Why should taxpayers pay for condoms?
By Chris Krisinger
Burke
Holding to his belief that distributing condoms “was a good thing,” D.C. Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large) figured the shortcoming of the program was that “we never [before] asked the kids what they wanted”.
Has it ever crossed Mr. Catania’s mind that demonstrating some leadership and moral fortitude and standing for the idea that monogamous, committed relationships — even abstinence — would be better than asking taxpayers to foot the bill for condoms so young people can continue to have sex without consequences? Isn’t this even more true if the public health goal is preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases?
Just how low can public discourse on the issue go? I would be ashamed if I were the D.C. city employee making the claim that “the gold package [Trojan brand] certainly has a little bit of the bling quality.” The statement was indicative of the larger social issue of an “entitlement mentality.” A New York public official was quoted in the article saying she wants to ensure that people are given — at taxpayer expense, no less — what they want. Her agency “has received requests for ‘larger sizes’ and ‘extra thin’ condoms. New York, like the District, is happy to oblige.”
It is incredible that government “leaders” go along with these nutty social, public policy ideas and look taxpayers in the face and tell them we should pay for someone’s condoms.