Hundreds of millions of the nearly $1 trillion price tag on President Obama's economic stimulus bill is expected to go to contraception and the abortion industry.
Last week, during consideration of the congressional Democrats’ spending bill by the House Energy & Commerce Committee, the panel made universal a Clinton-era Medicaid waiver that allowed states to seek federal funding for contraception and abortion. Under the new program, the federal government would match state funding for "family planning" services with $9 for every $1.
House Republicans immediately criticized the move, questioning whether such funding actually helped stimulate the economy or create more jobs.
"How you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives – how does that stimulate the economy?" questioned House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH). "You can go through a whole host of issues that have nothing to do with growing jobs in America and helping people keep their jobs.”
House Democrats defended the measure, however, as an indirect means of reducing the burden on state budgets allotted to children's health and education.
George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week" asked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a self-avowed Catholic: "Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?"
Pelosi responded: "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."
"So no apologies for that?" asked Stephanopoulos.
"No apologies. No," Pelosi responded. "We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy. ...Food stamps, unemployment insurance, some of the initiatives you just mentioned. What the economists have told us from right to left. There is more bang for the buck, a term they use, by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cut.”
Catholic League President Bill Donohue criticized Pelosi’s statement, saying: “Now we have Pelosi arguing that the way to balance the budget is not by cutting expenditures, but by cutting kids. We have reached a new low when high-ranking public office holders in the federal government cast children as the enemy. But at least it explains their enthusiasm for abortion-on-demand.”
Will it work???
Robbing a nation of a future labor force is never good for its economic health.
Will the spending on "family-planning services" help dig America out of its economic doldrums?
"That's not going to help grow the economy," Fani responds. "It doesn't even make sense as a prospect for helping this country through our economic crisis. So it's wrong on so many different levels, and just shows...a very flawed thought process."
American Life League calls Pelosi's remarks "a betrayal" of her Catholic faith, and the Christian Defense Coalition says it is "unthinkable" that she would try to stimulate the economy by "seeking to reduce the number of children."
Besides the fact that Pelosi is once again directly contradicting the Catholic Church she claims to be a part of, she is also ignoring a basic economic principle that Europe and Asia are dealing with now: Robbing a nation of a future labor force is never good for its economic health. For example, Japanese corporations, which usually expect their employees to work 12-hour days, are now telling them to leave early two days a week so that they can "be fruitful and multiply." At its current death-spiral birthrate of 1.34, Japan will lose 21 percent of its population by 2050.
Eighteenth-century economist Thomas Malthus hypothesized that a smaller population allows for a higher standard of living. Later, Malthus himself acknowledged that he had been wrong, and Japan and Europe, with their dwindling labor forces, are proof of his mistake. Analysts are saying that the greatest threats to Japan's society are from within, and, if Nancy Pelosi and her ilk have their way, the same will be true for the U.S.
It's just another way to pour money into Planned Parenthood
Nikolas Nikas, a pro-life attorney with the Bioethics Defense Fund condemned the decision.
He told LifeNews.com that he decried "efforts to pass legislation that would appropriate hundreds of millions of tax-dollars to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider."
Nikas said Congress is wrong to send money to a group that does 25 percent of all abortions occurring annually in the U.S.
"Planned Parenthood is the number one provider of abortions in the United States. During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the nonprofit Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions according to its annual report," he said."Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization that has no need for our limited tax dollars for the purpose of killing innocent unborn children," he added...
This is why it is ludicrous:
“Pelosi defended contraception as part of the stimulus,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) told CNSNews.com at the National Press Club. “It has to rate as one of the weirdest defenses in history -- ‘no children would lead to a better economy because there would be nobody to cost anything and therefore governing expenses are going down.’ You have to admit that’s very strange,” said Gingrich... “In other words, children are a burden to the economy, and Pelosi believes it's the government's responsibility to eliminate them,” said the Family Research Council. ... And if Congress continues to spend and spend, the nation will need more children – not fewer – to help pay for Social Security, Medicaid, and other government entitlements that Democrats hope to expand, the FRC said. ... Obviously, there's a practical danger in suggesting that babies are problems or ‘punishments’ (as President Obama called them) instead of blessings that build bridges to the future,” the FRC concluded. ...
Here is some more great economic advice from Pelosi on how food stamps will stimulate the economy more than tax cuts:
“(F)ood stamps and unemployment insurance, which affect the people in the states, are necessary at this time when funds are short and the economy is down, (and) actually have the most stimulative effect on the economy,” Pelosi said. “Food stamps first, unemployment insurance next, infrastructure after that, and it goes on from there.” “Actually, those investments bring a bigger return than the tax cuts,” she said, adding: “but tax cuts where we have them – to the middle class – we think will give us our biggest return.” ... Pelosi laid out the contents of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is expected to be passed in the House Wednesday. ... The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will devote $20 billion to “provide nutrition assistance to modest-income families and to lift restrictions that limit the amount of time individuals can receive food stamps,” according to a summary of the plan released last week by the House Appropriations Committee. “It’s about jobs, tax cuts and accountability,” Pelosi said of the legislation. ... Alan Viard said. “It’s also important to realize you are never going to get a large amount of stimulus from food stamps, just because it’s not a very large program.” Traditionally, governments raise interest rates and cut spending to stop inflation -- cutting down on “demand” – but they cut interest rates and raise spending to reduce unemployment – or “boost demand.” “The only purpose to boosting demand is to stabilize the economy,” he said. “When you boost demand, what you get is an upfront economic gain. But later you will have a payback once output goes down.”
Also Read "Pelosi should abstain from social engineering"