House Minority leader Boehner is at it again, only this time him, along with his conservative colleagues, are suggesting that since the stimulus bill has a section about state coverage of family planning, this somehow translates to, "hundreds of millions on contraceptives." The actual text published originally at Think Progress reads,
State Option to Cover Family Planning Services. Under current law, the Secretary has the authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to grant waivers to states to allow them to cover family planning services and supplies to low-income women who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid. The bill would give states the option to provide such coverage without obtaining a waiver. States could continue to use the existing waiver authority if they preferred.
As Pelosi explained, covering family planning services will actually reduce costs in the state since it will increase the effectiveness with which states can address the needs of their residents, along with bypassing excess administration. It appears that one of the main differences in what is considered effective cost cutting between the right and the left is that the right believes that just denying those that "haven't worked hard enough to deserve it" will save the economy, where as it is seems liberals recognize the governments responsibility in providing for its people in the most efficient way possible.
Pelosi's comments were grossly misinterpreted as suggesting that, "birth control will help the economy" and Rush Limbaugh even had the audacity to suggest that if we want to keep pregnancy rates down to, "post a picture of Pelosi in every motel room in America," but more on that later. Apparently, the GOP is hanging on to every last argument they can, no matter how banal and imprecise. It is clear that state spending on family planning services not only save the state money and time, but have greater long-term benefits for the health of our people.
UPDATE: Obama might drop funds for family planning from the economic stimulus package. Argh!.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Conservative lies: Wasteful spending on contraception hurts our economic stimulus package. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11640
It makes more sense to spend the money now on preventative measures. Conservative are so quick to jump all over the 'moral' issue of contraceptives and family planning. If you ask me it is amoral to deny the basic right of choice to a woman; not to mention denying her access to resources that can prevent unwanted pregnancies. Don't they see that if you put protection in the hands of women who cannot otherwise afford it, you stunt the population problem as well as put a hault on welfare funds that can be used eslewhere. I'm in no way against welfare for those who truly need it, but all I'm trying to state is that preventative measures is truly the best way to handle family planning.
AGH! When will the idiot GOP learn that birth control is a lot less expensive than childcare!? If they're really so concerned with the economy, maybe they should think about that one!
AGH! When will people learn that one way to stimulate an economy is to bring people in to the world that will in-turn create a demand for products and also produce things themselves. Dead babies via the hands of an abortionist have no use for products, nor do they contribue to society.
Abortion and contraception will only add additional stress to our economy as fewer and fewer young people are contributing to the replacement and care of our aging workforce. Can't it be understood that the best course of action isn't to spend money on stopping births, but rather to lessen the tax burdon on people and promoting better paying jobs so that every family can welcome the joy of more children and the good that they bring to society?
Remember, you can't have an economy without people. Fix the problems associated with taxes and jobs, don't mess with the solutions that come from bringing children in to the world.
For a good example of the potential that comes from welcoming life, you might want to check out the video I have posted on my blog -- http://homebuiltupontherock.blogspot.com/2009/01/imagine-potential-of-life.html
So in other words, women are just baby factories who exist to churn out little 'economy-boosters." Nice.
I didn't call children "economy boosters". That's just the result of a healthy society. What you call a baby factory, I call a home. What you might consider to be employees, I call a family. A society can not exist without families. Families are the foundation of every society. If you damage the integrity of families, so shall the integrity of the society fail.
Please read my earlier comment again. I called children a "joy" to families. I also called for the government to provide tax relief and better paying jobs. Wouldn't you rather have a love filled home with a healthy economy that provides you with a fair wage for fair work and the means to provide a comfortable living for your family? Where's the harm in that?
How can one take offense to the thought of children and yet be so willing to blindly pay into millions of dollars of contraceptive devices and abortions? Who in their right mind says "I'm going to contribute to the welfare of our nation's economy by allowing my government to introduce policies set to mess with my own personal reproductive system." If you follow this logic, then somebody could take it to the extreme and say that somebody wants to help the world's ecosystem by eliminating their contribution to greenhouse gases (carbon monoxide) by killing themselves. It's faulty logic.
You can't place some ideology above human dignity. You can't say it's good to kill people for the good of the environment and you can't limit families for some belief that it will somehow help an economic system. Where do you think we live? Communist China with their one-child policy? What good has it done for them? Absolutely none, but it has brought about a world of harm.
If we're forced to settle for this, not only will our economic problems get worse, but our nation will face much more difficult challenges.
Um. We have enough people. The problem isn't that we don't have enough people.
I refuse to believe it's my duty to make babies in the hope that they boost the economy. For one thing, the economy's well-being does not trump my right to bodily autonomy and my ability to chose whether to have babies. Everyone has this right, whether it helps the economy or not.
For another thing, children don't even contribute to the economy until they grow up. Meanwhile, they just suck up resources. Why can't *I* contribute to the economy *right now?* Why do I need my (hypothetical) children to do it?
While we're on this topic, we as a society need to stop this ridiculous idea that "Oh, well, our kids will fix it." No. WE need to fix it NOW so that our kids can have a decent life. Sticking the next generation with the bill is a disgusting, unethical cop-out.
You're correct, whether or not children contribute to the good of the economy shouldn't factor in to the decision to have children. By all means, I support your right to choose whether to have children or not, but like many other decisions in life, make the choice to have children responsibly.
If you don't want to have children, find moral ways to avoid pregnancies (natural family planning, for example). Another moral alternative is simply ABSTINENCE (yes, I know that's probably considered a curse word on this website). The choice comes BEFORE the act, NOT AFTER. Don't fool around and get pregnant and say that the pregnancy is an accident or unintentional.
Remember, a pregnancy is not the result of some accident. Sex is for bonding and for babies. A pregnancy means that the sexual act was SUCCESSFUL.
Surely you can understand that the impact of bringing a child in to the world has an immediate impact, not just one when they "grow up". The doctors and nurses find a demand for employment. Medical services are rendered. Even clothing, diapers, food, toys, children's TV entertainment, and a plethora of other products are made, distributed, and sold by people needing jobs.
But let's go beyond that discussion to what you imply is a "passing on" to the next generation a problem we're encountering now. Supporting families today IS making a conscious effort to fix the problem TODAY. It's not an overnight solution nor is it the only solution, but it is part of the solution nonetheless. You can't discredit it as a viable solution simply because this part of the equation takes a little longer to work its way in.
Failure to act today on these long-term aspects of a solution only passes on the same decision to implementing the solution to the next generation. For example, how many YEARS have we been talking about social security reform? Universal Health Care? Energy independence? Why encourage the hard decision to finally work those long-term problems out now but fail to support families now?
If it's not this generation, then perhaps the next will come to understand what this generation fails to see. We need only look at other parts of the world and understand that other cultures get it... other nations are not restricting their citizens, but rather encouraging an increase to their population. Both Russia and Australia now offer financial credits in some form or another for the children they welcome in to their homes. Europe, on the other hand, is quickly dying due to their extremely low birth rates.
But hey, if the nation's feminists are not willing to be open to having children and the strange people like me are welcome to the idea of more children, I can find comfort in knowing that eventually everything will work out in our favor. In the end, there will simply be more people on our side of the discussion than will exist on your side of the discussion. And with that, the political tide will change. That's change I can believe in!
i'm fine with women having more children. i plan to have more myself. but, see....it's my CHOICE to have more children! ahhh! choice! it's lovely.
the first-world countries that provide financial incentive for bearing children have all done so because of falling birthrates. and abortion is also legal in all of those places, too. (often, it's even EASIER to get an abortion in those places than here.) so try again.
but i hate to break it to ya (actually, i LOVE breaking it to ya)....statistically, more people support abortion rights than not in the u.s., and the last three generations in america have each been more politically liberal than the one that came before. so your whole "soon there will be more of us than there are of you!!!" argument is patently false.
but, from one christian to another, i want to tell you i find your justification for banning abortion on the grounds of creating little consumers to be one of the most repulsive and unchristlike things i've heard in a LONG time. "what would jesus do? wear NIKES!"
***barf***
Allow me to thank you for further proving my point about how first-world countries are providing financial incentives to families willing to have children in response to their falling birthrates. You pointed out the easy (easier) access to abortion in those countries. Abortion directly contributes to those falling birthrates! A murdered baby is the opposite of a born baby.
Let's talk about Jesus, Nike shoes, and the future trends of abortion supporters.
I'm not justifying the banning of abortion on the grounds of creating little consumers. If you read my earlier post, I clearly pointed out that ideologies can not be elevated above human dignity. That includes economic policy. A strong society (and its associated economic policy) is simply the result of strong, healthy families.
But if you want to play games with mental images, I'm willing to bet that Jesus would prefer to see children running up to him in their brand-name shoes rather than to find them dead, dismembered, and decomposing in the trash dumpters behind abortion clinics -- http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/hodari/
I spoke of how supporting life and strong families contributes to good economic policy because that is, afterall, what this blog post is discussing. If you want to speak on all of the other moral reasons for banning abortion, I can go there too. Or perhaps we'll just take that discussion over to another relevant blog post.
And finally, when it comes to future trends of abortion supporters, let's not forget that those in power today grew up in the 60s and 70s. They bring to Washington some of the same twisted views they had back in their hay days. And since then, I will admit that they have been successful in conveying to the past three generations their point of view through the media and through government policy (and let's not forget the Supreme Court 46 years ago).
But today's generation is different. They don't rely on the mainstream media for all of their information. There are countless bloggers out there presenting contrary points of view with rational arguments. Religious organizations can reach people they never could have done in the past.
And if you want the numbers to do the talking, an estimated 300,000 people participated in the "March for Life" this past Thursday in Washington, DC despite the weather. That's an estimated 100,000 more than were expected (of course, most of the mainstream media didn't cover the event... the NYT didn't even mention it as a passing reference).
Most of those in the March for Life were young people. Demographically speaking, those under the age of 25 are the most pro-life than any other age group. College students are being recognized for their impact to abortion -- http://www.lifenews.com/nat4798.html
Today's generating is tech savy. They can go online and research things themselves.
They can see the pictures:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm
They can hear the testimonies:
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/testimonies/index.aspx
They can witness the racism:
http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html
The days are coming when those 25 and under crowds will grow up and replace those aging liberals in office. Eventually, this nation will once again grow an informed, moral conscience and come to the same conclusion -- abortion is evil.
Hopefully myself and those pro-life advocates will also convince all of you to change your hearts. And if and when that happens, know that you won't find us being judgmental of your past support of abortion, but rather elated that you have reconciled yourself to the truth and have sought mercy for past wrongs. Silent No More Awareness -- http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org -- is full of people that have already followed the path to reconciliation.
right. so ideology can't be elevated above human dignity, eh? then stop trying to elevate your ideology (that a fetus is a whole, separate, sentient person, which science has never proven) above my human dignity (the right to control my very own body in the manner i see fit).
look, i don't have a problem if you choose to not have an abortion. i don't care if you advise your friends and family to do the same. i get ALL PISSED OFF when you try to codify your religious belief in civil law.
oh, and here's some stats for ya (from research was conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of bpas in May 2006):
"Six in ten (59%) adults agree that abortion should be made legally available to all who want it. Just over a quarter (27%) disagree and 14% are either neutral or have no opinion.
As previously found, respondents aged 55+ are less likely to agree with the legal provision of abortion for all who want it than younger groups. (54% of men aged 55+ agree with the legal provision of abortion compared with 63% of men aged 15-34 and 62% aged 35-54, and 49% of women aged 55+ agree, compared with 62% of women aged 15-34 and 64% aged 35-54).
More than three-fourths of those surveyed classify themselves as Christian, and 5 percent belong to other faiths. A growing number of American adults (16 percent) do not belong to any particular religious group. More than 28 percent of American adults leave the faith of their childhoods to practice another religion -- or no religion."
statistically, it's not lookin' good for y'all.
don't bother replying. you're not intellectually honest and i'm done with you.
ive seen a few comments in various places about all the babies that arent going to be born in the upcoming year because of the recession and the "free birth control from the government." there will be people having babies regardless, but im sure there is are a large portion putting off a baby until things are better.
i recently had an abortion, 50% because i didnt want to have a third child, and 40% because of the money we would have to spend as we would need a larger car, the health care costs, needing to replenish all the baby items ive been slowly getting rid of as my youngest outgrows them. (the other 10% was other little reasons.) also, both my pregnancies were "bad luck" when it came to our financial situation and im convinced my partner would lose his job - that would be just what we needed.
Were you using birth control?
does that matter? if i was, does it make the abortion "ok" cause at least i tried? if i wasnt, am i stupid slut for "using abortion for birth control"?
I didn't mean to imply any judgment, I thought question was relevant because the discussion is about birth control.
I should've said "if you don't mind saying".
Sorry if I offended.
i'm all for funding for contraception and family planning. but it doesn't make sense to have that stuff in an economic stimulus bill (especially b/c economic stimulus has a time limit). i also don't like arguing this issue on financial grounds....my rights with my body are my rights, no matter if it's expensive or not. i'd rather see this stuff handled in real, permanent healthcare legislation.
I agree with you. I certainly understand the logic of where it helps the economy, but it seems to me like a bit of a stretch, like the Democrats tried to slip it in there unnoticed and rush Congress to pass it. I certainly understand the raised eyebrows on the part of Conservatives, though I definitely support another bill to provide these services. If putting off the BC issue will help get this stimulus through faster, I think that is the way to go.
I just baffles me that these morons can't see where society is going with this. Do they all really want to be the examples of idiocy given to the school children of the future to demonstrate regressionist nonsense.
Bring on the abstinence only education!
Is it just me, or does anyone else think 'boner' when they see Boehner's name?
Seriously, any time I see that name I know my eyes are going to be rolling out of my head.
I actually don't understand the argument Pelosi is making. And, I think it relies on a lot of assumptions.
Her argument is that if you help the states with a type of spending - be it with family planning or otherwise - will reduce their costs that they would otherwise spend on family planning and encourage spending for local projects with this freed-up money. i.e. in a weird way its an federalism argument.
That being said, it relies n the assumption that states themselves will take the initiative for a stimulus whereas at the moment, they are already strapped for cash. Why would they not just take the federal money and cut their own spending? That, I do not understand.
I also think, as much as I support family planning, that it is bad politics. Obama should come up with a "family package" that supports lower income families as a part of his tax reforms- or something of that sort. Then there would be a good debate about the merits of the WHOLE rather than this small provision. At the moment, it simply looks like petty democratic politics than the real reform he promised.
Grrrr American Politicians can make me angry from 6,000 miles away in Jerusalem. Not that we don't have our share of issues... Anyway, celebrating choice from Israel: http://againstmybetterjudgement.wordpress.com/
::reads this article:: Please tell me this is a joke. Spending on contraceptives is too costly? Jeez, just how stupid is the GOP?
You wanna know what's more expensive than buying contraceptives like birth control and condoms? STD/HIV treatments, pregnancies, childcare, welfare, and so on. All because they didn't wanna invest a little bit to make contraceptives more readily available to reduce the rates of unplanned pregnancies and whatnot.
We cannot let this happen! http://www.capwiz.com/now/issues/alert/?alertid=12497951 This link is to send to our senate/house representatives, and President Obama, and urge him NOT to drop family planning from the stimulus package. We need it more than ever.
The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP; of which I’m a board member) has posted to its Web site a list of four major retail stores that sell low-cost birth-control pills. The organization is raising awareness of the fact that there are far less-expensive alternatives to the brand-name prescriptions for which many women pay upwards of $30 per month. The generic brands Sprintec and Trisprintec are available for as little as $8 to $10 per month at Kroger, K-Mart, Target, and Walmart stores in most states.
The list is posted at: http://reproductiveaccess.org/fact_sheets/lowcost_pills.htm.
The cost of birth-control pills is prohibitive for the millions of women in the United States who lack health insurance, whose insurance doesn’t cover birth control, or whose insurance requires high co-payments for medication. RHAP hopes that knowledge of where to find lower-cost birth control pills will help women avoid unintended pregnancies—which amount to half of all U.S. pregnancies.
Typically, women who use oral contraceptives do not question the brand that their doctors prescribe. Many doctors prescribe unnecessarily expensive brand-name drugs because they are familiar with the brand name. Some doctors are influenced by pharmaceutical representatives, who visit their offices to promote the latest brand-name contraceptives. Sprintec and Trisprintec are chemically identical to the more expensive brand-name Ortho-cyclen and Ortho-tri-cyclen, and most women do fine on the first birth control pill they take, whether it’s brand-name or generic.
The Reproductive Health Access Project seeks to ensure that women and teens at every socioeconomic level can readily obtain birth control and abortion from their own primary care clinician. Through training, advocacy and mentoring programs, RHAP helps family physicians and other clinicians make birth control and abortion a part of routine medical care.