Not to mention the added benefit of being able to discuss how abortions went up under a Democratic president. The political win is more important than actually reducing abortions to the pro-life side. It's sad, really.

Every discussion I have seen about this in the last couple weeks has left out an important fact about the anti-abortion movement. Most of that contraception slice of the pie involves Pill prescriptions and other hormonal birth control methods, which in their minds brings the percentage of abortion services to 41 percent. Just sayin'.

A lot of cancer screening/prevention is the incredibly important annual (or biannual) pap smear that's basically eliminated cervical cancer as a major cause of death for women in the US.

But, of course, why would ensuring the continuation of something like that be important? Because, you know, it's not about women having babies or not having babies, it's about young women NOT DYING OF CANCER.

But hey, if they can stop even one young woman from having sex, then it's worth all that, right?

Whenever people criticize Planned Parenthood, I tell them that I have used their services. They usually respond with: "but, you're a man, why would you go there?" Well, they offer confidential HIV testing. In my state, hospitals must report a positive HIV result to the government. That said, it's time for Planned Parenthood to expand it's services. Given the difficulties people have with pharmacies, I'd like to see Planned Parenthood offer full pharmacy services. I'd be more than happy to use them. Hopefully they can put the right-wing pharmacies out of business.

Most of that contraception slice of the pie involves Pill prescriptions and other hormonal birth control methods, which in their minds brings the percentage of abortion services to 41 percent.

Not sure why this is relevant, except to show that the pro-life movement is deluded, dishonest, or using seriously seriously non-standard definitions. There's no evidence that the birth-control pill prevents implantation of fertilized eggs.

Really, the last sentence of the post should read "This is how the pro-life movement also becomes, in effect, the pro-herpes movement and the pro-abortion movement." There isn't a single good argument against birth control, and their crusade against birth control causes more abortions. Period. It's very hard to square their actions with concern for embryos, but it's very easy to square their actions with a desire to see women punished for having sex.

PJM, anti-choicers may define abortion as "any birth control method women can use without male cooperation or control", but that's not the scientific definition or the one most people understand.

I am well aware of the idiocy of equating hormonal birth control with abortion. My point was that people seem to be trying to find common ground by showing that PP does not mostly offer abortion services, when in fact the people you're trying to find common ground with would disagree with that, based on this very chart.

Hormonal birth control is also used to control and relieve symptoms for all sorts of reproductive complaints, such as dysmenorrhea, PMS and endometriosis. There isn't much else available to treat these conditions, honestly. I wonder what percentage of hormonal birth control prescriptions are given for those reasons?

"Hopefully they can put the right-wing pharmacies out of business."

That's the kind of class Klein draws. Won't the elimination of your political opposites shrink the pool of funds needed to fund your freebies? I mean, granted that seven out of seven commenters (so far) and Klein himself are down for using the power of taxation to satisfy their sundry whims and fancies, but one would think that the host that keeps the leeches alive would get a little respect. 'Tis true, though, I suppose, that collectivism is a parasite that kills. There, I've convinced myself that I shouldn't be surprised. I'm merely disgusted.

BTW, Mike, I wanted to welcome you, our newest right wing/libertarian provacateur/troll to EK's blog. We've seen a lot of you all passing through, just so you know, so odds are we've heard it all before.... so please try to say something insightful that may actually be different and interesting than a standard litany of seething talking points that you guys seem to be wedded to. In all likelihood, you'll get bored and move on, leaving only the most indefatiguable trolls like ElV and ostap.

Yeah, you bet.

You do know what your socialism will bring, don't you? Do you care about it, is that what you want, or are you in denial? Really, I'd be curious to know. Is it that you feel invincible, that man is in control of his destiny to such an extent that he can remake whatever he wants however he wants? Or have you just never really thought it through, and are grinnin' it all the way on a wing and a taco, maybe hoping to get yours while there's getting to be gotten?

Because I really can't see it, never have been able to, even before I got slightly interested in politics. Socialism is antithetical to human nature. You can't corral a nation full of people into one size of anything. We aren't a collective. There is no "we" that doesn't amount to usurping a whole bunch of "I"s. There is no way to tamp down individual enthusiasm to succeed and not engender universal mediocrity.

And, you know, I always thought the notions of freedom and individual responsibility were very cool things, sort of the capstone of the intellectual and physical struggle for survival and knowledge from out of the miasma of prehistory.

Your turn.

ps. I've got Klein pegged for a guy who will burst into tears when the cellphone networks go dark. Whaddya think?

Whaddya think?

I think you're about seventeen years old, and have read too much Ayn Rand, and probably Farnham's Freehold or Lucifer's Hammer.

We should also recognize that none of the public money that we provide PP goes to abortion services. That's all funded by private donations--so by cutting our government funding to PP, we'd only be getting rid of the stuff that reduces abortions, STDs, and cervical cancers while doing nothing to eliminate the abortion services that PP provides.

Of course, we shouldn't be doing anything to eliminate the abortion services that PP provides. On the contrary, we should be publicly funding them. We just don't do so now.

I think you're about seventeen years old, and have read too much Ayn Rand, and probably Farnham's Freehold or Lucifer's Hammer.

Win.

Hormonal birth control and IUDs don't really do much to prevent herpes, unfortunately. Condoms reduce transmission, and prescription anti-viral medications also help reduce transmission.

You do know what your socialism will bring, don't you?

Living in Canada I can say- higher standard of living, better overall health, fewer people living without basic services and a whiny group of multimillionaires and billionaires.

I can put up with the megarich whining all the time for a reduced chance of dying, thank you very much.

It does not seem very liberal to me to tax people to pay for a service that find morally wrong. Of course the war on drugs and the war in Iraq would far into the same category. Perhaps the best argument is not what others have posted but that as long Government funding is less the 97% that PP spends on not abortion stuff it can be said the Gov is not funding abortion.

Joel, you're off by factors, though you're probably used to that. I do own about a dozen books by Rand, and have read maybe half of them. Never heard of Farnham, and have never read a Pournelle book (which, after encountering him on the net, I don't consider a loss.)

I'm currently reading Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I'm only into it a few hundred pages, but such a parade of murderers, usurpers, and petty despots you can't imagine. In the midst of them, though, one of the last honorable ones, was Pertinax, who "had the generous firmness to remit all the oppressive taxes invented by Commodus [his predecessor - mls], and to cancel all the unjust claims of the treasury; declaring in a decree of the senate, 'that he was better satisfied to administer a poor republic with innocence, than to acquire riches by the ways of tyranny and dishonour.'" -- Edward Gibbon, [...], The Modern Library by Random House, NY, ----, pg. 88. You see, Pertinax was more civilized than almost any of the wannabe petty despots currently skulking around the modern political stage. Nearly two thousand years later, and you're still bending over for the Commodus's of the world.

"Living in Canada"

Sorry, but it isn't socialism that's responsible for the things you cite, but rather demographics and lifestyle choices. You live longer because you live a more sheep-like existence, in a more homogeneous flock, not because you force your fellow citizens to pay for your doctor.

Note that the second chart is services--it's a per-service count, NOT a proportion-of-revenue count. On a proportion of revenue, Planned Parenthood's most important service is abortion. (You can get that from the chart, assuming that "contraception" averages $30, other services average $50, and abortion averages $500.)

Mike, have you considered setting up your own society with all the non-leeches? It'll look like this.

Oh, and an organization like Planned Parenthood outcompeting other pharmacies by offering a wider range of products---which is what fostert proposed---is not "socialism."

I think that before excoriating pro-lifers for going after PP, you would need to find kind of statistic about how many of the nation's abortions PP provides. Because frankly, if 3% of PP's budget is providing 60% of the nation's abortions, then it only makes logical sense for pro-lifers to go after it. On the other hand, if 3% of PP's budget is providing 1% of the nation's abortions, then it seems like a strategic waste of time and effort.

That being said, it does untenable to decry abortions in one breath and then try to cut access to low-cost birth control in the next.

In the midst of them, though, one of the last honorable ones, was Pertinax, who "had the generous firmness to remit all the oppressive taxes invented by Commodus [his predecessor - mls], and to cancel all the unjust claims of the treasury; declaring in a decree of the senate, 'that he was better satisfied to administer a poor republic with innocence, than to acquire riches by the ways of tyranny and dishonour.'"

In Commodus' defense, though, he really improved services at the Coliseum. And also, you have to give him credit for standing up for that noble institution, even to the point of getting himself killed by Russell Crowe.

"Planned Parenthood outcompeting"

Government grants and contracts: 33%. That's not competing.

Dance, Soho the Clown! You're auditioning for kids' parties at this time of year!

Mike, have you considered setting up your own society with all the non-leeches? It'll look like this.

Matt, that link doesn't work. It does seem kind of ironic that our side's so often told to move to Canada or Europe with all of the other pansy socialists, when current examples of armed, free-market, social-Darwinist societies would make for a much more interesting comparison study. My bet is that most of our super-independent tough guys would be begging for a good dose of Swedish-- or at least Canadian-- 'socialism' after a few months in some developing-world libertarian paradises.

Oh, right-- they want the advantages of stability, infrastructure, and an advanced culture that liberalism fostered, plus in most cases the undeniable privilege of being in the ethnic and/or religious majority, then they'd be able to prove how truly rugged and individualistic they are. Funny how that works for people who IMO wouldn't survive two days in a real frontier (not to mention in the middle of a real conflict), or have a penny left after freely trading in, say, North Africa.

"that liberalism fostered"

You are conflating classic liberalism with modern liberal-isms.

A half baked gallimaufry of Atlas Shrugged and The Road to Serfdom. Classic Republican intellectual junk food! Soja's starting his trolling career out with some class, people, have a little respect.

::stifles yawn::

oh, i'm sorry, were you boring me?

You are conflating classic liberalism with modern liberal-isms.

Reminds me of the old libertarian joke "sure, that's fine in practice, but what about the theory?'

Modern political conservatism is violent, careless with & wasteful of resources, destructive, and enthusiastically fosters inequality while denying the corresponding instability it creates. Liberalism, of all varieties, opposes those tendencies. If you want to cite examples of reasonably broad, stable, prosperous, and equitable societies-- I'll spot you ethnic & social diversity if you'll acknowledge that any system of government is complicated by it-- historical or current, that both meet your standards of libertarianism/classical liberalism/whatever -ism and have survived for at least a few centuries, then I'm sure most here would find it interesting. Then explain how and why these model societies' principles can reasonably be implemented in the US. I think we'd all love for a truly learned student of human behavior to advise us on how to improve.

TIA.

"half baked"

The genius of modern liberalism: 99% ad hominem, 1% fallacy. Had I known that the contents of my book shelves would be of such import to you, I might have listed some of the other two to three thousand titles on shelves here.

If you want to cite examples of reasonably broad, stable, prosperous, and equitable societies...historical or current, that both meet your standards of libertarianism/classical liberalism/whatever -ism and have survived for at least a few centuries, then I'm sure most here would find it interesting.

Well, I can't manage "survived a few centuries in their current form"--I don't think any government today meets that criterion. I would say that the US pre-Civil War meets those criteria. The US non-South after the war, and before WW1, does as well. Great Britain from the Glorious Revolution until the Boer War does as well.

I would say that the US pre-Civil War meets those criteria

Equitable?

US non-South after the war, and before WW1

Mmm... can't see how the Gilded Age and its aftermath fits, but okay.

Great Britain from the Glorious Revolution until the Boer War does as well

Again, not remotely equitable. Inequality is natural and apparently considered just in the conservative/libertarian model IME, but it always festers and creates disruption at best, bloody revolution at worst.

The best that can really be said for libertarianism is that it's a sort of adolescence for a society, not just in the sense that it appeals particularly to adolescent males for obvious reasons, but because it's also a period of growth and increasing power without discipline or fairness. We deal with the collateral damage for a while, whether it involves scalped settlers & horrific racial discrimination or wrecked cars & date rape, but eventually it's essential for an individual or society to grow out of it. And in both examples, some people never get over having to grow up and face the world as it is, instead of what they'd hoped it would be.

"Modern political conservatism is violent, careless with & wasteful of resources, destructive, and enthusiastically fosters inequality while denying the corresponding instability it creates."

I don't even have to point out how nutty that is to note that both modern political conglomerations are rank bastardizations of the ideals that once might have posed as worthy of admiration.

"Liberalism, of all varieties, opposes those tendencies."

In word, perhaps, but not in deed. Witness the destruction of the black family, for one. Witness modern liberalism's contribution to the mortgage fiasco, for another. Education. Health care. Name it, and all your "caring" and opposition to the "tendencies" you so abhor does nothing more than exacerbate those tendencies.

"survived for at least a few centuries"

Well, that eliminates all "current" examples. Republics and Democracies have had a pretty good run, but are slowly succumbing to the tyranny of the majority (a slow, but exceedingly conscienceless ruler.) The old saw that Democracy isn't perfect, but the best available, isn't enough to prevent the foolhardiness and indiscretions that have undermined countless nations down through history. Perhaps after the next major convulsion, future founding fathers will be rather more explicit about what powers are permitted government.

Matt, that link doesn't work.

Nerts. Link should've gone here.

"Inequality is natural and apparently considered just in the conservative/libertarian model"

Have you ever looked at people? They aren't equal. The promise that the United States set out to give was of equal opportunity, the freedom to strive commensurate with one's abilities. That noble notion has been corrupted into the idea that all people, regardless of their abilities, talents, or even the effort they expend, deserve equal outcomes. Barack and Michelle both put that idiocy in their speeches, and possibly truly believe it, but it's utter, unworkable, horrendous nonsense. Under the modern liberal regime, people are no longer free to pursue their own happiness, but are continually harangued and threatened into pursuing someone else's happiness. It's the destruction of freedom to feed Marx's perverted notions of equatability, and if you look at the history of the United States, it was the beacon of freedom that thrilled the rest of the world, that spoke to all the downtrodden of the earth. It wasn't "equatability" or "guaranteed outcomes" that lit up the world, but the freedom to try, the freedom even to fail, but mostly the freedom to choose one's own way and let 'er rip.

I'll take back the carelessly worded statement and allow examples that are current but as yet mostly untested. Obviously, arguments for these young societies' stability and preparedness to withstand potential crises would be helpful in making your case.

I don't think there are any, but since I've never heard a sound libertarian argument invoking an actual model we can reference-- rather, there's the usual ranting about the corruption of classical liberalism, some wistfulness for a highly idealized frontier society, and an a la carte menu of conservative self-flattery leavened with the benefits of broader human rights & some lip service toward equal opportunity-- go ahead and cite some examples.

And you can call my assessment of conservatism "nutty" all you want, but at least it allows for people acting like actual, albeit rather nasty, human beings, while I'm sure as hell not seeing any similar acknowledgment in your statements.

PS: You're clearly ignoring that all of my specific invocation of inequality were for periods in which women and ethnic minorities held no political & very little personal power and were explicitly denied equality of opportunity, not to mention that inherited (in the case of 18th & 19th century Britain) and/or manipulated (pre-Civil War & Gilded-Age America) socioeconomic status made that ideal impossible.

That noble notion has been corrupted into the idea that all people, regardless of their abilities, talents, or even the effort they expend, deserve equal outcomes. Barack and Michelle both put that idiocy in their speeches...

Do you have a link to back this up, or are you just referring to the Barack and Michelle Obamas in your head?

More generally, though, this is ridiculous. Please don't feel the troll, people. He hasn't said anything original or witty in the past 20 comments today. His paranoid ranting about creeping Marxism makes no sense at all, and it hasn't since the Berlin Wall fell. That was more than 18 years ago, FWIW.

"Barack and Michelle both put that idiocy in their speeches..."

Links? I have trouble posting links here, but here's the quotes.

It was Michelle's convention speech that I first heard it (this is from the UK Guardian, found via a search of Michelle and the last ten words of the quote):

She portrayed Obama as having come from humble beginnings and as a patriot who shared American values. He had worked as a community oganiser in Chicago alongside people who believed, "like you and I believe, that America should be a place where you can make it if you try".

And Barry, himself (found on one of Barry's own pages, with a search similar to that above):

But we also believe that we have a larger responsibility to one another as Americans – that America is a place – that America is the place – where you can make it if you try. That no matter how much money you start with or where you come from or who your parents are, opportunity is yours if you’re willing to reach for it and work for it. It’s the idea that while there are few guarantees in life, you should be able to count on a job that pays the bills; health care for when you need it; a pension for when you retire; an education for your children that will allow them to fulfill their God-given potential. That’s the America we believe in. That’s the America I know.

Not, you are free to try, but that you should be guaranteed success if you try. That is the insanity upon which you have staked the future of the country.

And you're a fool for pretending that Marx isn't alive and well, and getting ready to tear this country apart. I'll ask the question I asked above: Do you care about it, is that what you want, or are you in denial?

And you're a fool for pretending that Marx isn't alive and well, and getting ready to tear this country apart.

Uh huh, right...

Ezra needs some annual awards for Teh Stupid, methinks.

"If you try." "If you're willing to reach for it and work for it." Looks like they're talking about equality of opportunity to me, not outcomes, or they'd have said "whether you try or not", right? Personally, I think that success is defined as more than just non-homelessness. You apparently disagree. If that makes me a Marxist, well, call me a Marxist.

"Personally, I think that success is defined as more than just non-homelessness."

Well, good for you, Cyrus. It's good to have goals.

Obviously, though, you are a Marxist, but you're so up in the trees of it that you can't see the forest of "a larger responsibility to one another", "you can make it if you try", "you should be able to count on a job", "a job that pays the bills", and "health care", and "a pension", and "an education". Somehow, Barry forgot to mention "a house," but he's working it in there, rest assured. And "sick leave". And probably "a nice, new, green automobile," too. Those are "outcomes," Cyrus, nothing less. They're freebies, and the Obama message is loud and clear: This is what you get for living in America (and voting Democratic.) Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning for free health care and a nice retirement, unlimited foreclosure relief, and the world's most expensive day care for your illiterate kids.

And you think all those freebies grow on the Marxist trees of good intentions, or something? In the land of Egalitarian Lollipops?

You know the difference between freedom and health care, Cyrus? You have a right to freedom because it doesn't come out of someone else's pocket. Think about that, if you're able.

ps. It's been fun, comrades, but I've got to attend an early family Christmas on the islands. Long day tomorrow. Back in a week or so to see whether The Messiah is still worthy of your love. Ta ta.

For the fall of the Roman empire, take a look at Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire. It's been 200 years since Gibbon.

I'm currently reading Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. ...In the midst of them, though, one of the last honorable ones, was Pertinax, who "had the generous firmness to remit all the oppressive taxes invented by Commodus

Wait until you get to the part about the 9th century Nicephorus I who strengthened the empire's fiscal and military health by reforming the tax code to improve the collection of revenue, levied windfall taxes, ended a bunch of tax loopholes created as giveaways by his predecessor, and nationalized the lending industry to profit off the funds. The result: more than 200 years of prosperity and military security.

They are not pro life. They are pro punishment. Talk to one for 10 minutes without them mentioning that the woman had sex. And therefore, she ought to suffer the consequences.

STDs and pregnancies are God's punishments for violating His divine will. So not only are Planned Parenthood subverting the will of God, they are depriving the righteous of opportunities to shame the sluts and call themselves Christians.

PP massages their numbers and fails to mention that they do pap smears and pregnancy tests in conjunction with abortions, and that they send their abortion clients home with birth control pills. But they separate those things out to make them look like they are unrelated to the abortions. Get the picture? The reality is that abortion represents more like one third of their business. And furthermore, the people who cause the spread of STDs are the people who engage in risky sex. The people who "cause" abortions are the people who engage in sex with no thought for the pregnancy that may result and then decide to get an abortion to solve their problem. Put the blame where it belongs.

PP massages their numbers and fails to mention that they do pap smears and pregnancy tests in conjunction with abortions, and that they send their abortion clients home with birth control pills. But they separate those things out to make them look like they are unrelated to the abortions. Get the picture? The reality is that abortion represents more like one third of their business. And furthermore, the people who cause the spread of STDs are the people who engage in risky sex. The people who "cause" abortions are the people who engage in sex with no thought for the pregnancy that may result and then decide to get an abortion to solve their problem. Put the blame where it belongs.