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.
January 26, 2009 at 11:37 pm
“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!
January 26, 2009 at 11:45 pm
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.
January 27, 2009 at 1:08 am
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
January 27, 2009 at 12:57 pm
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.
January 27, 2009 at 1:24 pm
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.
January 27, 2009 at 1:34 pm
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…
January 27, 2009 at 4:21 pm
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.
January 28, 2009 at 4:55 am
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.
January 28, 2009 at 2:06 pm
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