Key was telling me about something she learnt at work which was really shocking. Teens coming in for abortions often do come in very early in their pregnancies, when the risks are very low. But because there are no subsidies for abortions, they end up delaying the procedures while they gather funds for the operation, and during that time, the risks of complications, after-effects and so on increase...
Is that silly? Or a concession to the pro-life lobby? Eh.. if subsidizing abortions was seen as a nod to pre-marital and teen sex, then why do we allow condoms?
Or to put it the other way, I think most organisations and the government would like everyone to have sex only with a single partner and within the sanctity of marriage. But nevertheless, condoms are sold and their use is promoted! (At least within the SAF it is.. ) So why should abortions not be subsidised? Argh.. think I may get to find out the answer soon enough once I'm actually in civil service.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment