follow-up

In a follow-up to yesterday’s post about our local government wanting to cut child care subsidies, here is a story which provides a bit more background. And stunningly they’re also talking about cutting contraception and counselling to low income families. Which is fantastic as it could lead to more kids being born to low income families who can’t afford to go to work, leading to more disadvantaged families in the future. Apart from moral and social reasons to support it, surely it just makes economic sense to the state to support reproductive counselling, as it will mean less financial burden on family support in the future? Or am I just really naive?

Leave a Reply