From THE DRUDGE REPORT: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."
Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.
The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning 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 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.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.
****
So the economy will be stimulated if there are less people?
Liberals!
God says, "Be fruitful and multiply." Pelosi says, contraception reduce cost. How revealing.
Government is God to the left.

Obama might have to start taking some players out the game if they can't play ball.
Is it really that hard for Pelosi to get the stimulus bill through without any controversial pork... Don't call for the ball if you're just going to screw up.
But whatever, the real battle is going to be in the Senate. The house republicans are a joke (a really stale and bad one), but the now we find out if the republican senate has a backbone.
Posted by: Derek | January 26, 2009 at 04:47 PM
There was an old William Shatner era Star Trek episode where they came across a planet that fought wars by calling numbers. If your number was called, you just went to the incinerator, plain as that. Maybe that same principle could apply here. Unfortunately, this policy target's those who are the biggest burden on the govt, the poor.
We could just put qualifications on people having children too. But where do you draw the line on that?
What's really interesting here is that Pelosi says this and "Wow, what a great idea, she's truly a pioneer for the progress of humanity." Had a conservative EVER even hinted at this idea, that would be the end of that racist hatemonger who wants to capitalize at the expense of the poor.
This also reminds me of a friend of mine who works for a major complany that lays off several thousand people every few weeks. He says that their thinking is "Hey, if we cut our workforce entirely, we could be making record profits!!!" However, they still need people who can make the products and develop them etc.
Since Pelosi is going so far as to say that we need less people around who are a burden on the govt, she might want to take a look at how BIG A BURDEN THE GOVT IS ON THE PEOPLE and on itself. Save govt money and take a page out of Bill Clintons book--shut down the govt for a while OR cut stupid govt jobs that aren't needed. Problem is, that would make sense.
Posted by: bartman | January 26, 2009 at 05:06 PM
Nancy darling will you be attending Mass this weekend? Might you be presenting yourself at the altar to receive Holy Communion? Shame on you Nancy.
Posted by: Diana | January 26, 2009 at 05:14 PM
OKAY I have to say it. This woman sounds like an idiot and she is the speaker of the House.
It makes me cringe.
Let take religion out of this. If we have less people and each generation goes down what happens with Social Security with each generation going smaller. Well that goes bust because less people to support it. Hell Nancy Socalism wants more masses to do the work so you can travel on your extra big private jet and your Tahoe SUV when you jet around Washington.
Nancy Nancy Nancy why stop there. Limit how many in a family or who can breed. I better be quiet because she has not thought of this yet. She will sadly she will.
Posted by: Gracelynn | January 26, 2009 at 11:07 PM
"Had a conservative EVER even hinted at this idea, that would be the end of that racist hatemonger who wants to capitalize at the expense of the poor."
Well, you guys do happen to have the track record of being completely crazy with regard to this issue.
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36907
"Louisiana Lawmaker Proposes Paying Poor Women to Be Sterilized"
Now... that would be funny if the guy didn't actually hold political office.
Posted by: Derek | January 26, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Derek,
thanks for doing the leg work for me. there's not a whole lot of difference here, obviously the permananent procure, but you know what I mean.
I be willing to bet a whole bunch of people would sign up for the 1000.00. they're the same people who showed up to get flood damage money in Milwaukee when NONE of them had flood damage. Reminds me of the most recent David Gruber law commercial with a dude saying "When everybody's paid, everybody's happy!"
At least the contraception allows someone the choice to use it or not. However, we need to take away the 'incentives' for having 10 kids or at least change them. If you're from Wisconsin, check out the jsonline.com stories about childcare fraud. Man, I think we are in the wrong business when you see the kind of money they are throwing around.
Sorry for the side track.
Posted by: bartman | January 27, 2009 at 01:21 AM
Wow ... why is the left so excited to abort more children?
This sounds a little Hitler like ... maybe if we reduce the BURDEN that children are (specifically poor and under-educated)... my children would grow up in a better world!
I would be so proud to be a member of her family ... just like Obama calling some "a mistake", she implies the kids have to pay for OUR "consequences".
I as a white married woman used food stamps and child health care after I had my twins and before my husband graduated and was employed. Since & before, we have been the taxpayers that hold these institutions for those that need them.
I thought the left were the ones that don't judge ... this looks a lot like pre- judging (or prejudice)!
Posted by: Sarah L | January 27, 2009 at 01:56 PM
No abortion, please, by all means.
It's bad karma at its worst.
Shame to those who even propose it.
Posted by: HL | November 11, 2010 at 06:44 AM