Child poverty, contraceptives and abortion: Hobby Lobby hypocrisy

Have you ever noticed how the people who are most vocally anti-abortion also seem to be the least likely to care about child poverty in their communities?

Sure, they’ll rant and rage over a bunch of cells when they’re inside a woman, and talk about the rights of the foetus, and do everything they can to destroy a woman’s rights. But what about those babies who are born, and living in poverty, and whose parents are struggling to feed them, clothe them, educate them?


Ah, well, they seem to be a different story.

I don’t take well to hypocrites. I also happen to be very strongly in favour of women’s rights, and in favour of bodily autonomy. Perhaps this post says it better than I can here:


But the hypocrisy is getting my goat right now. Take the Hobby Lobby, for instance. On the one hand, obstructing women’s access to contraceptives while on the other supporting, with practically every dollar they make, sweatshop practices that seem to be brutally at odds with the welfare of any children. Or adults.

Then there’s this:


I’m glad I live in New Zealand, where contraceptives are easily, cheaply available and no-one questions it. Where abortions are readily available and they’re nobody’s business but the woman’s and her doctor’s.

All women deserve these rights. We need to stand up against the hypocrites who think they have any sort of automatic access to our bodies and what we do with them, and tell that it’s not okay to tell us what to do. It’s never okay.

And, while we’re at it, how’s about those pesky hypocrites start paying attention to the children in poverty who really need their attention instead!


Rant over.


5 thoughts on “Child poverty, contraceptives and abortion: Hobby Lobby hypocrisy

    1. NOT so, according to this:

      I’m also guessing if you took out religious organisations (which I personally am AMAZED still qualify as “charity” in this day and age in any enlightened society – their tax exempt status is up for review in New Zealand in 2015, thank goodness), you’d find a very different story.

      Thanks for commenting.

    1. If you’d read the article I’d linked to, it talks about Brook’s study (which your article’s assertion is based on) and debunks the study based on several serious flaws. In other words, your article is both out of date and incorrect.

      Sorry about that 😉

      1. That said, charitable donations have little to do with the point of my article, which isn’t about US partisanism but instead that people – ALL people – should perhaps care more about the children in poverty who exist now instead of hassling women about the fate of bunches of cells in their bodies that are nobody’s business but the woman’s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s