Rand Paul is at it again. When responding to a question about workplace development posed to him at a luncheon, Paul decided to include a warning about how unwed mothers were doomed to poverty.
In his response, he said that the job of preventing unwanted pregnancies should fall mostly on communities (whatever that means), but then added "Maybe we have to say 'enough's enough, you shouldn't be having kids after a certain amount." He then warned the audience that being "married with kids versus unmarried with kids is the difference between living in poverty and not."
Paul went on to say "it's tough to tell a woman with four kids that she's got a fifth kid we're not going to give her any more money. But we have to figure out how to get that message through because that is part of the answer."
So, let me get this straight. Paul thinks unwed mothers are doomed to poverty, but thinks abortions should be illegal and that forcing insurers to cover birth control, which would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of children born to mothers who aren't ready, is wrong.
Paul also thinks that unwed mothers should get support cut off after having a certain number of children, but is perfectly happy to deny women the right to terminate their pregnancies and doesn't want to force insurers to cover birth control which would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions and children born to mothers who aren't ready.
I often wonder if politicians have some sort of "disconnect logical circuits" button that they press in order to keep their brains from exploding when they make such illogical and breathtakingly stupid comments. I'm pretty sure Rand Paul must be pressing that button a lot.