Government should not fund contraception

When I read Megan Graham’s Aug. 26 column, “Sound policy requires more than fury to develop,” at first I couldn’t figure out where she was going with her tales of excessive running. I read on, and then I saw them, those buzz words people like to throw out there like burning matchsticks ready to start a firestorm: “Women’s reproductive autonomy.”

As I continued reading, I learned about the economics of having babies, the right to decide when and how many babies to have, how it’s cheaper to buy a condom or birth-control pills than it is to have a child. I kept reading, waiting for the really good part where she would write about the personal responsibly of women of child-bearing age, the part where she places the burden of preventing unwanted pregnancies on the person rather than society, but I never read that. What I did read was that providing contraception is “the right thing to do.”

We all know drunken-driving kills. Would banning alcohol be the right thing to do? We know speeding wastes gas and increases the risk of serious accidents. Should we mandate a maximum speed of 30 mph because it’s the right thing to do?

What some of us are saying is, “we don’t want to be forced to pay for someone else’s lifestyle choices regarding reproduction.”

Before society starts taxing its citizens for something, shouldn’t we be sure it really is the right thing to do?

Bob Pfeiffer

Durango