Diapers not a luxury for the rich

Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, such as states creating anti-LGBT legislation and the growing threat of terrorism, America’s politicians have been focusing on a plan President Barack Obama has in the works to make diapers affordable for low-income families.

Last month, Obama announced the White House would aim to make diapers affordable for the many low-income families in our nation. The new program will begin at the end of April and will hopefully eliminate a huge burden faced in the U.S.

By partnering with Jet.com, the creators of Cuties diapers and several nonprofits, Obama hopes to make buying in bulk a realistic option for families across the country. Cuties’ makers have designed simpler packaging, which will greatly reduce the cost of producing the item and thus make them more affordable.

According to countless studies, one in three families struggle to afford diapers for their children. When faced with the decision to go without food or forgo new diapers, many choose to re-use old diapers to ensure their children are fed.

Apparently, diapers, the item used around the globe to keep infants clean and their fluids contained, are considered a luxury item in America.

That’s right — the item every child in the U.S. wears until they are two is not considered essential according to our lawmakers.

Since they are considered to be a luxury item, federal assistance programs such as WIC, SNAP or Medicaid do not cover them. We have families across the nation being told they have to find a way to buy the ridiculously overpriced items on their own.

Those who oppose the new initiative claim parents struggling to afford diapers need to send the kids to daycare and get a job to support their family. What a truly ingenious suggestion.

But there is one small problem with that plan: daycares refuse to take children who don’t come armed to the hilt with diapers. Since families can’t afford to buy those “luxury” items, they can’t send their kids to daycare and thus have to stay home to care for them.

Some argue families shouldn’t have children if they can’t afford to properly care for them. Unfortunately, lawmakers have made it their life’s purpose to annihilate women’s health care across the nation.

Planned Parenthood, one of the largest providers of women’s healthcare, has been under attack for years by conservatives fighting tooth and claw for each woman who becomes pregnant to carry that baby full term.

The second the infant comes crying into the world, however, their interest suddenly disappears.

Lawmakers have consistently opposed free contraception and have been in a tug-of-war battle with the Food and Drug Administration over Plan B for years. And unsurprisingly, their interest in sexual health is extremely one-sided.

Why is it acceptable that Viagra is covered by most insurance plans while birth control is just starting to become something providers deem necessary?

How do lawmakers expect low-income women to prevent pregnancy if they block them from help at every turn?

Dangerous health problems can arise with both the child and the parent when the family struggles to afford diapers. Thanks to Obama, the number of families facing this issue will hopefully drastically decrease in the next few years as these “luxury” items become more affordable for the masses.


Breanne Williams is a junior majoring in mass communications.