Who Cares?


Sometimes I wonder: Do any of my elected officials really care what I think? Sure, I can write or call, but every time I write or call, I hear about his/her conservative values and that he/she does "not support the use of abortion." One of the most frustrating feelings is knowing that the politicians who are supposed to represent me disagree with almost everything I believe.

This could be why unmarried women are not voting in numbers as high as their married counterparts – the issues and concerns that are important to them are marginalized in legislative priorities. Although altogether women vote in higher numbers than men, unmarried women are still underrepresented in voter turnout and seem to be a low priority for campaigning politicians. One reason could be that unmarried women make less money than married couples (assuming two incomes are greater than one) and so are not targeted by politicians because they are seen as unlikely donors.

Enter the birth control crisis. Since issues and concerns that are important to unmarried women are often marginalized by legislators, it is no surprise that Congress recessed last month without fixing the birth control crisis. That's not to say that some legislators did not give fixing the problem a good, honest try – for example Obama (D-IL), Crowley (D-NY) and Lowey (D-NY), who introduced the Prevention Through Affordable Access bill. But in the end, the simple fix that would have corrected the problem got lost somewhere in the goal of passing the omnibus spending bill without a veto threat from President Bush.

So, what happens now to the millions of unmarried, underrepresented women affected by this birth control crisis? Until Congress reconvenes on January 15, there is not much that can be done – even then, who knows how long it will be until a fix is passed. So, some of us will continue paying triple what we paid last year for birth control, while others will buy condoms and cross their fingers. Let's hope that all of us will register to vote and vow to vote for the candidates who listen to us and value what we have to say.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • http://www.caitlainscorner.com invalid-0

    why I have advocated research into finding a safe, simple, and effective way to carry out one’s own abortion. If we can figure out a safe way to allow a woman to effectuate an abortion, using commercially available materials that can’t be easily regulated, the subject of abortion would go away insofar as it exists as a political issue. We wouldn’t have all of these stupid politicians cowtowing to the loud mouthed conservatives and trying to either take away the right or restrict it as much as they “politically” can.

    You’re not going to find politicians in any place openly advocating the unresticted right to choose, and doing what I am suggesting would make politicians irrelevant to the entire concept of abortion (like they are in many other countries). Sadly, it doesn’t appear such a solution would be possible for BC so long as it remained a prescription medication.

    Women’s reproductive health should not be a political issue.

  • invalid-0

    Many congressman live in fear of retaliation by clergy who influence the views of their flocks. It is possible that many clergy are not being honest in why they oppose abortion. For centuries, it has been taboo to suggest that the clergy were even capable of doing anything wrong. But, now we all know that if plumbers had the same percentage of known pedophiles as the clergy that we would still be using outhouses.

    Over the years, I have heard the same story from many adoptive families. They did not have to pay anything for their adoptive children but they had to prove their worthiness by making a huge donation after regularly attending church at least weekly and tithing more than ten percent. Some also mentioned a probationary period after the adoption with more weekly “donations”. The amount of money a church makes from a baby is huge, somewhat hidden, and not taxed.

    People making just mininum wage are not going to qualify to get a baby. But, as an example, say a working couple both made minimum wage of $11440 per year. The church would harvest almost $2300 the year before and $2300 the year after. I believe that the “donation” for my two blond and blue eyed cousins in 1962 was $10,000 each or 2 upscale sedans (oldmobiles) or about $50,000 per child in todays cash.

    There are no laws requiring the disclosure of money received from churches selling babies. The more money that a church makes, the easier it is for the clergy to skim off large sums but still appear to be “charitable”. It does not pay for churches to help the needy too much. Women from financially strapped situations are much easier prey and less likely to be informed about birth control or to be able to afford it.

    If you have the resources, I believe that the best thing that you can do for women’s rights is to investigate completely how much money that the churches make from opposing abortion and harvesting the babies for sale. Then make churches accountable by removing special laws that prevent their huge profits from being taxed. If the church had to pay a tax on their sale of babies, there would probably be enough cash for free birth control for all.

    There will always be babies born in situations where the baby will need adoption. However, it should be the mother’s decision. As long as the church helps keep the armed forces full, you are going to have a tough time getting the government to support abortions.

    While there are atheists in the military who fight for ethical reasons, the armed forces relies on the church to keep most of the forces feeling invulnerable and ready to walk into suicidal situations. The church also benefits by their families attending church and the heavy giving that often accompanies having a loved one in harms way.

    The people controlling the anti-abortion front are just in it for money and power. The only way to get to them is to follow the money.