does not have food.

Some women may try to argue that it is possible to die at the end of a long string of unfortunate events the initial cause of which was a lack of birth control — her hormones were imbalanced, she became depressed, she committed suicide; or she got pregnant and died during childbirth — but these are rare cases and are not a universally shared problem such as the need for food.

For those liberal folk objective and logical enough to admit that food is more important than birth control, even if they insist that it is only somewhat more important, the question I would ask of them is: Why do you not demand that food be free? See, if, as the liberals argue, birth control is a “right” and should therefore be free because some women need it, then certainly food is a right and should therefore be free because everyone needs it. (“Free” in both cases, as all conservatives understand, does not really mean free, but simply that somebody else pays for it, namely the taxpayers.)

What about water? Why shouldn’t the government pay everybody’s water bill? Water is necessary to live. And housing? Why shouldn’t the government provide everybody with, at minimum, a single-room abode? Shelter is necessary to live. In the face of these hard truths, the plight of the modern-day feminist for birth control and her assertion that it is a right and a necessity is just comical.

One complaint often heard from these Flukians is that Viagra for men is covered by insurance companies.

So? Insurance companies are private businesses paid for with private money. If Company A wants to provide Viagra but not birth control, that’s their business. If Company B wants to provide birth control but not Viagra, that’s their business. And if Company C wants to provide neither birth control nor Viagra, but instead provide cigarettes, that’s their business. They are not subsidized by the taxpayer, so the taxpayer has no stake, no say, and no business meddling. Viagra is not currently provided by Medicare or Medicaid or any other taxpayer-funded insurance provided, so why the complaint? It seems in my mind to be pure envy that drives their argument.

If ever the day did come that taxpayers are funding Viagra, well, I would join the feminists in the fight to stop that. That is, if they themselves would join the fight. As it stands, the feminists’ proposal is not that the government should not be subsidizing Viagra (which the government doesn’t), but that the government should also subsidize birth control. This is a backwards solution that reveals envy as their motivator. The true solution is not additional spending to cover birth control, but to cut spending and cover neither birth control nor Viagra. Especially considering that America has no money. What we spend money on, China is actually paying for, and that just increases our debt to them.

So come on, liberals. Quit joking around and get serious. If food, water, and shelter are not funded by taxpayers, which they can’t be because the money to pay for it does not exist, then birth control cannot be paid for by taxpayers. It’s time to be the strong, independent, self-reliant woman your feminist forebears wanted you to be.