Posted on Monday, 26th January 2009 by Patrick Dorwin
Queen Moonbat… I mean, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks that if we taxpayers pay for more abortions, the savings in health & education costs will help the economy.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi on ABC’S ‘This Week’
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 crisis now, and part of it, 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, is — will reduce cost to the state 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.
Posted in Home | Comments (36) |
36 Responses to “Cheaper to kill ‘em than to pay for them”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:41 am
To bad her mom did not participate in family planning.
Considering that miniorities have a higher ratio percentage of abortions than whites, I think this can be called a racist policy.
For instance, blacks make up about 11% of the population but have 33% of the abortions.
Considering that Planned Parenthood was founded as a racist organizartion and it seems they have not strayed to far from their roots, I think this policy is racist.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I wonder how Nancy Pelosi would look at expenditures for health care for our aging population. Would she be in favor of expediting their demise by withholding life saving measures in order to reduce costs? Did the thought ever cross her mind as to what the economic state of our country would be like if there had not been over 50 million abortions?
January 26th, 2009 at 10:28 am
I’ve always wondered-who do socialists like Pelosi think will be doing all the work to pay all the taxes for all the entitlements in 20-50 years if there are no babies? You can already see the problem in Social Security projections after the decline in the birth rate in the 1970s and 1980s.
This “stimulus” thingy is a massive amount of debt on future generations. Shrinking the numbers of the future generations only increases the burden on each individual.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Dan, it’s not racist to kill black babies-at home or abroad-with the mother’s consent.
But it *is* racist, sexist, and classist to expect a 26-year-old single mother of six costing the taxpayers six figures annually to refrain from birthing a seventh, so I demand Mrs. Pelosi apologize immediately.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Why don’t you do something about the deadbeat dad loophole. Come on, they know exactly who the father is. But its for the children. Come on, they know exactly who the father is. Fill the loophole, there shall be no extra entitlement for deadbeat fraudulent community wrecking parents.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
New lesson in economics:
Bad economy = dead babies
Classy.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“what we do for children’s health, education”
She speaks out of wealth.
Mostly every person I know is one check away from having to sell their house, for what? So MPS can go on an even larger spending spree or let Doyle have it to be given to even more pretend Child care providers or self-proclaimed flood victems.
The real problem is people like her and Doyle that don’t what to address the real problems, just want to throw other peoples money at it and take their cut as it goes through their administration. They are irresponsible and corrupt.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Love the gargoyle, thought at first it was the Wizard of Oz flying monkey
January 27th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Honey is onto something here. In fact if we just do away with everyone on death row, the aging and the unborn we’d be way ahead.
Who’s next the handicap?
Pelosi needs to get a grip.
BTW…love the picture of the “moonbat”
January 27th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
No apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.
Yes. WE have to deal with the consequences of irresponsible spending, over-extended credit, poor fiscal policy, and greed by…killing off or preventing the birth of people who had nothing to do with the causes of our economic problems.
Talk about scapegoating.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Yep, and cheaper to censor as well. Patrick = Censor. But that’s okay. Your blog after all.
January 27th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
FromTheHip, huh?
January 27th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
To be fair, she said contraception, not abortion. I know many of you guys think that’s the same thing, but it’s not.
I just don’t like people equating the two. They serve very different purposes, and contraception eliminates the need for abortion and prevents unplanned pregnancies.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:02 am
I’m with ai on this one.
Libs support abortion, yet oppose the death penalty. Neo-cons support the death penalty, yet oppose abortion. Either of those positions seems self-contradictory to me.
There’s nothing comfortable on either side of the abortion issue to me. If I could only be certain at exactly what moment a soul joins sperm and egg…..
January 28th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Really?
One wants to kill innocent and save those guilty of the most heinous of crimes, the other (neo-cons, as you call them) wants to save the innocent and kill those guilty of the most heinous of crimes… Seems pretty clear to me.
Fortunately, I don’t have your doubt, but if you have a doubt, wouldn’t it be the right thing to err on the side of allowing the most innocent and needy of human lives, to live?
January 28th, 2009 at 8:18 am
AI, abortion is part of what Queen Moonbat” calls family planning”
January 28th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Patrick,
That may well be true about Nancy Pelosi, but the quote above only makes reference to contraception.
I’m just a stickler for accuracy when it comes to that particular cite.
Family planning encompasses many things, but without knowing specifically what the funding covers, I don’t think it’s fair to jump the gun and say that her comment refers only/primarily to abortion.
All of these stimulus/funding proposals are rather moot until they pass, and we all know it’s going to be a knock-down drag out fight, even though Pelosi thinks she has Obama on her side.
On a lighter note, why won’t the guv give ME money? I’m going to make myself a corporation and then fail so I can get a bailout.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:07 am
“I know many of you guys think that’s the same thing, but it’s not.”
AI, all of “us guys” know the difference between contraception and abortion. Kind of condescending on your part, don’t you think? Patrick is correct, abortion is one of the considered options that the pro-abortion crowd calls “Family Planning”.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:46 am
I object to “unplanned pregnancy” being equated to “tragedy-ABORT! ABORT!” I was an accident, and yet, contra Mrs. Pelosi, I grew up to be a tax-paying contributor to the economy (until a few days ago…but I might be again someday…).
Mostly, I’m not seeing evidence that women who are already receiving government-funded “children’s health care” and babysitting have much interest in obtaining contraception (and using it consistently and correctly) even if someone else pays for it. Planned Parenthood’s on the bus line, they have a sliding scale, but popping down there-or even developing a personal “no glove, no love” policy-to try to avoid “unplanned pregnancy” doesn’t seem to be a priority. Why do you think it will suddenly become one if it’s all free?
Women will still have to make and attend appointments to get their free contraception. My sister used to make medical and dental appointments for recipients of HAWK-I (Iowa’s S-CHIP), including arranging a free cab ride, and then call them the next day to find out why they never showed up-booty calls, drug buys, shopping, slept through it.
People don’t value things given to them for free, and why bother to avoid pregnancy when the child will be fed/vaccinated/educated/etc with someone else’s money? Especially when never-married single mothers with multiple baby-daddies are held in higher esteem by society than women who aren’t?
January 28th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Patrick
Really?
….and kill those guilty of the most heinous of crimes…
Some of which have since been proven innocent of the crimes for which they were sentenced. Note I didn’t say they were proven to be nice people. Still, innocent is innocent.
How many innocent deaths are acceptable to you? Is there a different number for adults who have been wrongly convicted and for a fetus in utero?
I really wish I had your certainty. My life would be much simpler if I did. But I don’t, and I refuse to pick out an answer simply to pander to one interest group or another.
Heather - either you need to hang with a better crowd, or I’m even more out of touch than I thought.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
BHB, name one person that has been executed that was later found to be innocent.
How many innocent children being brutally ripped apart in the womb do you find acceptable?
January 28th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Patrick -
#1. I can’t name one, because they don’t pursue post execution cases, but I believe Project Innocence can name a number who were slated for execution, then exonnerated.
#2. None.
Do you hold that life begins at fertilization? Or when the fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall? Or at what precise point?
January 28th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Project innocence can’t name one either, because there is no known case of an executed person being later proved innocent. That’s because our system bends over backwards to make sure it doesn’t happen. Sure, there have been people convicted in the original and in their automatic retrial. They are also given several years to appeal convictions. Thanks to these appeals, a few people have later been found innocent.
As for the question of life, I do believe that conception is the beginning of a new life, when do you think it starts? Does it magically become a baby when it takes its first breath? Or is it human before birth?
At what point are you willing to think it wrong to kill it? If a woman that is 8 months pregnant is killed, was the unborn child killed too? Or was it still an unviable tissue mass?
There has to be a point at which what you call a mass of cells becomes a baby, when is it? Take a stance, I have.
January 28th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
I’ve already freely admitted I was uncertain at what moment life began. Certainly by the time the fetus could survive outside the womb, but how much earlier?
Conception - when sperm fertilizes egg, or when fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall? Conception is a rather broad term. Since you’re so certain, please be specific.
January 28th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Project innocence for the most part has a history of overturning cases on TECHNICALITIES, nothing more.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Yes, when the egg and sperm come together to form a new life. Purposely ending that life is wrong. It’s what I believe and I can live with that… And so can the children.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Then you also oppose use of the “morning after” pills in all cases, including rape? And you also oppose IVF (in vitro fertilization) unless all fertilized ova are immediately implanted?
January 28th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
I am not insensitive in rape cases and would never blame a rape victim for aborting a pregnancy, but I would still hate that the life was lost. But to use “morning after pills” as a birth control measure, yes, I believe that is wrong.
I do have a problem with IVF, it creates life unnaturally, then most of the embryos are then destroyed. Of course I understand why many people have to resort to this method to have children. Would I prevent its use? no, even though I have personal objections to it.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:46 am
You would still hate that life was lost, but would be willing to accept an innocent child being brutally ripped apart in the womb if that innocent child was created as a result of rape? Is such a child any less innocent to alive than one created because the parents had a one night stand?
You’re starting to sound a lot more like me now that you’re pinned down.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:58 am
BHB, how is it you admit to being uncertain when the exact moment life is created, yet willing to allow it to be destroyed?
January 29th, 2009 at 11:43 am
BHB, I think you must be an agent of Satan. Rape is not a consensual act. A one night stand is. Rape is criminal. A hookup is not. A child is created by force against one’s will during a rape. A child is created together for lack of a condom. A decision to have sex is not freely made. A decision to have sex is made freely and without forethought. Think about it. Then walk outside, kneel down, and ask GOD to help you. And while your at it, ask that all the victim’s (both child and victim alike)survive the horriffic event that rape is.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Money is free to give away if its not yours.
Where is she going to get the money for this cluster, out of our 401k’s? Come on lady, you already stole the money from SS, medicare, and gave the rest of our money to Africa under penalty of jail or great fines. Now your going to take may retirement money’s in the name of planned parenting. I suspect there is going to be some civil unrest over this one.
Here she comes, but I thought we were voting for change/good, instead change/bad they empty our pockets.
Sincerely,
John Smith - one check away from foreclosure.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Who said I was willing to see life destroyed? Show me where I’ve supported abortion. I’ve often said I don’t have any comfort zone with that issue at all. I’ve simply pointed out the inconsistencies in some other folk’s too pat and too simple position.
Rocketman - you’re a piece of work. Where did I say that a child concieved by rape or a one night stand is either more or less innocent than one conveived in a loving stable family?
January 29th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
BHB, my point is that you admit not having a “Comfort zone” on the issue of when life starts or when to end it. I don’t think it’s “too simple” a position to exercise caution on the side of life.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Martin -
I don’t condone abortion in most cases, or like it in any. But if it’s necessary to draw a line where should it be drawn, and who gets to make that decision?
Frankly, I was surprised that Patrick “would never blame a rape victim for aborting a pregnancy.” I wouldn’t either, though I would prefer she choose to carry to term and give the child up for adoption. My real preference would be that no one ever had to face such a choice.
My discomfort with the whole issue of adoption is about equally matched by my discomfort with those who have all the answers, and claim the right to impose their personal views on others.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
BHB, read your own words! You jump on Patrick for his anti abortion stance except in rape cases, claiming he is on the fence. Your the one on the fence and clearly the post is hitting a tender spot. I make no claim that your not allowed to have views, but mine are as important as yours. Don’t compare abortion by a rape victim to abortion by a thoughtless horny teen. There is no comparison here.