"There's a lot of women that get Medicaid and all of this stuff and I don't think that's right,” said Rachel Sanchez of Freer, Texas.The other lady that commented for the story stated that such help would be "used irresponsibly." Her concern seems to stem from a religious point of view since she goes on to question the value that people put on a human life.
Ms. Sanchez is pretty blunt in her suggestion but both individuals are basically penalizing women for being poor.
Via the Express News:
“To prevent pregnancy is not to prevent a disease — indeed, contraception and sterilization pose their own unique and serious health risks to the patient,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote in letter to the Department of Health and Human Services in October.Pregancy is not a disease, but a woman's health is certainly affected by pregnancy. I understand that those who are driven by a religious faith are going to come out against this but how does that fit in to the local culture? Think of your friends and family who go to church but aren't exactly a mirror image of the Duggar family. My point is that birth control is more accepted in our culture; it's not in keeping with what religious tenets dictate. But I digress.
The legislation, authored by Senator Barbara Mikulski, looks to give women of lesser means the option of reproductive freedom generally afforded by most. It's preventative care that enables a woman to have more control over her life. Because some have more trouble in making ends meet doesn't mean that they don't deserve the same rights as others. The scorn will come from opposing sides. What's missing from the debate is the true value of a woman's health and the cost associated with it.