Sex for the poor?  Phooey.

Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post weighed in with an op-ed piece today in the Charlotte Observer.

Sunday, we had an op-ed that “Yes means yes.”  Monday we had one that “the poor need taxpayer-provided birth control.”  Perfect juxtaposition of concepts.  Ms. Rampell of the WaPo correctly notes that furnishing birth control to the poor will reduce taxpayer spending on welfare for children born to teenage single mothers.  Yep, she is right.  Let’s assume that we equip every fertile female in poverty with reversible contraception.  Now we need to teach all the 13 year old boys in poverty that 12 year old girls in poverty must give consent first -- hilarious sophistry.  How passionate of you to care about that girl’s sexual freedom, and not give two cents about her certain destiny as a receptacle for whomever happens to feel the need. 

There is a human dignity issue here that cannot be cured by government spending.  Would somebody please tell me why Progressives are so indifferent to the fact that our culture is raising these girls with the default message that their greatest value at the outset of their teen years is as a receptacle? 

Progressives fight like terriers for the right of a ridiculously intoxicated co-ed to “be able to give consent” yet ignore these vulnerable girls who will reach age 18 with STDs and a permanently impaired sense of self.  Pardon me, but I accuse Progressives of “building the base” with the affirmative consent campaign while ignoring the truly vulnerable among us.

This is a fine illustration of why there is such animosity between the left and right today.  Rarely do we see advocacy that arises from refined motives.  So often, the bluster is about building the base, and it is typically cloaked in a shroud of pseudo-virtue.  Yuk.