Warren Buffet wants to give you an IUD
July 31, 2015 12:49 AM Subscribe
Warren Buffett’s Family Secretly Funded a Birth Control Revolution
Quietly, steadily, the Buffett family is funding the biggest shift in birth control in a generation. “For Warren, it’s economic. He thinks that unless women can control their fertility—and that it’s basically their right to control their fertility—that you are sort of wasting more than half of the brainpower in the United States,” DeSarno said about Buffett’s funding of reproductive health in the 2008 interview. “Well, not just the United States. Worldwide.”
"Public-private partnerships" are the death of government. They allow public magistrates to duck responsibility, and private contractors to rob the till. When they succeed, all the credit goes to the private side, when theh fail, blame always accrues to a public official. Besides being a cop-out (no official will take the responsibility to fund anything potentially controversial), think of all the failed toll roads and botched privatizations that litter the landscape, and then realize that this is the mechanism which the state of Colorado intends to use to fund teen birth control.
posted by Captain l'escalier at 2:59 AM on July 31, 2015 [44 favorites]
posted by Captain l'escalier at 2:59 AM on July 31, 2015 [44 favorites]
So, I just read a story of products developed by private companies failing horrifically under a lack of government regulation, resulting in medical devices coming under regulation, then success by other private companies under that oversight. I'm not sure where one gets "PPPs are killing government" out of that.
posted by zennie at 3:31 AM on July 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by zennie at 3:31 AM on July 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
On the one hand, there's something inherently creepy about a rich oligarch funding a program to keep the poor from reproducing. On the other hand, I do think we have too many damn human beings on this rock, and anything that helps cut down on that helps.
So conflicted.
posted by SansPoint at 4:46 AM on July 31, 2015
So conflicted.
posted by SansPoint at 4:46 AM on July 31, 2015
I do not think medical devices coming under regulation is an example of public-private partnership.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:54 AM on July 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:54 AM on July 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
billiebee: That's what always wrecks my head about anti-abortion fundamentalists who oppose birth control - fund birth control and there won't be as many abortions. It seems like such obvious common sense. What could their reasoning be for opposing it?
I find it easiest to understand the anti-abortion movement as not being "pro-life" or anything like that, but rather about patriarchal enforcement of traditional patterns of female behaviour (marriage, subservience, kinder, kuche, kirche, etc) and especially about punishing female expressions of self-determined sexuality. (Because for the males involved it's all about having a supply of pleasing, compliant helpmeets, and for the women who're invested in this social order it's about not having to deal with the cognitive dissonance of recognizing their own loss of autonomy. Blech.)
Seen in this light, the conservative opposition to abortion and birth control makes perfect sense, as part of a continuum running from "abstinence education" and gender-segregated colleges with dress codes and ending with the likes of Islamic State/Da'esh. It's orthogonal to actual religious faith because it's really about the ownership of women as chattel belonging to their male guardians.
"Pro-life" is just a handly slogan to rally the short-sighted. It could be more accurately described as "pro-gender slavery".
posted by cstross at 5:03 AM on July 31, 2015 [162 favorites]
I find it easiest to understand the anti-abortion movement as not being "pro-life" or anything like that, but rather about patriarchal enforcement of traditional patterns of female behaviour (marriage, subservience, kinder, kuche, kirche, etc) and especially about punishing female expressions of self-determined sexuality. (Because for the males involved it's all about having a supply of pleasing, compliant helpmeets, and for the women who're invested in this social order it's about not having to deal with the cognitive dissonance of recognizing their own loss of autonomy. Blech.)
Seen in this light, the conservative opposition to abortion and birth control makes perfect sense, as part of a continuum running from "abstinence education" and gender-segregated colleges with dress codes and ending with the likes of Islamic State/Da'esh. It's orthogonal to actual religious faith because it's really about the ownership of women as chattel belonging to their male guardians.
"Pro-life" is just a handly slogan to rally the short-sighted. It could be more accurately described as "pro-gender slavery".
posted by cstross at 5:03 AM on July 31, 2015 [162 favorites]
That's what always wrecks my head about anti-abortion fundamentalists who oppose birth control - fund birth control and there won't be as many abortions.
Again, it's not about abortions. It's about keeping women in the home. ALL of the rules the religious right wants to impose are about keeping a select few in power, and they break down into three categories.
1) Men are better than women.
2) Priests and kings are better than men.
3) Unbelievers and those different than us are less than human, thus rules that apply to humans don't apply to them.
This game has been played for over six millennia. YOU must do what I say or BIG SCARY THING will send you to torment FOREVER, and if you don't believe me, I'll send everyone who does believe me to kill you.
Which really means. YOU must do what I say or BIG SCARY THING will send you to torment FOREVER, and if you don't believe me, I'll send everyone who does believe me to kill you.
It's a power play. Just like all the other power plays. When a boss tells you "You'll do it my way because I'm the boss, dammit," at least give him credit -- he's not giving you a bullshit reason for the power play.
Warren Buffet is making a different power play. His power play is "the more smart people there are, the more money I can make off them, which gives me more power." And he see half the smart people in the world being kept from making all the money they could, so he can't make money off them. He's trying to fix that.
Don't think for one millisecond that he's doing this for altruistic reasons. His motives coinciding with your motives are *not* altruism. He's doing it because he sees money being left on the table. The fact that this is a good thing? That is, to him, simply not a consideration in the equation. If this wasn't a profitable move, he wouldn't be doing it.
posted by eriko at 5:29 AM on July 31, 2015 [22 favorites]
Again, it's not about abortions. It's about keeping women in the home. ALL of the rules the religious right wants to impose are about keeping a select few in power, and they break down into three categories.
1) Men are better than women.
2) Priests and kings are better than men.
3) Unbelievers and those different than us are less than human, thus rules that apply to humans don't apply to them.
This game has been played for over six millennia. YOU must do what I say or BIG SCARY THING will send you to torment FOREVER, and if you don't believe me, I'll send everyone who does believe me to kill you.
Which really means. YOU must do what I say or
It's a power play. Just like all the other power plays. When a boss tells you "You'll do it my way because I'm the boss, dammit," at least give him credit -- he's not giving you a bullshit reason for the power play.
Warren Buffet is making a different power play. His power play is "the more smart people there are, the more money I can make off them, which gives me more power." And he see half the smart people in the world being kept from making all the money they could, so he can't make money off them. He's trying to fix that.
Don't think for one millisecond that he's doing this for altruistic reasons. His motives coinciding with your motives are *not* altruism. He's doing it because he sees money being left on the table. The fact that this is a good thing? That is, to him, simply not a consideration in the equation. If this wasn't a profitable move, he wouldn't be doing it.
posted by eriko at 5:29 AM on July 31, 2015 [22 favorites]
On the one hand, there's something inherently creepy about a rich oligarch funding a program to keep the poor from reproducing.
Perhaps its the way he kidnaps women off the street and forces them to use contraception? No wait, creepy is US's society effectively denying poor women control over their fertility for reason of economics or social control. This is Buffett paying for a way to give those women control over their fertility and their sex lives. Not forcing them, but giving them options they otherwise might not have.
posted by biffa at 5:32 AM on July 31, 2015 [67 favorites]
Perhaps its the way he kidnaps women off the street and forces them to use contraception? No wait, creepy is US's society effectively denying poor women control over their fertility for reason of economics or social control. This is Buffett paying for a way to give those women control over their fertility and their sex lives. Not forcing them, but giving them options they otherwise might not have.
posted by biffa at 5:32 AM on July 31, 2015 [67 favorites]
In the 1960s, the couple set up what was then called the Buffett Foundation, which focused on nuclear disarmament and reproductive health, including helping to fund Planned Parenthood as well as the development of RU-486, the so-called abortion pill
I don't see that as a half-century dedication to squeezing as much money as possible out of the population, as much as being genuinely supportive of and invested in the idea of reproductive choice. Why is that hard to believe?
On preview, what sio42 said.
posted by billiebee at 5:36 AM on July 31, 2015 [22 favorites]
I don't see that as a half-century dedication to squeezing as much money as possible out of the population, as much as being genuinely supportive of and invested in the idea of reproductive choice. Why is that hard to believe?
On preview, what sio42 said.
posted by billiebee at 5:36 AM on July 31, 2015 [22 favorites]
On the one hand, there's something inherently creepy about a rich oligarch funding a program to keep the poor from reproducing.
Only if you frame it like that. From my perspective, it's a program to make sure that all women have the right to choose when they reproduce, which is fundamental to women's access to fully participate in their own lives. Women who have reproductive choices have many more options to go to school, get better jobs, and, hey, have kids if and when they decide that they are ready for them.
While it will be a shame if Colorado drops the funding (esp. given how much money it has saved them), it sounds like the Liletta will sell for $50 to all public health clinics, which will have huge implications for IUD access across the US.
posted by pie ninja at 5:37 AM on July 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
Only if you frame it like that. From my perspective, it's a program to make sure that all women have the right to choose when they reproduce, which is fundamental to women's access to fully participate in their own lives. Women who have reproductive choices have many more options to go to school, get better jobs, and, hey, have kids if and when they decide that they are ready for them.
While it will be a shame if Colorado drops the funding (esp. given how much money it has saved them), it sounds like the Liletta will sell for $50 to all public health clinics, which will have huge implications for IUD access across the US.
posted by pie ninja at 5:37 AM on July 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
If this wasn't a profitable move, he wouldn't be doing it.
Well... yeah. Hence the pull quote: "For Warren, it’s economic." Maybe just accept the fact that some people do things-that-are-good for not-ideologically-pure-enough-for-you reasons and move on.
posted by Etrigan at 5:40 AM on July 31, 2015 [24 favorites]
Well... yeah. Hence the pull quote: "For Warren, it’s economic." Maybe just accept the fact that some people do things-that-are-good for not-ideologically-pure-enough-for-you reasons and move on.
posted by Etrigan at 5:40 AM on July 31, 2015 [24 favorites]
Don't think for one millisecond that he's doing this for altruistic reasons. His motives coinciding with your motives are *not* altruism. He's doing it because he sees money being left on the table. The fact that this is a good thing? That is, to him, simply not a consideration in the equation. If this wasn't a profitable move, he wouldn't be doing it.
This seems...like a very long game. It's only in the last 10 years that he's formally pledged a vast percentage of his fortune to philanthropy. Public health research and initiatives usually take longer to pay off at the scale you're talking about. While he's been open about the fact that losing women's productivity is a great loss to capitalism indeed, I don't think his motives are as simple as "need more money."
posted by Ragini at 5:40 AM on July 31, 2015 [17 favorites]
This seems...like a very long game. It's only in the last 10 years that he's formally pledged a vast percentage of his fortune to philanthropy. Public health research and initiatives usually take longer to pay off at the scale you're talking about. While he's been open about the fact that losing women's productivity is a great loss to capitalism indeed, I don't think his motives are as simple as "need more money."
posted by Ragini at 5:40 AM on July 31, 2015 [17 favorites]
Seen in this light, the conservative opposition to abortion and birth control makes perfect sense, as part of a continuum
Yes I get that. I suppose I'm coming from a different place, as where I live contraception is free and easily available but abortion is illegal. It's a very conservative society in many ways and I always assumed that free contraception was a way to avoid the need for abortion (it doesn't, obviously, but there's no chance of it being made legal here anytime soon) so it's hard to understand why the same reasoning doesn't apply in the U.S., but you're right. As always: because The Patriarchy.
posted by billiebee at 5:49 AM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes I get that. I suppose I'm coming from a different place, as where I live contraception is free and easily available but abortion is illegal. It's a very conservative society in many ways and I always assumed that free contraception was a way to avoid the need for abortion (it doesn't, obviously, but there's no chance of it being made legal here anytime soon) so it's hard to understand why the same reasoning doesn't apply in the U.S., but you're right. As always: because The Patriarchy.
posted by billiebee at 5:49 AM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
I gotta stop getting Warren Buffett and Jimmy Buffett confused.
posted by terretu at 5:51 AM on July 31, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by terretu at 5:51 AM on July 31, 2015 [11 favorites]
He's doing it because he sees money being left on the table.
I think Buffet sees the loss of agency from unplanned pregnancies as a loss of economic motility for families and for the economy as a whole.
FTA: In 2006, Buffett announced his decision in a cover story of Fortune (PDF), pledging to eventually donate 85 percent of his Berkshire stock, valued then at $37 billion, to philanthropic causes.
Doesn't really sound like the prerogative of a guy just trying to maximize his own net worth.
posted by echocollate at 5:53 AM on July 31, 2015 [14 favorites]
I think Buffet sees the loss of agency from unplanned pregnancies as a loss of economic motility for families and for the economy as a whole.
FTA: In 2006, Buffett announced his decision in a cover story of Fortune (PDF), pledging to eventually donate 85 percent of his Berkshire stock, valued then at $37 billion, to philanthropic causes.
Doesn't really sound like the prerogative of a guy just trying to maximize his own net worth.
posted by echocollate at 5:53 AM on July 31, 2015 [14 favorites]
It's absolutely altruistic in that women use power over reproduction to improve their lives and the lives of their children. It benefits Warren Buffet only in the sense that he gets to feel good about himself and that his great grand kids are less likely to be mugged.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:56 AM on July 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 5:56 AM on July 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
I gotta stop getting Warren Buffett and Jimmy Buffett confused.
Everyone always goes for Wasting Away Again in Omaha, but I've always thought Changes in Latitudes, Changes in Risk-Adjusted Returns was an under-appreciated classic.
And who could forget Security Analysis in Paradise?
posted by leotrotsky at 5:58 AM on July 31, 2015 [18 favorites]
Everyone always goes for Wasting Away Again in Omaha, but I've always thought Changes in Latitudes, Changes in Risk-Adjusted Returns was an under-appreciated classic.
And who could forget Security Analysis in Paradise?
posted by leotrotsky at 5:58 AM on July 31, 2015 [18 favorites]
I repeat: Forced Birthers is the accurate appellation.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:15 AM on July 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by five fresh fish at 6:15 AM on July 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
If this wasn't a profitable move, he wouldn't be doing it.
It's a shame that Warren gets all the attention here. Susan Buffett was the real driver behind this. While they never divorced, they were separated for more than half their marriage. Warren's dedication to her causes, while explained nicely by his economic rationale, are mostly about his dedication to her.
Susan's interview with Charlie Rose is really great.
posted by mullacc at 6:19 AM on July 31, 2015 [17 favorites]
It's a shame that Warren gets all the attention here. Susan Buffett was the real driver behind this. While they never divorced, they were separated for more than half their marriage. Warren's dedication to her causes, while explained nicely by his economic rationale, are mostly about his dedication to her.
Susan's interview with Charlie Rose is really great.
posted by mullacc at 6:19 AM on July 31, 2015 [17 favorites]
Also, Suzie Buffett. The organization she oversees does a world of good besides the birth control, and she's behind much of it. I live three blocks from her office (and, in the same building, Warren's),and I work for a local nonprofit, and I can tell you that in Omaha, when we speak of the Susan Buffet organization, it is Suzie we speak of, not Warren.
posted by maxsparber at 6:23 AM on July 31, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 6:23 AM on July 31, 2015 [7 favorites]
I am passionately in favor of ceasing with the shaming of poor and young people giving birth.... lets just stop, let's celebrate every child born and every family type. Poverty and young parenthood, like divorced families and families with other difficult circumstances may be harder on children and we SHOULD be concerned about that and therefore provide resources NOT SHAME to families facing this. We should also educate families about these risks so they can plan their families accordingly without judging why they might decide to give birth even in a circumstance they might need help with. Life is precious. To many it can be worth the struggle and they are ready to wade those waters with a new person in hopes the good will still outweigh the difficulties. I don't think there is any circumstance so great it can preclude the risk of terrible suffering to anyone you choose to bring in the world. We who give birth all do it anyway and don't need to judge others for want to give another person a chance to live even if it means hardships they may have faced themselves and still found life worthwhile (i.e. poverty, single parent home, disability etc etc).
We should also give birth control to everyone. Everyone. ALL PEOPLE. Also free abortion services covered on insurance.
There is nothing about this that has to conflict except for people who choose to make it so. There ARE a lot of people, even among liberals, who are actually in favor of women in difficult situations or who are poor getting abortion and they do spread shaming ideologies about women who give birth in such circumstance.
I HATE THIS. This needs to die every bit as much as the shaming of women who get abortions.
But providing birth control access to all who want it, is not that. I don't know Warren Buffets intentions, but I don't think this innately means he wants the poor to delete themselves (which I agree is appalling and over promoted as a solution to poverty).
On preview.... LOL I totally thought Warren Buffet and Jimmy Buffet were the same person this whole time even though they have a totally different first name??!!! So Warren Buffet is not also a singer who sang those songs that are nice on the beach? Hahahaha... now I am amused.
posted by xarnop at 6:27 AM on July 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
We should also give birth control to everyone. Everyone. ALL PEOPLE. Also free abortion services covered on insurance.
There is nothing about this that has to conflict except for people who choose to make it so. There ARE a lot of people, even among liberals, who are actually in favor of women in difficult situations or who are poor getting abortion and they do spread shaming ideologies about women who give birth in such circumstance.
I HATE THIS. This needs to die every bit as much as the shaming of women who get abortions.
But providing birth control access to all who want it, is not that. I don't know Warren Buffets intentions, but I don't think this innately means he wants the poor to delete themselves (which I agree is appalling and over promoted as a solution to poverty).
On preview.... LOL I totally thought Warren Buffet and Jimmy Buffet were the same person this whole time even though they have a totally different first name??!!! So Warren Buffet is not also a singer who sang those songs that are nice on the beach? Hahahaha... now I am amused.
posted by xarnop at 6:27 AM on July 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
I thought Jimmy Buffett was one of those evangelical types from the 80s or 90s who got caught out with a member in his congregation. But we don't do country music where I am. Who am I thinking of?
posted by biffa at 6:37 AM on July 31, 2015
posted by biffa at 6:37 AM on July 31, 2015
If this wasn't a profitable move, he wouldn't be doing it.
I'd disagree here -- the Buffets could easily do plenty of other, much more evil things to make lots of money. But they are choosing to do this good thing. By saying that the reasons are economic, I think he and his wife are trying to make it easier for other rich, profit-motivated people to make good choices. Look at this example, they say -- you can follow your values and still make money.
posted by cubby at 6:38 AM on July 31, 2015 [11 favorites]
I'd disagree here -- the Buffets could easily do plenty of other, much more evil things to make lots of money. But they are choosing to do this good thing. By saying that the reasons are economic, I think he and his wife are trying to make it easier for other rich, profit-motivated people to make good choices. Look at this example, they say -- you can follow your values and still make money.
posted by cubby at 6:38 AM on July 31, 2015 [11 favorites]
I totally thought Warren Buffet and Jimmy Buffet were the same person this whole time even though they have a totally different first name??!!!
I have some terrible news about Richard and Mojo Nixon.
posted by Shepherd at 6:43 AM on July 31, 2015 [28 favorites]
I have some terrible news about Richard and Mojo Nixon.
posted by Shepherd at 6:43 AM on July 31, 2015 [28 favorites]
I think arguing whether Buffet and his family are doing this out of genuine concern or cold economic calculation miss the underlying problem.
Even if Buffet is doing this purely out of a real desire to help women without any regard for himself or profit, this is the kind of thing governments should be doing. It feels like the early 21st century is working out just like the early 20th century, only Mellon and Rockefeller have been replaced by people like Buffet and Gates.
Public health shouldn't be the project of a few super-wealthy clans. Basic societal needs should be met by our governing institutions. It's very worrying that those institutions are being systematically dismantled to the point that we have to depend on this rich saviors, and that we're being trained to hail them as such, rather than demanding that public issues be supported publicly.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:47 AM on July 31, 2015 [45 favorites]
Even if Buffet is doing this purely out of a real desire to help women without any regard for himself or profit, this is the kind of thing governments should be doing. It feels like the early 21st century is working out just like the early 20th century, only Mellon and Rockefeller have been replaced by people like Buffet and Gates.
Public health shouldn't be the project of a few super-wealthy clans. Basic societal needs should be met by our governing institutions. It's very worrying that those institutions are being systematically dismantled to the point that we have to depend on this rich saviors, and that we're being trained to hail them as such, rather than demanding that public issues be supported publicly.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:47 AM on July 31, 2015 [45 favorites]
I thought Jimmy Buffett was one of those evangelical types from the 80s or 90s who got caught out with a member in his congregation. But we don't do country music where I am. Who am I thinking of?
Jim Bakker, probably.
(Jimmy Buffett isn't country music. He's let's get drunk in Key West music, which is similar but not as twangy.)
posted by a fiendish thingy at 6:48 AM on July 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Jim Bakker, probably.
(Jimmy Buffett isn't country music. He's let's get drunk in Key West music, which is similar but not as twangy.)
posted by a fiendish thingy at 6:48 AM on July 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
To clarify my earlier statement, I'd be completely comfortable if this were a fully government-run program to help women get access to birth control, or even just something by an independent non-profit. That it's coming from one of the richest men in the world, whose focus is purely on improving his bottom line... that just creeps me out.
posted by SansPoint at 6:55 AM on July 31, 2015
posted by SansPoint at 6:55 AM on July 31, 2015
You can't know what's in a man's heart, so why not judge this based on actions and consequences? The program was good, the results were phenomenal. Who cares what the motivating factor is?
posted by Think_Long at 7:01 AM on July 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Think_Long at 7:01 AM on July 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
That it's coming from one of the richest men in the world, whose focus is purely on improving his bottom line... that just creeps me out.
That's an insult to the people working at the foundation and the organizations it supports. Much of the funding was already given to the foundation by Susan Buffett.
Most of Warren's wealth has been pledged to the Gates Foundation. Do you also think the Gates Foundation is focused on improving the bottom line of Berkshire Hathaway?
posted by mullacc at 7:05 AM on July 31, 2015 [11 favorites]
That's an insult to the people working at the foundation and the organizations it supports. Much of the funding was already given to the foundation by Susan Buffett.
Most of Warren's wealth has been pledged to the Gates Foundation. Do you also think the Gates Foundation is focused on improving the bottom line of Berkshire Hathaway?
posted by mullacc at 7:05 AM on July 31, 2015 [11 favorites]
I don't understand the criticism of Buffett here. Nobody's demanding that you erect a bronze sculpture of the man, but I don't think this program makes anybody worse off. It's improving access to contraception for women who want it. It's not actually displacing any already-existing government programs to provide long-acting contraception free of charge. If anything, it's laying the groundwork for such government programs to be established in the future by showing that they will actually work.
posted by burden at 7:05 AM on July 31, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by burden at 7:05 AM on July 31, 2015 [8 favorites]
That it's coming from one of the richest men in the world, whose focus is purely on improving his bottom line... that just creeps me out.
The article makes it pretty clear that this is coming primarily from his late wife and their daughter. And the extent to which he is directly involved, I think that demonstrates that his focus can stray beyond his bottom line. I don't even see that he's making a dime off of any of this. The foundation funded development of the $50 IUD (for $75M), but I don't think I read that Warren or the foundation had any ownership stake.
Don't get me wrong, it would be nice if this was publicy financed and we didn't have to rely on benevolent oligarchs to fund basic women's health. But I think this is an act of benevolence by the Buffet family, and not a secret way to bring fracking to the bedroom or something...
posted by the christopher hundreds at 7:06 AM on July 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
The article makes it pretty clear that this is coming primarily from his late wife and their daughter. And the extent to which he is directly involved, I think that demonstrates that his focus can stray beyond his bottom line. I don't even see that he's making a dime off of any of this. The foundation funded development of the $50 IUD (for $75M), but I don't think I read that Warren or the foundation had any ownership stake.
Don't get me wrong, it would be nice if this was publicy financed and we didn't have to rely on benevolent oligarchs to fund basic women's health. But I think this is an act of benevolence by the Buffet family, and not a secret way to bring fracking to the bedroom or something...
posted by the christopher hundreds at 7:06 AM on July 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
I agree that it's a problem to rely on the wealthy to fund programs like this. But that's not changing any time soon and wealth people with the opposite agenda aren't going to stop funding their efforts while more progressive philanthropists wait it out.
posted by mullacc at 7:09 AM on July 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by mullacc at 7:09 AM on July 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
To what extent does the Buffet Foundation fund contraception for American use vs. international?
The ability to control fertility is one of the largest drivers of economic change in the world, along with access to clean water and enough food. Time and again we've seen that as a country modernizes and women gain access to birth control, life improves. When fertility is a choice, birth rates quickly plummet from 6 children per woman to 2, or even 1. And then the whole society changes, mostly in ways that are better. Families become wealthier, women (usually) get more civil rights, girls get more education. Being able to choose whether to have a child is a fundamental world-altering option.
posted by Nelson at 7:18 AM on July 31, 2015 [17 favorites]
The ability to control fertility is one of the largest drivers of economic change in the world, along with access to clean water and enough food. Time and again we've seen that as a country modernizes and women gain access to birth control, life improves. When fertility is a choice, birth rates quickly plummet from 6 children per woman to 2, or even 1. And then the whole society changes, mostly in ways that are better. Families become wealthier, women (usually) get more civil rights, girls get more education. Being able to choose whether to have a child is a fundamental world-altering option.
posted by Nelson at 7:18 AM on July 31, 2015 [17 favorites]
That it's coming from one of the richest men in the world, whose focus is purely on improving his bottom line... that just creeps me out
I think your (and others upthread) confusion and resulting misplaced creeped-out-ness are a result of confusing the missions and motivations of the Buffets' for-profit versus charitable organizations.
posted by aught at 7:45 AM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think your (and others upthread) confusion and resulting misplaced creeped-out-ness are a result of confusing the missions and motivations of the Buffets' for-profit versus charitable organizations.
posted by aught at 7:45 AM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
I thought Jimmy Buffett was one of those evangelical types from the 80s or 90s who got caught out with a member in his congregation. But we don't do country music where I am. Who am I thinking of?
Jim Bakker, probably.
Jimmy Swaggart
posted by marsha56 at 7:47 AM on July 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Jim Bakker, probably.
Jimmy Swaggart
posted by marsha56 at 7:47 AM on July 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Captain l'escalier: "Public-private partnerships" are the death of government. They allow public magistrates to duck responsibility, and private contractors to rob the till. When they succeed, all the credit goes to the private side, when theh fail, blame always accrues to a public official.
Public-private partnerships (P3) are great in certain settings: getting companies to pay a significant share of what is essentially something that will strongly benefit them or have a vested interest (infrastructure in commercial areas or to new developments, for instance).
But public services, such as broad and general health care? That's the realm of government. Test balloons like this, where a private donor pays for the first round of something are even worse, because it shows that private interests will pay for such public goods, so cowardly politicians can cater to their conservative base and say "if private folks did it before, they can do it again."
posted by filthy light thief at 7:51 AM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Public-private partnerships (P3) are great in certain settings: getting companies to pay a significant share of what is essentially something that will strongly benefit them or have a vested interest (infrastructure in commercial areas or to new developments, for instance).
But public services, such as broad and general health care? That's the realm of government. Test balloons like this, where a private donor pays for the first round of something are even worse, because it shows that private interests will pay for such public goods, so cowardly politicians can cater to their conservative base and say "if private folks did it before, they can do it again."
posted by filthy light thief at 7:51 AM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Don't think for one millisecond that he's doing this for altruistic reasons.
It's amazing how often the right thing to do sustains both people and profits.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:52 AM on July 31, 2015 [8 favorites]
It's amazing how often the right thing to do sustains both people and profits.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:52 AM on July 31, 2015 [8 favorites]
Don't think for one millisecond that he's doing this for altruistic reasons.
Usual beef I hear is that plutocrats want more people so they can get cheaper labor and larger markets. Thus Big Business' support for greater immigration.
Leaving that aside - what kind of ROI do you think he's getting on this one? I'm not seeing any direct revenue stream here.
posted by IndigoJones at 7:55 AM on July 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
Usual beef I hear is that plutocrats want more people so they can get cheaper labor and larger markets. Thus Big Business' support for greater immigration.
Leaving that aside - what kind of ROI do you think he's getting on this one? I'm not seeing any direct revenue stream here.
posted by IndigoJones at 7:55 AM on July 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
I mean, is it creepy that he wants rich people to pay more taxes because he doesn't think it's fair that his secretary pays more taxes than he does? That also increases revenue while helping people.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:55 AM on July 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 7:55 AM on July 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
Don't think for one millisecond that he's doing this for altruistic reasons
There's something inherently creepy about a rich oligarch funding a program to keep the poor from reproducing
These are both shitty things to say. Unless you have some particular evidence that Warren Buffet is an evil profit mongering eugenicist and his former wife's foundation is part of his dastardly plan to control the world with his money, why not take his charity at face value? The fine article we're discussing doesn't give any reason to doubt his motives.
While we're at it, let's discuss the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That's Buffet's largest charitable donation, likely to be worth $20B or so, adding another 50% to that foundation's value. Is the Gates foundation creepy too? Is their work providing family planning in the US and internationally part of Bill Gates' evil plan? How about all the work the foundation funds to fight HIV, tuberculosis, malaria? Is it non-altruistic to provide clean water in the poorest parts of the world?
posted by Nelson at 8:15 AM on July 31, 2015 [28 favorites]
There's something inherently creepy about a rich oligarch funding a program to keep the poor from reproducing
These are both shitty things to say. Unless you have some particular evidence that Warren Buffet is an evil profit mongering eugenicist and his former wife's foundation is part of his dastardly plan to control the world with his money, why not take his charity at face value? The fine article we're discussing doesn't give any reason to doubt his motives.
While we're at it, let's discuss the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That's Buffet's largest charitable donation, likely to be worth $20B or so, adding another 50% to that foundation's value. Is the Gates foundation creepy too? Is their work providing family planning in the US and internationally part of Bill Gates' evil plan? How about all the work the foundation funds to fight HIV, tuberculosis, malaria? Is it non-altruistic to provide clean water in the poorest parts of the world?
posted by Nelson at 8:15 AM on July 31, 2015 [28 favorites]
To what extent does the Buffet Foundation fund contraception for American use vs. international?
It can be hard to pin down exactly where the donations of a private charity go, especially when they are given anonymously, but the Buffett Foundation has long supported Ipas, a a global non-profit organization that works around the world to eliminate deaths and injuries from unsafe abortion and increase women's ability to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights. They have given or have dedicated a total of $20 million to the organization.
posted by maxsparber at 8:30 AM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
It can be hard to pin down exactly where the donations of a private charity go, especially when they are given anonymously, but the Buffett Foundation has long supported Ipas, a a global non-profit organization that works around the world to eliminate deaths and injuries from unsafe abortion and increase women's ability to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights. They have given or have dedicated a total of $20 million to the organization.
posted by maxsparber at 8:30 AM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think the idea of "But what is Warren really up?" is appealing because we are so very unused to seeing a man, let alone a powerful and very rich man, truly walk the walk on equal rights. But by all accounts, Warren Buffet is a good and moral person, and it shouldn't be surprising that someone who clearly loves and respects the women in his life and has a brilliant mind cares deeply about safeguarding women's choice, because it has nothing but positive results for this entire society.
posted by sallybrown at 8:33 AM on July 31, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 8:33 AM on July 31, 2015 [18 favorites]
Test balloons like this, where a private donor pays for the first round of something are even worse, because it shows that private interests will pay for such public goods, so cowardly politicians can cater to their conservative base and say "if private folks did it before, they can do it again."
I don't, like, have a cite or anything, but this does not ring true to me. I mean, politicians who hate the idea are gonna pander no matter what. If there was no trial balloon, they'd just say something like "it's too expensive and won't do any good." If Buffett had like set up a nationwide network to provide long-acting contraception to anyone who asked for it, and funded it at a level that would allow it to do so in perpetuity, then there might be validity to this, but funding a short-term pilot program in a limited area doesn't seem to me to pose the same risk. At least a program like this will give politicians who want to provide long-acting contraception a case study to point to to show that it will provide a real benefit.
posted by burden at 8:42 AM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't, like, have a cite or anything, but this does not ring true to me. I mean, politicians who hate the idea are gonna pander no matter what. If there was no trial balloon, they'd just say something like "it's too expensive and won't do any good." If Buffett had like set up a nationwide network to provide long-acting contraception to anyone who asked for it, and funded it at a level that would allow it to do so in perpetuity, then there might be validity to this, but funding a short-term pilot program in a limited area doesn't seem to me to pose the same risk. At least a program like this will give politicians who want to provide long-acting contraception a case study to point to to show that it will provide a real benefit.
posted by burden at 8:42 AM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Test balloons like this, where a private donor pays for the first round of something are even worse, because it shows that private interests will pay for such public goods, so cowardly politicians can cater to their conservative base and say "if private folks did it before, they can do it again."
We have public libraries because of one of the tycoons of the previous guilded age, in large part.
The blame here rests not on private donors put there money where their mouth is, but on the ideological, patriarchs who control the public purse. Privately-run organizations like this can be very valuable into shaming action or even just providing essential services. Private abortion access clinics in Canada filled this role for decades and still must in the more conservative parts. Buffet's scheme has a track-record of working at least some of the time, at least when the pols aren't complete weasels.
posted by bonehead at 9:11 AM on July 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
We have public libraries because of one of the tycoons of the previous guilded age, in large part.
The blame here rests not on private donors put there money where their mouth is, but on the ideological, patriarchs who control the public purse. Privately-run organizations like this can be very valuable into shaming action or even just providing essential services. Private abortion access clinics in Canada filled this role for decades and still must in the more conservative parts. Buffet's scheme has a track-record of working at least some of the time, at least when the pols aren't complete weasels.
posted by bonehead at 9:11 AM on July 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
To clarify my earlier statement, I'd be completely comfortable if this were a fully government-run program to help women get access to birth control, or even just something by an independent non-profit. That it's coming from one of the richest men in the world, whose focus is purely on improving his bottom line... that just creeps me out.
So, is that just a general statement of opinion, or do you think it would be better if he didn't provide these programs?
posted by Juffo-Wup at 9:14 AM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
So, is that just a general statement of opinion, or do you think it would be better if he didn't provide these programs?
posted by Juffo-Wup at 9:14 AM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
That it's coming from one of the richest men in the world, whose focus is purely on improving his bottom line... that just creeps me out.
Someone correct me if I'm using this the wrong way, but doesn't this attitude end up erasing Susan Thompson Buffett's legacy? This isn't being funded by the "Warren Buffett Spare Couch Change Foundation" it's funded by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:33 AM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Someone correct me if I'm using this the wrong way, but doesn't this attitude end up erasing Susan Thompson Buffett's legacy? This isn't being funded by the "Warren Buffett Spare Couch Change Foundation" it's funded by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:33 AM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I just want to bust in and say I love my IUD and I will totally erect a bronze statue to WB and SB if they are the reason I have this little wonder chillin' in my ute.
posted by MsDaniB at 9:36 AM on July 31, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by MsDaniB at 9:36 AM on July 31, 2015 [14 favorites]
I'll back up bonehead on this, particularly when it comes to sexual health in Canada.
posted by LegallyBread at 9:53 AM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LegallyBread at 9:53 AM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
> While we're at it, let's discuss the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That's Buffet's largest charitable donation, likely to be worth $20B or so, adding another 50% to that foundation's value. Is the Gates foundation creepy too?
Criticism of the Gates foundation is not terribly unfamiliar. There are two reactions. One is to praise Buffett, Gates, and friends for their good works. The other is to wonder what is wrong with society that the greatest amount of good (or bad) comes from the whims of just a few dozen people. We can in fact do both at once...
posted by dendrochronologizer at 10:17 AM on July 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Criticism of the Gates foundation is not terribly unfamiliar. There are two reactions. One is to praise Buffett, Gates, and friends for their good works. The other is to wonder what is wrong with society that the greatest amount of good (or bad) comes from the whims of just a few dozen people. We can in fact do both at once...
posted by dendrochronologizer at 10:17 AM on July 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
For people who make really a lot of money, the prestige and power are in the making of the money. He has won his games, has all the trophies, etc. Now it's about using that money to influence the world. Buffett's version of how the world should be has some alignments with mine, unlike, say, the Koch brothers. Whether you call it altruism or something else, I'm glad he's doing it. I'm generally against the system being so in favor of individual and corporate accumulations of wealth. It's interesting that Gates and Buffett are using their vast wealth to do good. It's not unheard of. I have known working poor people to give cheerfully to charity, and the percentage of their wealth they give, and the actual effect it has on their finances, gives me tremendous respect for them.
posted by theora55 at 10:34 AM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 10:34 AM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Susie Buffett also runs the Buffett Early Childhood Fund and is involved with the Buffet Early Childhood Institute at the University of Nebraska.
posted by larrybob at 10:37 AM on July 31, 2015
posted by larrybob at 10:37 AM on July 31, 2015
"The place is a case study in non-transparency, and it's super hard to even figure out who's doing the grantmaking."
Who's Who At The Secretive Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation?
posted by larrybob at 10:40 AM on July 31, 2015
Who's Who At The Secretive Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation?
posted by larrybob at 10:40 AM on July 31, 2015
Also from the above-linked article:
"Susie appears to be a driving force behind the foundation's giving, even as she also runs her own Sherwood Foundation. Susie is into lots of issues, both domestic and international. She's been deeply concerned about global development issues, and both she and her brother, Howard G. Buffett, are on the board of ONE, the global anti-poverty organization co-founded by Bono. "
It seems like this thread has focused on Warren, rather than Susie, from the headline on down.
posted by larrybob at 10:43 AM on July 31, 2015
"Susie appears to be a driving force behind the foundation's giving, even as she also runs her own Sherwood Foundation. Susie is into lots of issues, both domestic and international. She's been deeply concerned about global development issues, and both she and her brother, Howard G. Buffett, are on the board of ONE, the global anti-poverty organization co-founded by Bono. "
It seems like this thread has focused on Warren, rather than Susie, from the headline on down.
posted by larrybob at 10:43 AM on July 31, 2015
Almost all women—and therefore men—use a form of birth control at some point in their lives
"and therefore all men?"
ha ha ha
no
posted by St. Peepsburg at 12:04 PM on July 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
"and therefore all men?"
ha ha ha
no
posted by St. Peepsburg at 12:04 PM on July 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
I took that to mean that if a woman is using birth control the men she is sleeping with use it by proxy. If I'm on the pill and sleeping with someone he is "using" that birth control. (Though I'd argue with "almost all women".)
posted by billiebee at 12:16 PM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by billiebee at 12:16 PM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
So the part that got me reading the original post is 'that you are sort of wasting more than half of the brainpower in the United States'. Because really? Pregnant women and mothers are broken? Our brains suddenly fell out of our heads? That mothers are permanently removed from the workplace?
Yes, I get the bigger issues but the framing of this is also really not great.
posted by ladyriffraff at 12:33 PM on July 31, 2015
Yes, I get the bigger issues but the framing of this is also really not great.
posted by ladyriffraff at 12:33 PM on July 31, 2015
Like MsDaniB, I love my IUD and am currently on my third. Probably the majority of the women I know have them these days, and it is incredible to think about how difficult it was to get an IUD in recent memory if you weren't a married woman with children--and how quickly this shift occurred over the past decade or so.
I got my first in 2006, which appears to be the year the Buffets got involved in funding research. To get a doctor to agree I had to:
1) imply that my partner was my fiancee,
2) promise to continue using condoms (seriously), and
3) I strongly suspect, to be a proper-looking white woman who wouldn't abuse the privilege.
As someone who could never successfully use birth control pills, IUDs have been transformative in improving my everyday life and I'm so glad that they're becoming increasingly accessible, especially to the women who need them the most. Kudos to the Buffets, seriously.
posted by veery at 12:43 PM on July 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
I got my first in 2006, which appears to be the year the Buffets got involved in funding research. To get a doctor to agree I had to:
1) imply that my partner was my fiancee,
2) promise to continue using condoms (seriously), and
3) I strongly suspect, to be a proper-looking white woman who wouldn't abuse the privilege.
As someone who could never successfully use birth control pills, IUDs have been transformative in improving my everyday life and I'm so glad that they're becoming increasingly accessible, especially to the women who need them the most. Kudos to the Buffets, seriously.
posted by veery at 12:43 PM on July 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think complaining about Buffett's self-interest misconstrues both "self-interest" and "altruism" by refusing to consider that long-term, enlightened self-interest often looks indistinguishable from altruism.
Warren Buffett has repeatedly noted that he does well by other people doing well. He invests based on fundamentals, with the notion that the businesses he invests in will do well and he will make a profit on it. (Contrast this to the Mitt Romney style of investment, which is about finding companies that are worth less than the sum of their parts, and profiting by dismantling and selling off said parts.)
Consider also that, historically, the rich do even better during periods of shrinking inequality than they do during periods of increasing inequality. Buffett is surely aware of this, and I'm sure he expectes he would be even better off financially in a world where he paid a higher tax rate. So while it's "unfair" that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, it also appears to be so economically inefficient that any relative benefit he gets from a lower tax rate is more than offset by the reduction in his share of overall economic growth.
(TLDR: Buffett's philosophy is clearly that "a rising tide lifts all boats" where the rising tide is the economic welfare of the middle class, and the boats are the wealthy.)
Basically, Buffett has done everything short of explicitly saying that "self-interest vs altruism" is a crock of shit. Which is why I think his statement about the profitability of this effort is actually a bit of a joke. I think he knows that some people's minds boggle at the notion that profit and altruism can work together, that they simply cannot conceive of a motive that isn't a binary choice of one at the expense of the other, and is just playing along with that framing to mess with them.
posted by bjrubble at 2:44 PM on July 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
Warren Buffett has repeatedly noted that he does well by other people doing well. He invests based on fundamentals, with the notion that the businesses he invests in will do well and he will make a profit on it. (Contrast this to the Mitt Romney style of investment, which is about finding companies that are worth less than the sum of their parts, and profiting by dismantling and selling off said parts.)
Consider also that, historically, the rich do even better during periods of shrinking inequality than they do during periods of increasing inequality. Buffett is surely aware of this, and I'm sure he expectes he would be even better off financially in a world where he paid a higher tax rate. So while it's "unfair" that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, it also appears to be so economically inefficient that any relative benefit he gets from a lower tax rate is more than offset by the reduction in his share of overall economic growth.
(TLDR: Buffett's philosophy is clearly that "a rising tide lifts all boats" where the rising tide is the economic welfare of the middle class, and the boats are the wealthy.)
Basically, Buffett has done everything short of explicitly saying that "self-interest vs altruism" is a crock of shit. Which is why I think his statement about the profitability of this effort is actually a bit of a joke. I think he knows that some people's minds boggle at the notion that profit and altruism can work together, that they simply cannot conceive of a motive that isn't a binary choice of one at the expense of the other, and is just playing along with that framing to mess with them.
posted by bjrubble at 2:44 PM on July 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
If you are funding the implantation of IUDs but not funding of the removal of IUDs then you aren't supporting reproductive freedom.
posted by subtle_squid at 3:24 PM on July 31, 2015
posted by subtle_squid at 3:24 PM on July 31, 2015
Yeah, because on a massive scale women are left stuck with an IUD they no longer want, after finally deciding for themselves they're ready to have the enormous money sink that is children.
posted by erratic meatsack at 4:32 PM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by erratic meatsack at 4:32 PM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah if you can afford the child then you can afford to remove the IUD. Lol
posted by jeffburdges at 4:38 PM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 4:38 PM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
"lol u can afford this" is not what I was going for, though paying $50 at Planned Parenthood to get the thing removed is definitely more achievable than $1000 to get it in the first place. (Using prices I was quoted directly at least.)
We don't have women, in droves, stuck in forever-life-altering situations for lack of IUD removal. I can understand the sentiment behind "Well then you're not REALLY supporting reproductive freedom" but it tastes too much of perfect-is-the-enemy-of-good when the real problem is access.
posted by erratic meatsack at 5:13 PM on July 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
We don't have women, in droves, stuck in forever-life-altering situations for lack of IUD removal. I can understand the sentiment behind "Well then you're not REALLY supporting reproductive freedom" but it tastes too much of perfect-is-the-enemy-of-good when the real problem is access.
posted by erratic meatsack at 5:13 PM on July 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
Also is there any evidence that the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation only funds IUD insertion and not removal? Because if so that'd be shocking and I'd love to know more. The fine article here mostly talks about funding creating and distributing new kinds of IUDs. It also mentions that the Buffetts have funded Planned Parenthood over the years, which certainly does remove IUDs.
I took the comment about "not funding of the removal of IUDs" as a non sequitur, another attempt to smear the work that the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation does in providing reproductive options to women.
To me the most interesting part of this story we're discussing is how the Buffetts feel they need to keep their funding of contraception a secret. I guess in addition to the anti-woman crazies who think contraception is somehow morally bad they also have to worry about hand-wringing people looking for any excuse to denigrate a wealthy man's donations to an effective charity.
posted by Nelson at 6:30 PM on July 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
I took the comment about "not funding of the removal of IUDs" as a non sequitur, another attempt to smear the work that the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation does in providing reproductive options to women.
To me the most interesting part of this story we're discussing is how the Buffetts feel they need to keep their funding of contraception a secret. I guess in addition to the anti-woman crazies who think contraception is somehow morally bad they also have to worry about hand-wringing people looking for any excuse to denigrate a wealthy man's donations to an effective charity.
posted by Nelson at 6:30 PM on July 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
I despair when I see women's rights eroded with every passing year, even as gains are made for other previously-marginalized groups. I don't think we'll see real progress for women until reproduction is a paradigm more opt-in than opt-out.
posted by Morrigan at 7:02 PM on July 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Morrigan at 7:02 PM on July 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
IUD removal's pretty cheap anyway, as there isn't any significant equipment cost unless you're getting a fresh one installed at the same time. It's usually simple unless there are complications such as being embedded in the uterus. Some health care providers will take them out for free. And occasionally they'll even take them out without your consent.
posted by asperity at 7:11 PM on July 31, 2015
posted by asperity at 7:11 PM on July 31, 2015
I knew a woman with an IUD who, when she was ready to start having kids, just yanked it out herself with no ill effects. I don't think that's recommended, obviously, but apparently it's pretty common.
posted by foxfirefey at 7:13 PM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by foxfirefey at 7:13 PM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
I also have an IUD. I got mine last year, and maybe times are a-changin', because when I asked my NP, she said "yup, sounds good, I can fit you in two weeks from now." No questioning about partners, plans to have kids, etc. I'm very grateful that my experience was so positive.
And y'all, Planned Parenthood is going through the WRINGER right now with the bullshit "sting" videos, Repubs trying to defund them, and the DDOS attacks. Find a way to support them, I beg of you, if you value women's right to reproductive health care in America.
posted by Ragini at 12:51 AM on August 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
And y'all, Planned Parenthood is going through the WRINGER right now with the bullshit "sting" videos, Repubs trying to defund them, and the DDOS attacks. Find a way to support them, I beg of you, if you value women's right to reproductive health care in America.
posted by Ragini at 12:51 AM on August 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
I knew a woman with an IUD who, when she was ready to start having kids, just yanked it out herself with no ill effects
Aaaaaaaaahhhhh!! *faints*
posted by billiebee at 4:02 AM on August 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
Aaaaaaaaahhhhh!! *faints*
posted by billiebee at 4:02 AM on August 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
Why do we care about whether this is profit-generating or not? A belief system isn't the same as altruism, and altruism isn't the same as wanting good for others. You can want great outcomes for society, AND make profitable business around that desire, AND make profound societal effects. If it's all good, why complain? I don't begrudge a company/person making money if they've got a great business that benefits humankind.
posted by shazzam! at 6:57 AM on August 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by shazzam! at 6:57 AM on August 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
poor people have a right to reproduce.
posted by subtle_squid at 12:49 PM on August 1, 2015
posted by subtle_squid at 12:49 PM on August 1, 2015
and iud removal can be about complications not just reproduction. Poor women should be able to switch to condoms or pills or whatever they wish. Reproductive freedom should be about freedom.
posted by subtle_squid at 12:53 PM on August 1, 2015
posted by subtle_squid at 12:53 PM on August 1, 2015
A correctly placed IUD is designed so that will come out painlessly if you just pull gently on the string (essentially like pulling out a tampon). Complications are generally if it was inserted incorrectly in the first place, or will be signalled by the above instructions not working.
I would prefer to have a Dr do it, but should civilisation break down (or I get broke when I need it out), I'm entirely confident about doing it myself.
Anyway, great! Fantastic news. If I was a mega-billionaire, this is exactly what I would be funding too. It is a public good on so many levels that why pick a reason? They are all great.
I made a comment recently when someone equated more economic development with having less children, which I find misleading every time I see. It's correlation, not causation. It's not economic development that is the cause, it's availability of contraception. Average family size without contraceptives is historically, what, around 6-7 kids? It's such a huge social change that it's invisible to many people, just the water that we swim in.
posted by Elysum at 5:35 PM on August 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
I would prefer to have a Dr do it, but should civilisation break down (or I get broke when I need it out), I'm entirely confident about doing it myself.
Anyway, great! Fantastic news. If I was a mega-billionaire, this is exactly what I would be funding too. It is a public good on so many levels that why pick a reason? They are all great.
I made a comment recently when someone equated more economic development with having less children, which I find misleading every time I see. It's correlation, not causation. It's not economic development that is the cause, it's availability of contraception. Average family size without contraceptives is historically, what, around 6-7 kids? It's such a huge social change that it's invisible to many people, just the water that we swim in.
posted by Elysum at 5:35 PM on August 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't really think this is a case of a rich oligarch trying to control the reproduction of the poor for purely selfish and economic reasons.
However, the legislators in Arkansas who want to pay unmarried women to get an IUD, THAT makes my skin crawl.
posted by inertia at 2:06 PM on August 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
However, the legislators in Arkansas who want to pay unmarried women to get an IUD, THAT makes my skin crawl.
posted by inertia at 2:06 PM on August 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
We should ban life jackets and other flotation devices. They only encourage risky behavior. The only 100% effective way to prevent drowning is total abstinence from going in the water.
And if you do, by chance, find yourself struggling with drowning, then no life saving or otherwise procedure or act should be allowed to be administered. You got yourself into this mess, you have to live with the consequences. You should see drowning as a gift.
And if you were forcibly pushed into the water, don't worry. If it was a legitimate pushing, your body will find a way to shut out all the water and survive the drowning.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:00 AM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
And if you do, by chance, find yourself struggling with drowning, then no life saving or otherwise procedure or act should be allowed to be administered. You got yourself into this mess, you have to live with the consequences. You should see drowning as a gift.
And if you were forcibly pushed into the water, don't worry. If it was a legitimate pushing, your body will find a way to shut out all the water and survive the drowning.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:00 AM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
THAT makes my skin crawl.
Does raising kids have value? Perhaps paying people to not have children is recognition of that self-denied value. With a predicted 11 billion humans on a resource-limited planet, perhaps it's worth paying people to deny reproduction.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:18 PM on August 16, 2015
Does raising kids have value? Perhaps paying people to not have children is recognition of that self-denied value. With a predicted 11 billion humans on a resource-limited planet, perhaps it's worth paying people to deny reproduction.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:18 PM on August 16, 2015
Mod note: The bill inertia refers to doesn't have to do with overpopulation, and is only for unwed mothers of one child who are receiving Medicaid benefits. Wonkette: The Gentleman From Arkansas Will Give Poor Women IUDs To Stop Birthing Trash.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:57 AM on August 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hammer’s record on not giving a good goddamn about women is quite well-established. As a proud graduate of the (unaccredited) Trinity College of the Bible and a pastor in the Saline Missionary Baptist Church, Hammer knows that in most cases, ladies don’t need no stinkin’ health care at all. That’s why he has a nearly flawless record of voting to prohibit all abortions, all funding for abortions, or saying the word “abortion” in anything but a shameful whisper. He also opposes “universally-accessible, publicly-administered health insurance” and “expanding access to health care through commercial health insurance reform.”Kim Hammer has signed PDF the Koch Brothers-sponsored "No Climate Tax Pledge" promising to vote against legislation relating to climate change unless it is accompanied by an equivalent amount of tax cuts (see "Koch Pledge Tied to Congressional Climate Inaction"), so I don't think concerns about the relationship of overpopulation and climate change is the motivating factor here.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:57 AM on August 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older Pair of tits? Check. | Death of a Prosecutor Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by billiebee at 2:35 AM on July 31, 2015 [28 favorites]