I wish to contend several points that Laura Moore raised Monday in her letter about affordable birth control. First, I understand that a student may have to live from paycheck to paycheck. However, if at the end of her budget calculation (and an actual budget was certainly implied in the letter) she finds that such dire straits have arisen that a choice must be made between dispensing money to either health care or utilities, I would suggest she revises her budget to exclude several trips for sushi. I don't mean to stereotype, but the validity of such an ultimatum is difficult to believe and there are many ways to free up money in the budget: Ride a bike, don't eat out, grow your own vegetables, get your movies from the library, etc.
Second, I'm not sure where the idea came from that when the government spends money it "costs taxpayers nothing."
Where does the government get its money? And for Congress to do something "immediately" would take nothing short of a miracle on the same scale as the miracle millions of Christians celebrated this past Sunday. Finally, I have a hard time imagining America's founding fathers gathering to discuss the formation of a bicameral Congress and apportioning to it the duty of "reducing the rate of unintended pregnancies." I completely support the reduction of the unintended pregnancy rate, but is reliance on our often inept federal government really the only solution to this issue?
