When is Nanny State not Nanny State?
Why have to be accountable for free market policies that are seeing unemployment soar to 6.7% and a real unemployment rate in double figures when you can squirt a tiny amount of money on forcing dirty bennies onto the pill?
How come it's Nanny State to shut down a legal loophole that allowed abusive parents to get away with beating their children, but it's not Nanny State to restrict the reproductive lives of beneficiaries?
Let's be clear, ALL NZERS should have access to free contraceptives, but to target the poor in the manner Paula Bennett and John Key have with the contraceptive carrot and benefit cutting stick is a compulsion boarding on the authoritarian. This is the Shire, not one family Communist China.
Allowing the State to intrude into the personal reproductive lives of solo mums and their daughters isn't a slippery slope, it's a god damned water slide at the hot pools using extra slippery water.
NZ was so quick to scream Nanny State when Helen Clark closed the legal ability of abusive parents to claim the 'but-I-was-just-teaching-them-a-lesson' defense, yet not a whimper when the State write policy to intrude into the reproductive lives of the poor because the poor somehow 'deserve it'.
Aren't our double standards contemptuous?
That we are even getting tricked into debating this pointless tyranny is testament to how easily led the public debate has become. Our economy continues to hemorrhage due to this Governments ideological desire to implement austerity and amputate the states ability to raise the revenue its social infrastructure requires, and what are we focused on? The sterility of Solo mums and their daughters?
When the next performance indicator of how screwed our economy has become surfaces, I wonder if the National Party will respond by demanding all beneficiaries become mandatory organ donors?