Pelosi: Birth Control Boosts the Economy

Your favorite grandmother Nancy Pelosi defended the inclusion of millions of dollars being spent on birth control in Obama's new economic "stimulus" package by claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

So that's what you are folks. You are a cost to the state and federal government. You are not a product of love, an immortal being with a soul. You are the product of a cost/benefit analysis.

Here's the exact exchange on ABC's THIS WEEK. (H/T Drudge)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.
Now this just might explain why Obama and Pelosi are so vehemently pro-abortion. It's because they're so worried about the economy.

But here's the thing. Most people are not a drain on the economy. In fact, middle class and wealthy people put far more dollars into the federal government than they receive. So when Nancy Pelosi is talking about people who sap the Treasury she's talking about poor people.

And rich people can afford their own contraception. Poor people ostensibly can't. So what Nancy Pelosi is really saying here is the federal government must give out contraception in order to prevent poor people from reproducing because they're a drain on the economy. Margaret Sanger would be so proud.

Comments

  1. Is she going to get excommunicated...um...ever?

    God Bless,
    Ryan

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why?

    After this Ardent Catholic pushes FOCA through Congress, think about how much money will be SAVED from already burdened local school budgets who promote contraceptives to students. Those savings could be rerouted to the Athletic budget.

    No money is made from free condoms, but 95% of abortion $ stays right in your community! The PP workers are your neighbors! They spend their pay at local businesses. They pay local taxes. They put $ in the collection plate at local churches...well maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Could someone send this woman and her new "lord" a copy of Demographic Winter: the decline of the human family? Their reasoning is faulty in every way, not supported by evidence and is, quite simply, irresponsible.

    The math doesn't work. Fewer people born = fewer future workers/contributors = economic disaster. We're there right now...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Matthew,
    Really great post...

    Hmmm... we lifted four excommunications on Saturday. Seems we shouldn't simply let them go to waste; I say recycle them and hand them out to people who really need them like Pelosi and Biden, for starters.

    ~cmpt

    ReplyDelete
  5. Recycling is environmentally friendly.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that these people AREN'T motivated by evil and malice.

    ReplyDelete
  7. We need to get back to what is truly important in life: faith, family, friends, community, and responsibility. Responsibility to be productive members of society and not to expect the government to pay for the personal choices that we make. Somewhere along the way, America left that path and selfishness and greed led the way. Having more and better became our goal. Look where this has taken us.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If Nancy Pelosi can recycle eugenics the Catholic Church can certainly recycle excommunications!

    She makes me ill.

    ReplyDelete
  9. She is why we need more sermons on Hell because she seems like a candidate for the place..
    Christ spoke about it frequently, yet we rarely here it mentioned today, and yet so many politicians will probably end up there due to their stance on abortion, homosexuals, and stem cell support.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And some "people" think that the SSPX is a problem, This _itch is the problem brought on by VII permissiveness and bad preaching, Bishops not wanting to "offend", and priests wanting to be "popular". May God save us and may our Bishops start to grow a pair or go away, one or the other, politicize the Eucharist indeed, spinelessness !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I emailed in on this, because it's just so danged ridiculous. How a Catholic mother could be essentially telling other women that they shouldn't be mothers... it's beyond comprehension.

    If anyone is interested, I've got a post going right now inviting people to share their emails in to Speaker Pelosi repudiating this hostility towards motherhood.

    Mixing a "new era of responsibility" with making "no apologies" funding birth control as a way to "deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy" is absolutely alarming.

    http://funtohavefun.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/spinning-off-of-fr-philips-post/

    ReplyDelete
  12. Increasingly these dissident Catholics seem determined to undermine our faith & our nation, how can it not be by malice.

    Archbishop Niederauer would you please excommunicate her or somehow call her attention to how wrong headed she is being.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So, according to Pelosi, the economy would be great if we could just get rid of all these people.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mark Shea calls it the "Just enough of me, way too many of you" mentality.

    Pelosi had her kids. Her kids had theirs.

    Now it's a problem. So the rest of us need to sterlize.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey, Matthew, it worked for the Nazis.

    Oh, was I not supposed to mention that?

    ReplyDelete
  16. TragicallyUnhipMomJanuary 26, 2009 at 2:15 PM

    It's time for Nancy and Harry to take a nice long vacation from Washington. It's also time for our bishops to grow a backbone and do some excommunicating.

    So, uhm, we eliminate the future generation that will be the tax payer base.. so that the present generation will be stuck when they're dependent upon the government to provide those functions that they themselves cannot????

    Smart, brilliant, amazing... was she ever a Mensa candidate by any chance???? Or did she just happen to go on one too many dates with Peter Singer (Princeton's resident nutcase)?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Fortunately, those of us who don't believe in contraception will soon outnumber those who do. -- G.K. Chesterton

    Can someone please speed up the process?

    Mum26 - the new terrorist for putting a strain on our economy and our planet - how dare I?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Great post. When will poor people and minorities realize that the Democrats are not their friends???

    ReplyDelete
  19. Now, I'm not saying this is any better as a line of thinking (because it's not, it's appalling), but I can see how Pelosi was probably referring to contraception versus abortion, not versus life. Her reason, I would imagine, being that if everyone who sought an abortion had been on some form of high function contraception, the need for abortions would be less and as a result there would be less medical expenses incurred in the aftermath of abortions(ie: botched abortions, psychological scars, complications with future pregnancies etc... etc...)

    I'm not saying that it makes what she said better, but I think, it's a more accurate reflection of what she said given her prevailing thought process on other matters.

    And will somebody please stop categorizing people into democrats and republicans as if they are the issue. Believe it or not there are real pro-life Democrats. You know the ones who would vote democrat if abortion was not an issue at all.

    I take great offense to Daddio; to use his generalizations, it's always been my experience that republicans belittle, beleaguer and placate the poorest among us in favor for things that obviously have no effect for the poorest of the poor (such as trickle-down economics- it never worked). And truth be told, there is a tiny bit of irony that when I was younger the problem all republicans had with the government was the wel-fare system and how it just handed out money to the poor, even those who just kept having children. I have to wonder how loud they would have been and still be screaming if all those 50 million aborted babies were alive and well today. After all they made such a fuss over the few that did make it to birth in the eighties.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Aninya - it's not that simple. I was young about the same time you were, I guess, to judge from the "republicans against welfare" and "trickle-down economics didn't work" statements you made.

    1. Trickle-down worked a heck of a lot better than socialism ever has, or ever will. My working-class parents bought our first home in 1980, at the tail end of the Carter malaise: a handyman's special which they basically rebuilt while we were all living in it. It cost them $22K, plus say another $5,000-$10,000 for materials over the first year. They sold it in 1986 for $95,000. Only one anecdote, one family, I know - but to say the Reagan years simply didn't work is to ignore that story, and the millions like it.

    2. Of the 50 million extra people you mention, how many do you suppose would have automatically been born to the poorest Americans? This is one of the abortion industry's dirty secrets... the answer is, fewer than you think. A lot of rich folk simply don't want to give up their lifestyles for the hassle of kids. And there were certainly enough poor people who thankfully kept and bore their children in the past 36 years. There's no reason to assume that all these "extra" people would have been an extra drain on the economy. Enough of them would have joined the workforce by now to be a net positive as far as economics are concerned.

    3. People who wanted welfare reform weren't just saying "screw the poor." (Studies usually show that conservatives/Republicans give more to charity, both per capita and in total dollars.) It would be more accurate to say that government welfare ITSELF helps screw the poor. It takes away one of the major incentives for keeping the family unit together - increased economic stability. As a result, a lot of fathers bailed, and the country has reaped the whirlwind; higher crime and far worse poverty, both of which strongly correlate with fatherless upbringings. Here, the Great Society and the radical feminist subculture combined for some unpleasant consequences - just as some were saying that men were largely (if not completely) unnecessary, here came a government program that replaced their economic contribution to the family. It beomces a self-perpetuating cycle.

    As far as Pelosi, if I recall my Church teaching correctly, she's already ex latiae excommunicated for her public promulgation of abortion and for actively using her authority to make abortion easier to obtain. There's really no need for her bishop to say anything about it, unless he's reminding all his priests not to permit her to receive the Eucharist for her own soul's sake.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "we lifted four excommunications on Saturday. Seems we shouldn't simply let them go to waste;"

    Christopher Michael- that was the funniest thing I have heard all day. I have read comments about Ms. Pelosi on M. Malkin, here, and Father Z and yours was by far the best!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Aninya- "if everyone who sought an abortion had been on some form of high function contraception, the need for abortions would be less..."

    Actually, your logic is backwards. The Supreme Court partically decided to allow abortion to become legal nationally because of the likely failure of contraception, which they had already legalized. "What happens when their contraception fails?" was the argument given.
    Contraception leads directly to abortion, abortion leads to selective murder (downs syndrome...), which leads to assisted suicide, which leads to...

    perhaps universal health care in which Ms. Pelosi and her cohorts decide if grandma gets chemo, mama gets forced sterilized, sister gets an automatic depo-provera shot at 13, if baby gets to live at all, and if any second or third children are even allowed to be considered.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I believe that herein lies the solution:

    http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/compassion/ppolicy_compassion_research_catholic2.php

    Every other model only serves a few and controls and overpowers the rest.

    Blessings, Mum26

    ReplyDelete
  24. James said...
    Archbishop Niederauer would you please excommunicate her or somehow call her attention to how wrong headed she is being.


    Niederauer is not worth anyone's time or energy. He is probably one of the most ineffective, spiritually bankrupt bishops the US has. He was one of the last to come out against Pelosi's errant comments regarding abortion-- essentially only when shamed into doing so.

    I sincerely don't know why California is saddled with such sorry excuses for bishops. Let us pray that the next generation puts things right again.

    ReplyDelete
  25. kat, you touched on one thing that concerns me about government-run universal health care. Given recent examples in other areas, I don't see it being far-fetched to foresee a time when a pregnant woman wouldn't have pre-natal visits covered ("you already have 5 children, we won't cover any more visits"), but would be offered abortion instead, since it's cheaper.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hey, if your economy is built on deception, fiat money, rampant inflation, and dramatic over-expenditure, then once you reduce the population to zero you finally balance the budget! Three cheers to Ms Pelosi for having a plan to balance the budget! Hip, hip... Wait a minute, something doesn't seem right there...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Peter - no disrespect, but you can't blame Pelosi for the economy. The nominally Republican abortion-loving Arnie the Governator has the dubious honour of running our economy into the ground. He served his purpose under Bush, since Bush generally hates California and let us dangle in the wind during the energy crisis under the scum-bag Democratic predicesor, Grey Davis. But now that there is a Democrat in the white house, Arnie is as useful as a 3-sided outhouse.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Aside from moral, ethical, and theological issues with Pelosi's statement, her statement is just economically wrong, reflective of the current administration's approach to building the future. We are trading human capital of the future, and in an attempt to save some money, we are borrowing heavily against the human resources needed to keep the economy going. When we take out a loan, we do it hopefully as an investiment for the future: that is, what we expect to earn using the money borrowed is more than enough to pay back the loan; Obviously Pelosi is not interested in planning for the future generation.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Trying to reduce a population that was is article 2 section d genocide: directly, and word for word!:

    http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment