Pomona College Keeps Wanting to Subsidize Birth Control

UPDATED 1/26/2008: Katherine Spada of The Claremont Independent beautifully outlined why its dangerous and immoral from a free market perspective to subsidize the cost of birth control at Pomona.

The kernel of the argument is that it isn't the school's responsibility to subsidize the cost of other students' health and well-being. Why should everyone at the school pay for the cost of subsidizing others sexual activity? Take some responsibility for yourself. If you can't afford to have sex, maybe you ought to reconsider your priorities.

I, of course, agree on the personal responsibility argument, but unfortunately we've been losing the debate at other schools. Recently Princeton okayed the use of school funds for subsidized birth control at the cost of $69,000 per year.

The free market conservative in me also reflectively cringes at the idea of subsidies. When the schools subsidize a drug, they lock technology. For all we know, someone may be waiting to develop a cheaper, better birth control pill but for the federal subsidies that impede development.

Unfortunately, the issue refuses to die at Pomona where Elspeth Hilton is at it again.

The latest bit is from National Public Radio's Marketplace (They sure know a thing or two about subsidies!)

At Pomona College in Claremont, students want school officials to help pay for their prescriptions. Student body president Elspeth Hilton says if they don't, students will go to clinics in poor neighborhoods where the pill is still cheap.

Elspeth Hilton: There are so many communities that are not very wealthy, but they have a very wealthy college within it. And to have those wealthier students taking away the resources at nearby clinics I think has a really big impact on the whole community.

Just imagine if someone tried to make the argument that the company you work for should subsidize the cost of your birth control and that all your co-workers should help pay. They would be laughed out of the office. Why is college any different?

Pitzer Professor and Students At Protest in L.A.

Pitzer Professor Brian Yazzie Burkhart and five Pitzer students have journeyed all the way to downtown L.A. to attend a protest over the federal government's decision to make snow with treated wastewater on land considered sacred by a local Indian tribe.

Here's the professor quoted in The San Gabriel Valley Tribune.

Brian Yazzie Burkhart, 38, of Claremont brought five of his students from Pitzer College - one of the Claremont Colleges - to help them understand the sacredness to Native Americans of such places as the San Francisco Peaks.

Born and raised on a Navajo reservation that borders the peaks, Burkhart said he hopes to raise awareness of religiously significant places.

"Not only is it important for religious freedom, but because of the role these places have in ceremonies," he said. "It's not just abstract. The ceremonies are healing and nurturing because of the place. It creates a healthy relationship between the earth and the people that extends out to everyone."

Putting aside the question of what a bunch of Pitzer students are doing up in San Fran. on the Tuesday before exams, I have several questions about this case.

For starters, why is the government making snow for a ski resort in the first place? Shouldn't the ski resort make its own snow? I'm assuming that the ski resort is on federal land. Why is this land federal? Why hasn't it been sold to the owners of the ski resort? Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for a federal attorney to argue a case for the U.S. Forest Service. The answer is to privatize it.

But, as it currently stands, the land is owned by all Americans, not just that narrow segment of the population. Therefore the recognition of the rights of the Indians in this area constitute an endorsement of one religion over another and run afoul of the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on religion.

At issue, here, though, is the question of state endorsement of religion. Imagine if a Christian group were to claim that a large swath of a federally-owned beach is holy to them and tried to argue that visitors to that beach cannot wear sunblock because it is against their religion. They would rightly be laughed out of Court. So it should also be with the Indians.

Alas, this being the 9th Circuit, I wouldn't be surprised if the Court ordered the destruction of the ski resort through eminent domain and gave it over to the Indians.

UPDATE: I'm told that the courtroom near the protest is based in L.A., not San Fran. Apologies to all.