Austin, itโs a little unfair to say that I โskipped overโ Lant Pritchettโs findings on โunmet needโ (which are indeed interesting). What I did was both refer (very briefly) to those findings and link back to your post in which you had already discussed them in more detail (I also linked to Pritchettโs full paper). What I wanted to do in my post was to highlight something that you had โskipped overโ (if I may say so), namely the fact that the professor whose paper you had cited (favorably) had in the same paper, made clear his belief that (a) his findings were โno reason for governments to limit the availability of contraceptionโ and that (b) that โthe expanded availability of modern contraception has greatly improved human welfareโ. You can agree or disagree with those beliefs, but given the context in which they were stated, I thought it would be of interest for our readers to see them.
Share this story

About the Author
Andrew Stuttaford is the editor of National Review's Capital Matters.
Advertisement
Advertisement





Comments