Feminism is Fiscally Conservative

This may surprise some people, but for most it’s a no brainer: having a baby is more expensive than taking birth control. When you multiply those expenses nationally, these savings can be even more substantial. However, because rights to access birth control and contraception are constantly being challenged and eroded in some states, tax payers are paying the higher costs associated with unplanned pregnancies, rather than for preventative measures.

According to a new report compiled by Guttmacher, in 2008, 2 of 3 unplanned pregnancies resulted in births that were publicly funded, and the combined cost of all those births was $12.5 billion. Overall, more than half (65%) of births that were paid for by public insurance programs were the result of unplanned pregnancies. The study contends that this is the result of low access to birth control and abortion for poor women in states that spend a significant amount of money paying for prenatal, hospital, and post birth care for unplanned children.

Keep in mind that these costs do not take into account later, taxpayer-funded government care, like public school and food stamps.

The study also states that in the absence of the publicly funded family planning effort, the annual public costs of births from unintended pregnancy would have been twice as high — $25 BILLION.

As Erin Gloria Ryan from Jezebel adeptly points out, “the public must either bear the cost of preventing pregnancy, bear the cost of unplanned pregnancy, or allow poor women to bleed and die in the street. Which one is the most pro-life and fiscally conservative?”

When women want access to birth control and other medical services, it’s in the best interest of the country that they have that access. People, regardless of whether or not they can afford children, are going to have sex; and if a person doesn’t want a child, why make them have one? Therefore, a person who believes in freedom from government interference and fiscal responsibility then has the same goal as a feminist: allowing all women access to choice.

The study can be reviewed here: www.guttmacher.org/pubs/public-costs-of-UP.pdf

Sunday Funday: Halloween Costumes and the Objectification of Women

Sunday Funday: Halloween Costumes and the Objectification of Women

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KM3XNhEmdE

Admittedly, this edition of Sunday Funday’s link to public policy may be a bit tenuous; however, the video above from The Daily Show discusses the objectification of women in the context of “sexy” Halloween costumes. Jon Stewart spoke with The Daily Show’s Senior Women’s Issues Correspondent, Kristen Schaal, about this seasonal issue.

For more public policy related video/audio, be sure to check out the SLACE Archive.

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KM3XNhEmdE

Admittedly, this edition of Sunday Funday’s link to public policy may be a bit tenuous; however, the video above from The Daily Show discusses the objectification of women in the context of “sexy” Halloween costumes. Jon Stewart spoke with The Daily Show’s Senior Women’s Issues Correspondent, Kristen Schaal, about this seasonal issue.

Sunday Funday: Halloween Costumes and the Objectification of Women

The Ivory Tower: Are Democrats Serious About Budget Cutting?

Ivory Tower: Are Democrats Serious About Budget Cutting?

This was one of the questions being discussed on WCNY’s The Ivory Tower.

This edition of The Ivory Tower, hosted by David Rubin, Dean of the Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, featured a powerhouse panel including of Lisa Dolak (Syracuse University College of Law), Bob Spitzer (SUNY Cortland), Bob Greene (Cazenovia College), Tara Ross (Onondaga County Community College), and Kristi Andersen (Syracuse University).

The panel also discussed a program proposed by Governor Cuomo aimed at boosting tourism in Upstate New York with adds in New York City.

Here is a description of the program:

The panelists assess whether Democrats want to strike a budget-cutting bargain with the Republicans. The the panelists provide suggestions to Gov. Cuomo for how to spend tourism money to attract New York City residents Upstate.

 

Ideology in the Supreme Court

During its October 2012 term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a number of high-profile cases, including cases on voting rights and same-sex marriage. The Court decided these and a number of other cases – 23 in all this term – by 5-4 (or 5-3) majorities. The “conservative bloc” members – Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito – were in the majority (with Justice Kennedy) in 10 of these 23 cases. And indeed the Court’s conservatives frequently vote to decide cases in the same way. For example, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito agreed in 90% of all the Court’s cases this term, and Justices Scalia and Thomas agreed in 86%.

But the same (or even higher) levels of agreement were seen this term among the Court’s “liberal” justices: Justices Breyer and Kagan agreed in 91% of the cases, and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor agreed in 94%. The four members of the liberal wing voted as a bloc in most (17) of the 5-justice majority decisions, as did the four conservative justices (in 16 of the 23). And we see similar levels of agreement among the justices each year.

Ideological voting, in other words, is a two-way street. Liberal justices and conservative justices tend to vote with their ideological fellow travelers. The media often oversimplify this phenomenon by suggesting that a given justice’s vote is attributable to the political affiliation of the president who made the particular judicial appointment. But the reality is more complex and less sinister. Although decisions are to be made in accordance with the law, in most cases sound arguments can be made for differing interpretations of the relevant legal principles. And the suggestion that the justices simply do the bidding of their appointers ignores the fact that judges (like the rest of us) have distinct, sincerely-held political and constitutional philosophies, and that they (legitimately) bring those approaches to bear on the questions they decide.

The percentage of decisions made by a 5-justice majority during the recent term (29%) is slightly higher than the recent (previous four terms) average (of 22%). But significantly more (49%) of the Court’s decisions this year were unanimous. With all of the media focus on the justices’ disagreements, it is important to recognize that in most cases, the much-publicized right-left Supreme Court divide is bridged.

This piece was originally published in the September/October issue of WCNY Magazine.

For more from Professor Dolak, check out the recent SLACE Archive post about her appearance on WCNY‘s The Ivory Tower as well as her regular appearances on the program Friday nights at 8PM.