Controversial issues

Usually, I agree with Michelle Malkin, and I'm happy to say so. However, I've found that I just don't support the classic Conservative view on abortion. To compound the disagreement, birth control is again under attack from the same quarter. The comments on that post range from defense of cheaper hormonal birth control because abortions (or alternately, college tuition) are more expensive and more destructive long-term (oy), to declaring that all college students and young people should just abstain.

I present, as an alternative defense of cheaper hormonal birth control, the following situations.

1. A married couple, in which the woman would die if she became pregnant, and is allergic to latex (it happens more often than publicized). Her only option is hormonal birth control, but her low-cost insurance refuses to pay for it (as many do) and she cannot fit anything extra into her budget if she wishes to be able to save for emergencies.

2. A teenage girl who needs it for skin problems, but her parents don't have insurance and she is unable to get it herself, because she doesn't have a job, nor will her parents allow her to have one.

3. A woman who has tried several different hormonal treatments to limit her severe PMS-related mood swings and debilitating cramps, but is intolerant to many of the mainstream methods available. The options left are extremely expensive, and her insurance will not cover, because they deem it unnecessary, since hospitalization is not required on a monthly basis, and therefore it's cheaper for them to do nothing.

Those are just a few examples. Ask the women around you what they pay for their birth control, and they will probably tell you they can't afford it without insurance, and insurance only pays for the bare minimum.

In addition, some studies have come out recently that say women who use hormonal birth control have a lower risk of some cancers. A pound of prevention, after all.

It isn't just high school and college students who use birth control. It's the rest of us who actually need it in our everyday lives, and to deny it to us on the basis of price makes very little sense. The overall continued idiocy from many voices on this topic makes me shake my head in disgust.

Dunning-Kruger effect

Recently, I read this article from Barry Campbell, and was pleased to find out that the phenomenon I've encountered in my years of study (and my years of working in the service industry) has a name and has been extensively studied.

I've just come across another example of it, this one from a member of NYRA. Not that I'm overly surprised by where I found him, given my history with that organization. In this case, the person in question seems to be a relatively new member (at least since I left off working with them a few years ago), so perhaps there's hope.

Maybe this is why teens and young people are seen as being stupid or incompetent. In their need to be seen as mature and intelligent, they (we? Can I still include myself in this?) overcompensate through excessive self-confidence, bordering on arrogance. So older and more experienced heads push the younger one into a box labeled "young and stupid" and leave them there.

Seems to be a circular argument, with no real solution. Orgs like NYRA are good, just like the ACLU is good, but there needs to be temperance. At least NYRA is a bit more moderate and neutral than ASFAR (no, I'm not linking to them).

The question is, at what point will people start taking responsibility for their ignorance and working to change the circumstances. Age has nothing to do with that, only determination.