Opinion Page columns

Unless otherwise noted, these essays were published in the Republican-American newspaper, Waterbury, CT
 

OH, THE WOE: THE PILL OR CELL PHONE?

by Bill Dunn

Sometimes I am very optimistic about the future of our country. And then I wake up and realize I’ve been dreaming again. A recent news story—that I wished was a dream—reinforced my growing pessimism about the future of America.

It seems some changes in the way the federal government doles out money resulted in reduced subsidies to family planning clinics at U.S. universities. College students who used to pay discount prices for birth control pills—around $20 per month—now must pay about double that.

Not surprisingly, many students considered this the worst thing that ever happened in American history, and vehemently protested the funding cuts. At a rally held at the University of New Mexico, one student, Ambrosia Ortiz, told a local TV news reporter that college students shouldn’t “have to make a choice between their birth control and their cell phone bill, or their birth control and their gym membership."

Ms. Ortiz’s quotation is incredibly offensive on so many levels. I think I’ll shy away from addressing the inherent immorality of rampant promiscuity on college campuses, lest I reveal just how much of a middle-aged fogey I am. But I suspect Ms. Ortiz is a charter member of Students Living Under Total Secularism. She might even be the president of her school’s local S.L.U.T.S. chapter. (Oops, I guess I revealed my fogeyism after all.)

Instead, let me address a couple of other aspects of this disturbing story. First, how in the world can Ms. Ortiz possibly think her statement will evoke any sympathy? Does she really believe people will shed tears when she points out that some college students now may have a problem paying their cell phone bills or—horror of horrors!—now may have to cancel their gym memberships? Pul-leeze! I guess she truly believes cell phones and gym memberships are necessities of life, right up there with oxygen, water, and food. On her list of life-sustaining essentials, I suspect, are the following additional items: a closet full of shoes, salon-brand hair conditioner, and Spring Break vacations at a Mexican resort.

Ms. Ortiz should have taken some lessons from senior citizens, who have mastered the art of evoking sympathy. Whenever they want free handouts from the government, they always bring out the classic: “Grandma shouldn’t have to make a choice between prescription medication and food, or between her life-saving medicine and heating her home.”

Whenever an AARP lobbyist asks a politician to proclaim this dire statement at a press conference (and I am using the definition of the word “asks” that means: fly him to a Spring Break vacation at a Mexican resort), it’s a done-deal. Funding is immediately authorized to provide whatever the powerful “granny lobby” wants—with the bill being sent to a generation that has yet to be born.

OK, lighten up. Don’t start firing off angry letters just yet. I know there are plenty of senior citizens out there who have difficult financial circumstances, and society should help them. But what’s so wrong with a little “means testing”? You see, there are plenty of other seniors out there who demand free prescription drugs, not because of concerns about food or home heating costs, but because they’d rather spend their money at the Indian casinos.

I’m not quite sure why so many people these days—whether young strumpets or elderly slot machine jockeys—are under the impression that whenever they want something it should be paid for by someone else.

I wish I were more optimistic about America’s future. But no society in history has survived when its national motto is: “Gimme gimme gimme!”

©2008