Speaker Pelosi wants to cut costs, like babies
By Brian Kirwin | Monday, January 26th, 2009 | UncategorizedThe Democratic “stimulus package” includes millions of taxpayer dollars for so-called family planning, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi has “no apologies” for it.
“family planning services reduce cost… for children’s health, education” (Drudge)
How China of her!!
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Brian Kirwin
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
52 Responses to "Speaker Pelosi wants to cut costs, like babies"
I almost fell out of my chair Sunday when she said that. The whole interview is bad really bad. The thing is I don’t think she had a bad day. I think she truely is clueless on many issues. So clueless that she doesn;t even realize when she makes speaking blunders like this. I am waiting for the Plain treatment from the MSM. In this case I can see bias. Then again this is the same MSM that promoted Diane Sawyer, Anne Curry, and that other Lady on the today show.
At least Katie Couric has some intelligence
As someone who claims to be Catholic, Nancy Pelosi should be denied communion by the Priest of her home parish. It outrages me, when anyone would make such idiotic statements, because it shows a lack of appreciation for life.
“We had to kill the children so that we could afford children’s programs.”
Yep. Typical progressive. Its all about influence and not about the actual, you know, ….people.
You guys need to realize that she was speaking about funding birth control, not abortions.
Or perhaps you already realize this and for you they are one in the same.
LD, is Pelosi suddenly opposed to abortion?
Brian,
OK, but does the current proposed increase fund abortions or does it call for an increase in the availability of birth control?
Nancy Pelosi might be Speaker of the House, but she has to get a whole lot of votes behind her to pass anything. I am going to applaud increased availability to birth control which might lead to fewer abortions.
Just to clarify where I stand, lest anyone be in doubt, I am pro-choice. Pro-restricted-choice if that makes a difference to you, but still pro-choice.
LD, what’s a restricted choice. If I remember the oral arguments well in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, avoiding that “undue burden” seemed mighty important to choice folks.
Being pro-choice and saying you want less abortions is like building a new highway and wanting less people to drive.
I can say that your being against birth control and wanting less abortions “is like building a new highway and wanting less people to drive” about you.
It does not matter what I want in restricted abortions. My solution is unacceptable to both camps.
I didn’t say I was against birth control. Please try to make comments without lying.
I’m not lying.
I am only going with you wrote in your original piece. You condemned Nancy Pelosi for increasing funding for birth control did you not?
If Nancy is so concerned about the economic strain of too many people, instead of directing her hatred toward Americans, she should support the deportation of illegals who clearly use more services then they pay in to the system.
LD, I can oppose federal funding for something without opposing that something.
I support haircuts. I oppose federal funding for haircuts.
Manasses, good point!
Brian,
You say you are not against birth control but speak out against any effort to increase the availability of birth control.
Make up your mind.
I oppose the use of abortion as primary birth control. Therefor I support the availability of birth control which might lessen the number of abortions.
You might not support federally funded haircuts, but I support federally funded birth control.
So Pelosi wants to bail out the economy by killing future taxpayers?
What a plan.
Shaun Kenney,
And just how many kids follow you into the pew when you go to church?
Brian,
Well see we do have some common ideas, we just need to stay away from talking history.
JD,
I support helping poor people, but I do not want the Federal Government providing an unlimited number of social programs to an unlimited number of people in the name of helping poor people.
LittleDavid would be nice if he spoke a littletruth.
“You say you are not against birth control but speak out against any effort to increase the availability of birth control.”
That’s completely untrue. I do not speak out against any effort to increase the availability of birth control.
I don’t consider family planning an “economic stimulus.” I also don’t think it’s government’s job to pay for everything someone somewhere doesn’t pay for.
As a friend of mine once said, if you can afford a cell phone, you can afford condoms.
You’re usually a better debater than this, LD. Off day?
By the way, Shaun pays for his own kids. He doesn’t get federal funding.
Manassas, sounds like a deal to me.
LittleDavid –
Five.
Big Shaun.
Shaun,
My dad had eleven.
Nancy Pelosi thinks you’re both evil.
Brian,
You said:
“That’s completely untrue. I do not speak out against any effort to increase the availability of birth control.”
It is not untrue. You are speaking out against attempts to increase funding for birth control.
I will point to your above original post to prove my point.
I am uncertain about your cell phone comment. Perhaps by outlawing cell phones we can limit abortions or something?
Nancy and her fellow libs are just trying to push their socialist agenda. As has been pointed out, the Chi-Coms have nothing on the dems now. It also gives more insight into how the dems view life- they see the Government as the judge of who lives and who does not live.
Did anyone see the recent story from Australia? A recent immigrant who moved there and become a productive member of the society wanted to bring in his daughter or son(I can’t remember which) who happens to have a lot of medical issues, and the Government turned down the request because they viewed the child as being a burden on their socialized medical system. Yet, we are told under a socialized medical system all will be taken care of by the Government. The libs have zero respect for life and it is shame they are allowed to get away with pushing the idea they care about kids.
Never mind this will do zero to help States and is about as silly an idea as has ever come out of the “Swamp” in Washington.
Hey Mannassas, how many kids do you have?
If you are against birth control you had better have had alot.
LD,
You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. It does not matter how many children someone may have or not have. It is about the silly notion that handing out condoms and such will help the economy.
We can fix the economy in part by not providing more abortions but by enforcing our immigration laws and getting rid of illegals who do not pay their fair share. Students that have to take ESL classes cost on average about a third more to educate then it does to educate a non ESL student. Add the fact that many illegals do not pay taxes or even their fair share and that clearly is a cost that is having to be paid by the States and local Governments that could be avoided by deporting illegals. Yet, Nancy supports keeping illegals here. Nancy is just too stupid to fully think through her ideas before opening her yap.
The problem is them damn immigrants. They’re Catholics that refuse to use birth control. They are breeding like rabbits.
This was meant to be sarcastic, but sometimes people do not understand sarcasm.
Brian and LD,
Your back and forth repartee aside, Ms Pelosi is totally an air head . Contraception is a codeword for “choice”…ie ABORTION RIGHTS.
I disagree with much of Vatican 2′s campaign against 2000 yrs of RC standards, but Ms Pelosi wants to sanction population control by any means, as a (the) solution for the world’s ills. She is a disgrace to all (outside of Marin county, perhaps) American citizens.
CL Flynn
Poquoson, Va
Charles F,
OK, we got you painted. You are against birth control.
You said:
“Contraception is a codeword for “choice”…”
The Pro-Life extremists are also against birth control. Charles F words prove my point.
Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
What Nancy Pelosi let slip in that interview is the true liberal agenda. Lets stop playing games here, Little David. Our government already gives funds to Planned Parenthood with Pelosi’s approval. I find it hard to believe that at least some of this stimulus will not end up in the abortion industry’s pocket.
The “progressive” agenda has always been to reduce the population numbers. In a Democracy government can more easily excert control over a smaller population base.Speaker Pelosi’s statement is not just silly, it’s dangerous. Thomas Jefferson would be rolling over in his grave.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights; that among these are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
— Declaration of Independence
Steven Osborne,
OK, let’s take this a little further.
We are going to deny access to birth control to the immigrants and those less fortunate then us.
Their population explodes while our population dwindles.
Sounds like a sure equation for success to me.
Again I was attempting to be sarcastic…
LD –
Why is it terribly difficult to oppose the state-funding of contraceptives and abortifacients?
LD,
Illegals are not immigrants, they are aliens. Unless of course you see no difference between buying a product from the store and stealing a product from the store.
Pelosi’s mention of family planning centers is code for Planned Parenthood. Family planning centers are not necessary to get “contraceptives” since any drug store will suffice. And a doctor will will prescribe the “pill”.
I satirized Pelosi with my “killing the children” statement because she supports the public funding of “family planning” centers and is vehemently “pro-choice.”
Secondly, our birth rate is hovering at a 1.2 replacement rate. And that’s with increased immigration. Do we really want our demographics to resemble Europe or Japan just because we want to support public programs? Also, if these contraceptives are used extensively, what use will be have for children’s programs? Its like saying “we had to burn the village to save the village….”
Opposing federal funding for something does NOT equal opposing “all efforts”, LD. I don’t know why you think that unless the federal government funds it, it doesn’t exist.
And how handing out condoms helps the economy, I’m still waiting to hear.
Even Chris Matthews said this policy is “too much like China” – It’s wrong, and that you can’t see it says more about you than about me.
Little David,
A birth control pill taken before conception is very different than an abortion had after conception.
If Nancy Pelosi were talking about birth control pills she would have been politically savvy enough to say so. She was talking about abortion, and that goes to the heart of the pro-choice movement. Despite what President Obama says the pro-choice movement is pro-abortion.
As far as immigrants and the under-privaleged go, “birth control” as defined by Speaker Pelosi would seek to destroy their future simply based on their class.
Thats not the America that I know.
Regardless, this is an excellent opportunity to hammer Pelosi. I would suggest focusing on her admission that population costs us too much money in these “difficult” times. Therefore we should accept her logic and close the borders after deporting many illegals. As they say about that “broken clock”……
Nevermind the fact that it is not a stimulus. Nevermind massive spending is BUSH II. This is just a “stimulus” *cough* somewhere preferable to the far left. Nevermind the abortion issue. None of that will change despite our wishes.
Embarrassing Pelosi with her contradictions,……..that’s doable! Highlighting border control issues……that’s possible.
Steven Osbourne,
Evidently you did not follow the link Brian Kirwin provided. Nancy Pelosi did have the political savvy to say the increased funding was for contraception.
Shaun Kenney,
Why is it so wrong to oppose government funding of birth control? Because opposition to such a move causes increased numbers of abortions in my opinion. Not all of us agree that contraception measures should be included in the definition of abortion.
However it is my understanding that the contraception funding has been removed from the stimulus bill.
Little David,
Speaker Pelosi said “family planning” and then specifically mentioned contraception, as a means to cut costs.
Regardless of whether or not it was included in the final bill, it speaks to the larger mentality of the pro-abortion movement. It is the dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about. The founder of Planned Parenthood was a vitriolic racist who believed in eugenics. The pro-abortion movement seeks to control the numbers of population. The Speaker’somment that this will “reduce costs” is another way of saying that some human beings are more efficient to society than others. I find that despicable.
If liberty can be denied to the unborn, than it can be denied to any of us.
Not quite, LD. Obama offered to pull that from the bill, but Obama’s not Speaker of the House.
LD, do you realize that you’re saying that people who can’t afford condoms are able to afford an abortion?
Like I said before, if they can afford a cell phone, they can afford their own birth control, and if they get pregnant, is wasn’t because of a lack of federal funding, it was because they made the CHOICE not to use birth control.
I thought you were pro-choice? They made a bad choice, and federal funds won’t help those who have the money for condoms but decide not to care until after the fact.
While I do not support eugenics, I do support birth control.
You stated: “If liberty can be denied to the unborn, than it can be denied to any of us.”
You are getting deep here now my friend (or if you prefer, I can switch to calling you enemy). When does the unborn become a person? Even St Thomas Aquinas suggested that a person does not come into existence at the point of conception.
Studies have shown that fetuses are incapable of anything that can remotely described as human thought until after about the fourth month of pregnancy.
It is not a person before it can think. Once the fetus is capable of independent thought, then we have a new human being we need to protect.
Brian,
I am saying that we need to remove the excuses. If we are going to deprive them of the abortion, then we better to willing to point how they could have prevented the pregnancy in the first place.
Of course, no form of birth control other then abstinence is 100% effective. Which is why I am pro choice, but I am RESTRICTED pro choice.
“Once the fetus is capable of independent thought, then we have a new human being we need to protect.”
I guess Democrats don’t count as humans, then.
LD, pregnancy is not like a cold. You don’t just catch it one day.
Besides, if you’re going to rely on the “no birth control is 100%” argument, then it’s you attacking birth control, not me.
Handing someone a condom might stimulate something, but it ain’t the economy.
Brian,
Make up your mind. Are you or are you not in favor of birth control? Choose your side and then stick with it.
You seem to argue against birth control because it is the Republican stand but state you are not against it when confronted about the issue.
David, I’m sorry if you’re having trouble. It’s called “ENGLISH” – learning to read it will help you go far.
I’ve never said I opposed birth control. Your mistake is assuming that everything deserves federal government funding.
Brian,
If you are against abortion but not against birth control I would hope you are in favor of allowing government funding of birth control which will help limit the number of abortions.
If the government is expected to interject itself itself on the abortion issue I do not think it is wrong for the government to interject itself on birth control.
LD, i don’t want government paying for abortions in an economic stimulus package. I don’t want government paying for birth control in an economic stimulus package.
How many times do I have to repeat what was clear to everyone in the world besides you in the original post.
Little David,
I’m not suggesting that you support eugenics, sorry if it sounded that way. There is a broader point to be made however about how Speaker Pelosi’s views those who provide extra “cost” to the state. It is a dangerous precedent to set, when referring to human beings as if they were collateral.
As far as funding for birth control. There are birth control pills that can be taken before the child’s conception which avoid eliminating the fetus. I wonder how long it will take for “contraceptives” to end up being the Plan-B pill. Government already subsidizes birth control in high schools and the results have been mediocre at best.
Brian,
I guess I am dense. But I finally think you have spoken with some clarity.
Now we finally have Brian on the record for what he is in favor of and that which he is not in favor of.
Amongst other things, Brian is opposed to increased spending for birth control that might limit the numbers of abortions.
Brian is 100% against abortion. But he is against public funding for things (which he is not opposed to) that might limit the number of these abortions.
Do not be disheartened people. We are starting to see less opposition to birth control. We are starting to see some cracks in the glass.
Yes, you are dense. I clearly stated my position and you clearly DIDN’T READ IT. What you wrote is not what I wrote.
Here’s another chance! Sound the big words out if it helps.
“I don’t want government paying for abortions in an economic stimulus package. I don’t want government paying for birth control in an economic stimulus package.”
Brian,
OK, sound this out:
You oppose government support of birth control which might lead to decreased numbers of abortions.
Still not right, dimwit.
I said, “I don’t want government paying for abortions in an economic stimulus package. I don’t want government paying for birth control in an economic stimulus package.”
I thought it would be a giant hint to you that the entire post is about the STIMULUS PACKAGE!!
Idiot….
[...] Obama’s asked Speaker Pelosi to scrap the funds for birth control and we hear she’s agreed. That was a particularly funny one — especially since (sans [...]
Brian,
Please look yourself in the mirror when you start calling people idiots.
The original point of your post was that contraception might be included in the stimulus package.
There were problems with the proposal. It would have included aspects that went beyond the short term. However spending on contraception is apt to be just as stimulating as many other aspects that are not being pointed to.
The whole reason this spending proposal was picked out was because of the “birth control is still abortion” aspect/argument.
I am getting tired of politicians and their supporters who fight against measures to increase birth control usage in our society when it is patently obvious they practice some form of birth control in their own sex lives.
Increased birth control availability will decrease the need for abortions. Perhaps some people will still be too lazy to practice birth control to avoid the abortion. However one of the excuses they use to justify the need for the abortion would have been eliminated.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.