a tale of morality and higher education?
 

Wisconsin lawmakers move to ban morning-after pill at state universities

By Ryan J. Foley
The Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. – The Wisconsin Assembly approved a ban on the so-called morning-after pill on state college campuses, a restriction that would be the first in the nation if approved.

The vote in the lower chamber late Thursday sends the bill to the state Senate; both are controlled by Republicans. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle said he will veto the measure if it reaches his desk.

The legislation would prohibit University of Wisconsin System health centers from advertising, prescribing or dispensing emergency contraception — drugs that can block a pregnancy in the days after sex. The state university system has 161,000 students on 26 campuses.

Republican Rep. Daniel LeMahieu introduced the bill after a health clinic serving UW-Madison students published ads in campus newspapers inviting students to call for prescriptions for the drug to use on spring break.

"Are we going to change the lifestyle of every UW student? No," LeMahieu said. "But we can tell the university that you are not going to condone it, you are not going to participate in it, and you are not going to use our tax dollars to do it."

Democrats said the bill would deny rape victims a chance to stop pregnancies and predicted it would lead to more unwanted pregnancies and surgical abortions.

Democratic Rep. Marlin Schneider called the measure "a direct frontal assault on the right to privacy, on the right of free speech, on the right of a free press."

"Apparently some in this body want to take us back to the time when the dispensing of contraception was a criminal act," Schneider said.

The morning-after pill, a heavy dosage of hormonal birth control, can work to prevent a pregnancy up to five days after unprotected sex by preventing ovulation or fertilization. UW students can get the drug at discount rates from campus pharmacies funded by student fees.

The drug, which requires a prescription, was approved as a contraceptive in 1998 by the Food and Drug Administration.

LeMahieu said the bill would not affect traditional birth control pills. Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager said the bill was worded too vaguely to know for sure.

The Assembly vote made Wisconsin the first state to seriously consider banning emergency contraception on college campuses, said Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state legislation at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a think tank that supports abortion rights. Bills in Virginia have died in the past two years.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002339380_webpill17.html

Why should the taxpayers pay for this.....I have no problems with it being legal....but I have a problem with my tax dollars going to pay for it. And if Universities are handing them out its my tax dollars that is paying for it.

I. The phrase 'your tax dollars' is a contradiction. "Your tax dollars" are no longer under your control after they are paid/ deducted. It's no longer your money, you can't track it nor decide where or when it's spent. It's like claiming ownership of the money you used to pay last month's phone bill.

II. There's no reason this contraception shouldn't be made available to students. I doubt LeMahieu's concerns about spending 'tax dollars' -- his objection is ethical. He is hardly the first in his attempt legislate people's reproductive practices. Why deny a certain med to a certain group of people? Would they try cutting meds from seniors? Of course not, seniors have a strong lobby and voter turnout. Young adults do not.

Its still my money and as a taxpayer I do have a say...

THese kids want to get drunk and attend gang-bangs then let their parents or better yet let the students pay for it out of pocket.

Nobody is denying them acess...if they want it they can pay for it...they have no rights to a free get out of jail pill after screwing the entire sports team.

Of course there is a reason. It's not a reason that persuades you, but how can you say that there is no reason?
What's wrong with basing a law on ethics? Plenty of laws are based on ethics.

You want to pay $1 to prevent a pregnancy or $50 to take care of it after she gets pregnant. Your call. It is going to happen. Bury your head in the sand till doomsday and it will happen and we will have to pay for it. This is like car maintenance. You want to pay $20 for an oil change every 3000 miles or however much for an R&R of your engine and a new engine not to mention the inconvenience.

SHe is in college...she is an adult...her responsibility.....not the taxpayers. If she has money to go to college and she has money to get drunk then she has money to buy the pill.

THe only thing the taxpayers should pay for is to have her sterilized. Thats a one time expense.

I agree. However, adult or not, if she cheaps out, we will be left holing the bag. For what it takes the taxpayers to pay for the pills, it is a cheap price to pay when a baby pops out and she cannot support it. In an ideal world, your answer is right. Once she gets pregnant, you can argue about your fault, my fault, her fault, nobody's fault all you want. We know that we will end up footing the bill for another 18 years.

Why should the taxpayer support it....current welfare rules mean that is unlikely....10 years ago your arguement was correct.

I still say...if she wants sterilised fine...but for the pill..any pill any person with resources for college has the ability to buy....

I will argue for making the pills availible to the public....but I will argue against making them availible at taxpayer expense.

So, if she gets pregnant and cannot afford to have the baby and doesn't want to abort or adopt, who would end up paying for it? If she takes the kid to the ER and cannot pay, who pays for it?

You do realize that without the pill you'll have several more liberals running around in the future.....Tax and spend!

id rather "my tax dollars" were being spent on this than squandered in iraq. :rolleyes:

Forget the university connection.

Does society have an obligation, through taxation, to provide healthcare of whatever sort to anybody?

Put another way, who is willing to let widows and orphans die in the street for want of healthcare?

Or put a third way, where does it say that I am obligated to support a freeloader?

I want my tax dollars spent on smart bombs not dumb people.

She supports it or puts it up for adoption.

First lesson in life mommy and daddy should have taught her is being responsible for ones own actions.