Supports federal funding for contraception?

[Brett85]

What does Gary Johnson mean here? The whole debate over "contraception" has simply been whether the government should fund it, and whether Catholic organizations should be forced to cover it in their health care plans. This is a really bizare statement by Governor Johnson.

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/02/25/gary-johnson-and-the-possibilities-of-a-third-party-candidacy/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway

"He defends a woman’s right to abortion, and clearly would have offered an alternative view during this month’s Republican discussion of contraception.

“It occurs to me that contraception ultimately leads to less abortion. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have no contraception and no abortion, in my estimation,” Johnson said. “I would think that those that are pro-life would kind of embrace that notion. But they don’t.”

[Feeding the Abscess]

I don't think he's advocating for government funding for contraception, but he has in the past advocated for public funding of various things connected to healthcare.

I wouldn't be completely surprised if he does support funding for contraception.

[W_BRANDON]

Gary Johnson is part of the same tired and corrupt establishment Libertarian crowd that make a lot of noice but never get around to actually postively affecting policy. GJ is a fake, a phony, a fraud. He and his big name libertarian backers are perfectly happy with the status quo, don't let them fool you.

[69360]

Makes sense to me. Lots of people are pro-life and for contraception. I am.

I didn't see anything in there about publicly funding it?

[Brett85]

Makes sense to me. Lots of people are pro-life and for contraception. I am.

I didn't see anything in there about publicly funding it?

He was criticizing the Republican Party's stance on contraception, and the Republican Party doesn't support banning contraception as far as I know. The entire issue is simply whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for it, and whether it's something that Catholic organizations should be forced to cover in their health care plans. I would think that someone like Gary Johnson who believes in "individual liberty" shouldn't have any problem with the GOP's opposition to federal funding and federal involvement in the contraception issue.

[Feeding the Abscess]

He was criticizing the Republican Party's stance on contraception, and the Republican Party doesn't support banning contraception as far as I know. The entire issue is simply whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for it, and whether it's something that Catholic organizations should be forced to cover in their health care plans. I would think that someone like Gary Johnson who believes in "individual liberty" shouldn't have any problem with the GOP's opposition to federal funding and federal involvement in the contraception issue.

He may have been responding to Rick Santorum's statements that say contraception is wrong and shouldn't be permitted.

[69360]

He was criticizing the Republican Party's stance on contraception, and the Republican Party doesn't support banning contraception as far as I know. The entire issue is simply whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for it, and whether it's something that Catholic organizations should be forced to cover in their health care plans. I would think that someone like Gary Johnson who believes in "individual liberty" shouldn't have any problem with the GOP's opposition to federal funding and federal involvement in the contraception issue.

I didn't get from the article's quotes that he was for public funding of it.

[Brett85]

He may have been responding to Rick Santorum's statements that say contraception is wrong and shouldn't be permitted.

I hope that's the case. It would be pretty strange for a libertarian to be opposed to cutting off federal funding for contraception.

[Brett85]

I didn't get from the article's quotes that he was for public funding of it.

This quote just seemed strange to me:

"and clearly would have offered an alternative view during this month’s Republican discussion of contraception."

The discussion was primarily about whether the federal government should fund contraception or not.

[bluesc]

I hope that's the case. It would be pretty strange for a libertarian to be opposed to cutting off federal funding for contraception.

Maybe Johnson isn't a libertarian?

He's a fiscally conservative Democrat.

[erowe1]

With GJ, the most important positions he holds are his socially liberal ones. Anything about "smaller government" takes a back seat to those.

[JK/SEA]

i'll support federal funding for this the minute we cut 500 billion from the military budget.

[Brett85]

i'll support federal funding for this the minute we cut 500 billion from the military budget.

So you would support federal funding for something that's not authorized in the Constitution?

[69360]

So you would support federal funding for something that's not authorized in the Constitution?

Lots of people do, politics isn't perfect. It takes time to undo what's been done. Ron's budget plan doesn't stop funding things that aren't authorized.

With the undeclared wars ended, we could fund some social programs. It's a humane compromise.

[Brett85]

Lots of people do, politics isn't perfect. It takes time to undo what's been done. Ron's budget plan doesn't stop funding things that aren't authorized.

With the undeclared wars ended, we could fund some social programs. It's a humane compromise.

Yes, we could fund some things like Medicare and Social Security, but we're talking about contraception here. Why should the government steal money out of my pocket and give it to women to spend on contraception? Why should something like contraception be "a right?"

[69360]

Yes, we could fund some things like Medicare and Social Security, but we're talking about contraception here. Why should the government steal money out of my pocket and give it to women to spend on contraception? Why should something like contraception be "a right?"

Medicare is more or less indiscriminate spending in reality. You can't fund it and reasonably expect to stop the funds being spent on birth control.

Ending the wars and funding some social programs in the short run is a reasonable compromise.

[Brett85]

Medicare is more or less indiscriminate spending in reality. You can't fund it and reasonably expect to stop the funds being spent on birth control.

Ending the wars and funding some social programs in the short run is a reasonable compromise.

Yes, but let's at least cut off funding for Planned Parenthood.

[69360]

Yes, but let's at least cut off funding for Planned Parenthood.

Yeah, I wish there was an alternative to them that didn't provide abortions. They actually do good with providing birth control.

In the short term if you have to have a social welfare system, there is value in providing birth control to prevent burden on the system.

[Brett85]

Yeah, I wish there was an alternative to them that didn't provide abortions. They actually do good with providing birth control.

In the short term if you have to have a social welfare system, there is value in providing birth control to prevent burden on the system.

Well, we just don't really seem to have the same views. You seem to be more of a liberal libertarian. I don't believe that the government should fund ANY private organization. That's just another example of the government picking winners and losers in the market place.

[69360]

Well, we just don't really seem to have the same views. You seem to be more of a liberal libertarian. I don't believe that the government should fund ANY private organization. That's just another example of the government picking winners and losers in the market place.

Oh, we have the same long term view. I just am willing to compromise in the the short term to work out of it and get there.

So if we are stuck with this massive entitlement system for a while, I see the value in funding birth control to prevent putting more people into the system while we work out of the entitlements.

[Brett85]

Oh, we have the same long term view. I just am willing to compromise in the the short term to work out of it and get there.

Things like Social Security and Medicare that people have paid into their entire lives can't be abolished right away, and those are things that we need to work out of. But all other social programs that people never actually paid into could be abolished immediately in my opinion.

[W_BRANDON]

Yeah, I wish there was an alternative to them that didn't provide abortions. They actually do good with providing birth control.

In the short term if you have to have a social welfare system, there is value in providing birth control to prevent burden on the system.


Under no circumstance should the general American public be forced to fund Planned Parenthood (as long as they continue to offer abortions) or any type of contraception free give away. Who do you think benefits from a federal contraception coverage policy? Big pharma and health insurance companies, to name a couple. What's going to happen to the price of birth control and other supported contraception methods, it's going to increase dramatically. The last thing we need is more government intervention into our health care system.

[69360]

Under no circumstance should the general American public be forced to fund Planned Parenthood (as long as they continue to offer abortions) or any type of contraception free give away. Who do you think benefits from a federal contraception coverage policy? Big pharma and health insurance companies, to name a couple. What's going to happen to the price of birth control and other supported contraception methods, it's going to increase dramatically. The last thing we need is more government intervention into our health care system.

But when you are trying to work your way out of the 50 year old medicare mess, it's not going to happen overnight. While the programs are still going on allowing them to provide birth control keeps even more people from entering the social welfare system.

We aren't going to wake up one morning with the entitlement system gone. It has to be moved away from in steps.

[69360]

Under no circumstance should the general American public be forced to fund Planned Parenthood (as long as they continue to offer abortions) or any type of contraception free give away. Who do you think benefits from a federal contraception coverage policy? Big pharma and health insurance companies, to name a couple. What's going to happen to the price of birth control and other supported contraception methods, it's going to increase dramatically. The last thing we need is more government intervention into our health care system.

But when you are trying to work your way out of the 50 year old medicare mess, it's not going to happen overnight. While the programs are still going on allowing them to provide birth control keeps even more people from entering the social welfare system.

We aren't going to wake up one morning with the entitlement system gone. It has to be moved away from in steps.

If you look at Ron's plan, this is what he is saying.

[specsaregood]

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have no contraception and no abortion, in my estimation,” Johnson said.
My main problem is with the part in bold. Yes, you can Gary. There is at least 1 other option.


Yes, but let's at least cut off funding for Planned Parenthood.
And the free abortion providing Israeli government.

[Brett85]

We aren't going to wake up one morning with the entitlement system gone. It has to be moved away from in steps.
If you look at Ron's plan, this is what he is saying.

Ron supports ending federal funding for contraception immediately. Contraception is not an example of "an entitlement."

[69360]

Ron supports ending federal funding for contraception immediately. Contraception is not an example of "an entitlement."

No, his plan doesn't call for the end of medicare immediately. Contraception is covered by medicare. Contraception would be federally funded in a Paul presidency.

It's more of a long term goal for him it seems.

[Brett85]

No, his plan doesn't call for the end of medicare immediately. Contraception is covered by medicare. Contraception would be federally funded in a Paul presidency.

It's more of a long term goal for him it seems.

I never realized that Medicare covered contraception. Strange. Does a 70 year old woman really have to worry about getting pregnant?

[specsaregood]

I never realized that Medicare covered contraception. Strange. Does a 70 year old woman really have to worry about getting pregnant?

No, but some 70yr old men buy strange from 30yr old aids infested prostitutes.

[69360]

I never realized that Medicare covered contraception. Strange. Does a 70 year old woman really have to worry about getting pregnant?

Sorry that should have read medicaid. I'm tired, was up late driving back from the rally in VA. Medicaid covers contraception.

[Mises_to_Paul]

I tend to think these sort of issues are more likely to pop up when your approach Libertarianism from a utility perspective as opposed to a natural rights perspective.

That's why I've always thought that Johnson is A) clearly better than any of the "name players" not named Paul, but B) clearly not on the same wavelength as Ron Paul or the associated movement.

[Nathan Hale]

This is by far the best analysis of the libertarian "purity" debate. If you like it, check out Carl Milsted's other stuff. He's by far one of the best libertarian political thinkers.

The Late Great Libertarian Bait and Switch

By Carl S. Milsted, Jr.

“Guess what? You’re a libertarian!” Around the nation hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people have heard this declaration after taking the World’s Smallest Political Quiz at Operation Politically Homeless booths. I do not know the precise figure on how many have heard this, or the equivalent, but according to the Advocates for Self-Government web site, 35% of 5.6 million people who have taken the Quiz online have scored libertarian. This means there are at least 2 million people out there who know that they are libertarian.

According to a Rasmussen poll, 16% of a scientifically random sampling of people scored libertarian. This means that there are tens of millions of libertarians out there waiting to be identified!

So what are ye Libertarians waiting for? Donate to the party! Give out copies of the Quiz to your friends and neighbors! Work an Operation Politically Homeless Booth! There are millions of people out there waiting to be recruited! It is time for a major groundswell of Liberty in America! It’s…

We interrupt this pipe dream in order to inject a dose of reality.

If all the above were true, the groundswell would have already happened. The Libertarian Party has been around for 35 years. Millions have already taken the Quiz. The Party should already be much bigger. If a mere 5% of the identified libertarians were members of the Party, it would have over 100,000 members.

What is wrong? Is there so much bias against new political parties in this country? Are people so apathetic? Is the system so rigged? Is it the FEC’s fault? BCRA? Biased media?

No, the answer is much simpler. There aren’t that many libertarians. There are only a few hundred thousand libertarians in the United States at most. There might even be less than 100,000. That is, libertarians are a tiny minority of the population, if you use the definition of a libertarian used by the Libertarian Party. To join the Party, one must sign the following pledge:

“I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

To take this pledge seriously requires advocating zero taxes, and no laws other than those needed for the defense of life, liberty and property. Not only that, one must advocate these things right now! To allow time to phase out government is to advocate continued initiation of force during the interim. To follow the dictates of this pledge requires calling for an end of Social Security payments tomorrow, closing all the public schools, defaulting on the national debt, selling all public lands to the highest bidder regardless of the environmental consequences, and resorting to an all-volunteer militia for national defense.

Very few people agree with such a drastic program. In fact, there are quite a few people within the Libertarian Party who disagree with this drastic program. Many freedom lovers join the Party despite the Pledge because:

1. They didn’t think very hard about the implications of the Pledge.
2. They were told that the Pledge was really just a pledge not to advocate violent means to overthrow the government.
3. They rationalized their way in, figuring that their desire for smaller government across the board was close enough to the spirit of the Pledge.
4. They were brash teenagers when the first joined the Party, willing to take the risks involved in the anarchy tomorrow strategy.
I fall under the fourth category. As I have grown older and wiser, I have come to realize that anarchy is problematic. More importantly, I realize that even if anarchy (or voluntarily funded government) is workable in the long run, it is definitely not workable overnight. Trying to implement what the Pledge (or the current LP platform) demands overnight would be considerably worse than allowing the welfare state to continue.

So, technically speaking, I should leave the Libertarian Party. Since there is no political party which is libertarian in the Advocates for Self-Government sense of the word, I need to either start a new libertarian party or give up on political activism. Neither option is pleasant to me. And these options are unpleasant to many others within the LP.

So, instead, I am fighting to reform the Libertarian Party, to fix or eliminate the Pledge, and to produce a platform that appeals to that 16% of the population who score libertarian on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz. I much prefer the definition of libertarian used by the Advocates. It is a definition around which one can build a real political movement for more liberty.

But there is great resistance within the Party for such a change. The anarchy-next-Wednesday crowd is fighting hard to keep the platform the way it is. And there is great resistance to changing the Pledge. Some like what the Pledge requires. Others cite something called the “Dallas Accord,” a gentlemen’s agreement between anarchists and minarchists in 1974 not to argue. I have been accused of being divisive by bringing up this supposedly settled issue.

Divisiveness is a sunk cost. The Libertarian Party is an acrimonious organization, and has been all along. And the fundamental reason for this acrimony is that there are two very different definitions of the word “libertarian” in use: the Nolan Chart definition and the Pledge definition. All too often, people are recruited into the party using the first definition and are later told that they signed up for the second definition.

This is bait and switch membership recruitment. It does bring more people in. And many of the moderates brought in do radicalize after they join the party. However, this approach is also highly dishonest. And it creates discord between the purists and those brought in under false pretenses.

To do honest recruitment, Libertarian Party activists who defend the Pledge should drop the usual Nolan Chart when giving out the quiz:

http://lpva.com/Archives/Editorial/Milsted/images/nolanChart1.gif

and replace it with this one:

http://lpva.com/Archives/Editorial/Milsted/images/NewNolanChart.gif

Do this, and the acrimony will die down; the Party will shrink down to an ideologically united debate and demonstration club. There will be no more calls for compromise in order to win elections because the Party will be too small to be tempted by the prospect of victory.

Money and effort now wasted on FEC compliance and ballot access could be diverted to voter education and attention-getting activism.
My question to those who defend the Pledge: Is this what you want? Do you want a Party that is truly restricted to those who follow the Pledge? Do you want to have a Party that is tiny but united?

Or are you ready to do real politics? Are you ready to build a movement of all libertarians, using the Nolan Chart definition? Are you ready to work side by side with people with whom you agree with only 75% of the time? Are you ready to win elections and shrink government?