Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Obama, the Democrats, and family planning

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently thinks that providing family planning funding belongs in an economic stimulus package. I suppose she means that it relieves states of some burdens, but it almost sounds like she’s saying that preventing new births is a way of relieving burdens. Kids are so doggone expensive.

There are certainly people who believe that. They’re the ones who applauded the President’s revealingly quick move to lift the so-called global gag rule, just in time for Sanctity of Life Sunday.

President Obama’s vaunted common ground amounts to this: you can have fewer abortions if you support those who (like him) often regard pregnancy as a punishment.

Discussions - 9 Comments

Whether family planning funding belongs in an economic stimulus package is surely debatable--but the fact that "kids are so doggone expensive" seems pretty indisputable.

Birth rates plummeted during the Depression and other times of economic insecurity. Historically, this could be achieved through marrying later, though it's doubtful that most men during those times were simply abstaining from sex.

While a birth dearth may not bode well for the future of social security, a stimulus is aimed at the short-term by definition, and in the short term, birth control is much cheaper than the alternative, from hospital births on Medicaid, to Head Start and reduced-fare lunch programs and public schooling, etc. The fact is that many women are the breadwinners for their families, and many more could be left in that position if a husband loses his job--an unplanned pregnancy adds stress, expense, and gaps in employment and health care coverage that are particularly daunting in the current economic climate.

Furthermore, plenty of women will attest that being pregnant feels like a punishment if you don't want to be.

Nancy Pelosi is stupid. Unfortunately there is no surgery available at this time to fix stupid, so we are stuck with her. The people who vote her into office every year are also stupid. Again, since there is no surgery or medication to cure stupid, we are stuck with the Nancy Pelosi and the people who vote for her. If having sex is personal (the government needs to stay out of the bedroom - The Lawrence Case)and the choice to have an abortion is a private decision between a woman and her doctor, then any funding for sex or abortion should come from private funds and not taxpayer funds. So if you have sex and then need to have abortion because you did not have the money to buy birth control, then your alternatives are to get a job to pay for the birth control and the abortion or take cold showers. I am tired of victims - "I had an unplanned pregnancy so the world has to pay for my mistake". Sorry, if you can't control and pay for your issues, don't come asking me for help. It is called Personal Responsibility. If you don't want the government in your bedroom or touching your body, then own up for your own actions. Done with the victim game.

Cowgirl, thanks for puttin' us in r place! See, I can't even spel. But if us libruls are so doggone supid, don't you want to keep us from bringin in more of our stupid spawn?

As to family planning being in the stimulus, this is in there to replace funds that the states would otherwise provide, but may have to cut. Cutting state funding means cutting state jobs which, regardless of your opinions on family planning, is bad for the economy. And kids are freakin' expensive, believe you me. I'm with mod, to say that kids are expensive is to say that water is wet, the sky is blue, and that cowgirl thinks I'm stupid.

Stupid: You and Nancy deserve one another. More "Deer in the Headlights" acumen.

What's "acumen?" Is that a spice?

"Stupid," I wouldn't bray too loudly of mental infirmity were I you. A little circumspection here is entirely in order. And that's because your progressive friends have a noted fondness for aborting those they deem "at risk," {not to mention their progeny}. Ever heard of a little case titled: Buck v. Bell? Well rest assured, that's a "bell" tolling for you..............., if indeed, you were "stupid."

Actually, Dan, the woman in Buck v. Bell (I forget whether she was Buck or Bell) wasn't, in fact, stupid. The best evidence we have today is that she was of perfectly average intelligence. So whether I'm actually stupid or just playin' wouldn't necessarily matter. Your attempt to conflate eugenics with my friends is misplaced, I assure you. I have no friends, progressive or otherwise, who advocate eugenics. I believe that what you mean to suggest, though, is that us 'progressives' come from a heritage that embraced eugenics. Certainly an element of the political left in the early twentieth century embraced the eugenics movement, but so did elements of the political right. The Nazis, Jonah Goldberg's ludicrous opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, were not leftists. And OW Holmes was not a lefty in a modern sense of the term, he was a staunch advocate of judicial restraint. Basically, his opinion was that if the state wanted to sterilize people, he wasn't going to second guess them. I think Holmes was wrong in this opinion (a good Supreme Court acts as a check on the excesses of democracy) but then again, I'm stupid, so what do I know?

Stupid: Quit playing the victim - look it up. The Nazi's weren't leftists? Tell that to Margaret Sanger. She was a big fan of theirs and brought their eugenics program to the U.S. in the disguse of Planned Parenthood. It you take the time to quit playing the victim for a short time and do some research you will find that Planned Parenthood's speciality is eugenics.

Playing the victim is my favorite pasttime!! Please, please, don't take it away from me, you meanie! I'll die!

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/13508