Emma Apkan is a self-professed reproductive rights advocate. In plain English, that means that she thinks US taxpayers should bear the economic burden for her birth control. The opening line from her recent column “The GOP health bill is an attack on our sexual rights” reads:
“When the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the bill to repeal the current health-care law, passed the U.S. House, my first thought was: [expletive deleted], would I have to stop having sex?”
Not “Will I have to pay for my own birth control?”
Not “Should I use some other form of birth control?”
Not even “Should I reevaluate my budget to see where that extra $30 will come from?”
No, it was “Would I have to stop having sex?”
Apparently Ms. Apkan doesn’t realize that the only logical conclusion to be reached from her statement is that she expects the US government to subsidize her desire to have sex. Either that, or she’s perfectly fine with a government entity – and by extension, US taxpayers – subsidizing her personal desire.
The obvious question, of course, is for which other desires she would advocate subsidies. Cigarette after dinner? Coffee in the morning? Roses from the boyfriend, perhaps? Maybe the higher-end cell phone?
Ms. Apkan further notes that
Having to rethink my options is unfortunate for a number of reasons, not least of which because it invalidates my choice both to have a sex life in spite of my abstinence-only upbringing and to overcome the shame and stigma of using contraception.
In other words, she thinks it’s the responsibility of the US government – and again, by extension, US taxpayers – to “validate” her choice to abandon her upbringing and to help her “overcome shame and stigma”.
I hate to be difficult, but could someone please remind me which article of the Constitution says that?
Apkan goes on to decry the fact that her IUD will soon need to be replaced and that “it could cost me $1000 for a replacement.”
News flash for Ms. Apkan: Whether it’s you or not, it’s going to cost someone.
Here’s a suggestion for Ms. Apkan: Aside from helping to keep you from producing offspring of similar political bent, the American taxpayer receives absolutely no benefit from subsidizing your sexual appetite. But your boyfriend does. If you can’t stomach the thought of shelling out $1000 for that IUD replacement, maybe you should ask him to split the cost with you. Given the lifespan of the typical hormonal IUD, that comes to about $14 per month for each of you.
So once a month the two of you share a dinner out instead of ordering separate entrees. I think you’ll manage.
Even better … you probably have some extended family members who would – like you – prefer you wait until you are “ready” to have children. How about asking them to contribute to the cause?
Oh, you say they wouldn’t want to pay for you to be able to have sex with your boyfriend outside marriage? I’m sincerely glad to hear that you’d honor their position by not asking them to enable behavior with which they disagree.
How about extending the same courtesy to the rest of us?