Response to Michael

In his most recent post regarding the contraception-subsidy question, Michael says that "[t]he question [he] meant to ask[] is whether one who neither opposes nor is (inordinately) skeptical about the use of contraceptives generally should vote 'Yes' or 'No'."  Putting aside the question where the line is between appropriate and "inordinate[]" skepticism about contraception, it appears that I misunderstood Michael's original post ("How Would *You* Vote?").  I took him to be asking the reader to assume only that he or she "want[s] to minimize the number of abortions in the United States."

Michael also writes that I "endorse[]" Fr. Araujo's third and fourth reasons for opposing the proposal.  What I meant to say, when I wrote that my own reason for opposition was "consonant" with Fr. Araujo's third and fourth reasons, was that my reason -- like, I thought, Fr. Araujo's third and fourth reasons -- proceeds from the view that "law has not only a direct, social-control function but also 'expressive' and 'pedagogical' functions (and effects)."  I actually do not know -- at least, I'm not sure -- whether subsidized contraception for college students would encourage more sex by college students, or would (simply) encourage those college students who would have sex anyway to use contraception when they do.  But, as I tried to make clear, I am assuming for the sake of this discussion precisely what Michael apparently believes, namely, that college students are going to have sex, no matter what, and that subsidized contraception for college students would likely result in fewer unplanned pregnancies.

Finally, with respect to my statement that "[t]he contraception-subsidy proposal involves, among other things, the expression-through-law of a position that, it seems to me, we might want to avoid expressing-through-law", Michael asks me to be more explicit about the "position" to which I am referring.  In my initial post, I indicated that the position I'm worried about is one that denies, or seems to deny, "that a young college man ought not to pressure his pregnant girlfriend to get an abortion, and a young college woman ought not to procure an abortion, even if their inability to shoulder the burden of paying full-price for contraceptives is one of the reasons they face the decision." 

It seems to me that the the proposal does express-through-law the denial of this position.  Instead, it seems to me, the proposal "says" something like the following:  "It is an understandable, and even an appropriate, decision for college students facing unplanned pregnancies to have abortions; and it is (therefore) appropriate for the public authority to allocate scarce resources in order to make it less expensive for college students to avoid confronting the scenario -- i.e., an unplanned pregnancy -- in which it is understandable, and even appropriate, for them to choose abortion."

So, does the proposal, in effect, "say" this?  Maybe not.  If not, though, what does it "say"?  If so, should we care?  Michael?  Robert?  Others?