Sorry, Poor People, Sex Is Only for the Rich Catherine Rampell: How else to explain America's birth control policies? By John Johnson, Newser Staff Posted Oct 17, 2014 12:59 PM CDT 172 comments Comments (Shutterstock) (Newser) – After assessing the nation's policies on birth control and sex education, Catherine Rampell thinks it's clear that America has reached a decision: "Sex is for rich people," she writes at the Washington Post. "Non-procreative sex in particular." Because why else wouldn't we demand that all insurance policies cover birth control, in order for low-income people to have access, or properly fund reproductive health programs? Schools in poor areas with high pregnancy rates are filled with kids ridiculously ignorant about the birds and the bees, and yet we don't teach them about contraception. When kids come along, we shame single moms as "sluts" and don't give them the help they need. Add it all up, and "the solution for low-income people is to never, ever have sex," writes Rampell. The thinking seems to be that if "we make it harder for people to have access to family planning services, and financially painful to raise children who predictably result from sex in the absence of those services, people who cannot afford to raise children will choose celibacy." Biology assures us that's not going to happen. More and more, the US is becoming a "two-track society when it comes to fertility decisions," and it's time to give low-income women the same choices as their richer peers. Click for Rampell's full column.