Should the Government Tax Women on the Pill for Killing the Environment?

Writer compares women on the Pill to the BP oil spill

Ladies, you know that little pill that you try to remember to take at exactly the same time every day of your freaking life that, the one that ups your risk of blood clots, strokes and cervical cancer, but keeps you from getting knocked up by the dude who -- though you love him -- won't wear annoyingly cumbersome (his words, not ours) condoms?

Well, don’t think you’re doing him or the rest of the world any favors by being the responsible one or keeping him from having to pay child support for the rest of his life. Because the pill that puts the whore in hormones is dirtying our waterways, and it’s all your fault. Turns out, the hormones in the Pill that keep you from getting preggers get peed out into the sewer system. Unfortunately, current water treatment facilities are not equipped to get rid of the hormones, which means the byproducts of the Pill  are released into our water, pumping marine life full of discarded hormones.

We know you feel horrible about this, so some politicians and columnists (read: people without vaginas) want to let you make it up to the world by paying an extra $1,500 a year in taxes to go towards the cleanup effort. Isn’t that completely chivalrous of them?

Tim Worstall, a contributor to Forbes.com, argues that, though it may sound crazy, it’s the only logical way to deal with the situation. After all, he says, women are the ones polluting the environment, and all throughout history, polluters are the ones who’ve justifiably had to pay. He even likens our pill-taking to the BP spill, which, you know, makes total sense…or not.

I’ve always been taught that birth control is both parties’ responsibility. So if a guy is reaping the rewards of a woman swallowing the Pill so he doesn’t have to put on a rubber or become a baby-daddy, you know, then why isn't Worstall throwing half the burden onto the guys?

Either way, the real polluter here isn’t either of us. Worstall’s lame argument assumes that the public is solely responsible for the impact that any consumer product they use has on the environment. Every product that is manufactured and sold damages the environment. The very act of pushing a new life into this world creates a carbon footprint. But clearly what Worstall and other guys want us to know is that having a vagina is much more damaging to the Earth than having a penis.

Like this? Want more?
preview
Connect with Us
Follow Our Pins

Yummy recipes, DIY projects, home decor, fashion and more curated by iVillage staffers.

Follow Our Tweets

The very dirty truth about fashion internships... DUN DUN @srslytheshow http://t.co/wfewf

On Instagram

Behind-the-scenes pics from iVillage.

Best of the Web