Even if you're poor, powerless, and uneducated, you still have agency, and the ability to make choices, no? Women generally have less agency than men. I have a

Even if you're poor, powerless, and uneducated, you still have agency, and the ability to make choices, no? Women generally have less agency than men. I have an unusually high degree of agency for a woman. I still feel like my life is a lot harder than it would be if I were male. In spite of my determination to exercise agency (or perhaps because of it), the world seems to slam an awful lot of doors in my face. I think it is really disrespectful of such women to act like they want their lives to remain in the toilet. They probably don't. But I still stand by the assertion that it's wrong for a judge to use the position he's in to push a birth control agenda on people in a coercive environment. I guess I am less clear than you that this is simply coercive. The judge may have zero power to offer birth control on a completely voluntary basis. He may be seeing a need and trying to find a way to fill it. The world seems to not be set up to just do the right thing for the right reasons and yadda. That seems to be a serious uphill battle. It seems far easier to try to slip a little good under the door in spite of the world by calling it "punishing bad people." That doesn't mean the judge is right. It just means that I don't think the article really spells it out that well and I don't think it is as simple as people are painting it who hear it and immediately dislike the idea on principle. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't. Knee jerk rejections "on principle" are often a situation where worse options get chosen because they are more PC, not because they actually, in fact, are better solutions.