This is an actual ecard that can be found on the Obama-Biden website. This one has companion pieces that decry any agenda that returns us to an era of stable, two-parent (male and female, not one of the many permutations of gender and species identity that inhabit the modern Democrat party) families, middle class incomes, independence from government, affordable health care, and a low rate of both out of wedlock births and shacking up. This era is called “The 1950s” by the Democrats and it is bad because it is hostile to their natural constituency.

What struck many of us on the right as exotic about this claim is not only why any adult woman would expect her mother to pay for her birth control. Even the slacker mandate in Obamacare cuts you off from the familial teat at age 26. But the price tag.

I mean $18K is a lot of birth control to be used from age 12 or 13 through age 22 or so. If you were servicing the Pacific Fleet you wouldn’t use that many. Abstinence is also fairly inexpensive, in fact, based on my experience growing up abstinence can be very lucrative.

Christine Rousselle, who blogs as The College Conservative, offers more insight on the improbability of anyone outside the most energetic hooker actually spending $18,000 on birth control.

Because our letter-writer has been reduced to asking her mom for money, we’re going to assume that she’s not very well off and she’s a bargain hunter. On Amazon.com, one can purchase a fishbowl filled with a variety pack of 144 Durex brand condoms for $25.89. Assuming she’d use one condom per day every single day between the ages of 12 and 52, that only equals $2,624.96 for 14,600 Durex condoms. For those of you who aren’t great at math, $2,624.96 is far less than $18,000. She’d have to be using around four or five condoms a day for 40 years for that number to even approach $18,000.

Suppose our cash-strapped friend prefers to use the birth control pill instead of condoms. In 41 states, she can get the pill for $9 a month at a Target or Walmart. That totals $108 per year, and $108 multiplied by 40 is $4,320, which still winds up less than $18,000. In the nine other states, the cost per month is around $30, which reaches around $14,400 over 40 years. These figures assume that our letter-writer plans on using birth control pills over the full length of time that she is able to get pregnant.

Perhaps our letter writer would rather use a diaphragm. According to americanpregnancy.org, the maximum costs a person can expect for a diaphragm total around $65-$250 for the actual device, and around $7 to $18 for a tube of spermicide. I’m not sure how long a spermicidal tube lasts, but I’m willing to bet it’ll be good for at least a month or two. If the tubes are $7 and she gets one a month between the ages of 12 and 52, she’ll have spent $3,360, plus the cost of the device. If the tubes are $18, she’ll have spent $8,640 over 40 years, plus the cost of the device. Still, those numbers are far less than $18,000.

The crotch-focused campaign the Obama camp is running leaves me wondering, though. Is the rest of the nation really this focused on their own nether regions? Is who sticks what where how many times really the biggest issue facing the nation this year?