Well yes, and I posted the Scott cartoon link to the Hodgson thread. Just shows you how uncaring and evil the left can be in their War On Women!!
But I still prefer my original suggestion for a different cartoon narrative on the matter:
The scene shows a young women holding a baby, surrounded by several little ones at her feet, looking up at her with sadness. She has bruises on her face (presumably from the guy who left her with the kids).
In front of her are Sue Bradford and Annette King, both holding their hands out in the “Stop Signal” manner and proclaiming: “No free contraceptives for you young lady”.
Pete – Auckland Action Against Poverty spokeswoman Sue Bradford this morning said while the contraception was voluntary, it was “totally unacceptable” for the Government to get involved in women’s reproduction.
“Most New Zealand women will not accept that. It’s because beneficiaries are seen as people who are worth less than others,” she said.
Bradford said the Government was persuading women to take contraception through sanctions, such as having beneficiaries who have an additional child on the benefit to look for work when that child was one.
“We believe that women in this country have the right to control their own reproduction,” she said.
My wife is a midwife – about as pro-women’s rights as you can get. But she heard about this policy and said, “Excellent! That will help a lot of women.” She said that it actually gave more choices and more control to women, not less.
Sue Bradford advocates for who?
There’s a real chance WINZ staff could encourage beneficiaries into using contraceptions, just like there’s a chance they could encourage them to use their benefit, and their accommodation allowance. Maybe there should be no human interface, so there’s no chance of any influence.
pete – you asked “Has Sue Bradford spoken out against free contraception for beneficiaries? Or only against WINZ administering it?”
I just dropped in what she reportedly said. I don’t pretend to understand what she means – who does?
If it is a National idea with the word ‘beneficiary’ in it, she’ll be opposed.
[As for those who call her Phyllis Diller, I think that is utterly insulting to Phyllis Diller, who infinitely more intelligent, coherent and entertaining]
That is the point. Welfare is NOT a good option. It is a life of poverty. It is made worse if the caregiver smokes and drinks which many do. People who are working control their fertility why can’t welfare people. They are bringing children into poverty.
A very good cartoon by Scott. For once, he has put his leftwing views to one side.
There is a lot of truth in what wreck1080 said. “Maybe the rich are rich because they have fewer children.” As the old saying goes: “poverty breeds poverty”.
As for Sue Bradford – she actually **needs** there to be poor people in this country. If everyone were rich, she would have nothing to moan and bitch about, and that would piss her off more than anything else.
I’m not convinced that the offer of free contraception will do much at all.
If a beneficiary gets paid “x” dollars extra per week for having another child, then in 95% of cases that is all that they will think about (and be motivated by). They would never even think about the extra costs involved in caring for the extra child. It’s all about “money up front”.
The more that I look at the so-called “welfare reforms”, the softer they look, and Working for Families is STILL untouched. Bloody ridiculous.
The Government also provides women with maternity care (ie deliveries), pre/post natal care, care for prem babies and Plunket to name a few – all part of the reproductive system – and as a former user of all these services, I certainly appreciate that they were all free and in no way an intrusion or invasion on my and my offsprings’ health and welfare. One of the post-natal services is to ensure that one doesn’t rush into number two, three, four… too quickly. Is Bradford also against this government support?
And to think that the wider use of contraceptives in females in the 60’s was credited for giving women more choices and liberation. It helped fuel the feminist revolution back then – and yet Comrade Sue is now telling us it’s anti choice and anti women? Pull the other one love.
The govt never announced contraception. National announced sterilisation. Far different kettle of fish. and a sign beneficiaries are never going to be able to improve their lot. Plus left in a fourth tier of no benefit, no employment , no hope.