What the frack?
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.
No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy. -Nancy Pelosi
Finally, the truth of my deepest, darkest economic theories have been confirmed. Increased birthrates are the engine of our current economic downturn.
Did speaker Pelosi also mention limiting the number of children allowed per household and aborting female fetuses?
Not yet? Oh. Well, soon then…
Well, I certainly am all for an era where we promote the idea that a couple should always responsibly choose to be parents. Pelosi's full statements really are about us all making responsible decisions—including choosing to be parents/have more kids. Drudge is about soundbites and sensationalized headlines, my favs are when he has a headline but no content….you seem like a rational guy, weird that you gave this so little thought before posting…but you got in a great headline about Mao! Woo hoo!
Louis A.
26 Jan 09 at 5:48 pm
Louis,
I get where you’re coming from re: Drudge and I agree that that he has a way of creating his own sound bites. But a self-serving sensationalizing source doesn’t necessarily discredit the actual sound bite.
My response to Pelosi’s statement was in no way thoughtless. What she said (http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=6725512),in context, was that children are a burden to the infrastructure. That what the government does to provide healthcare for children, to educate children, and to meet the financial needs of children, is a burden on state government. And I think you can go a little further, based upon the context, that she’s not talking about middle and upper-class children, she’s talking about the poor who are in need of of government services.
Unfortunately, there is no emphasis in her statement about “responsibly choosing to be parents” (Something I agree with, by the way) In context, everything she said has to do with contraception as a means to the end of the economic crisis. Based on what she said, in context, “contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.” At the very least that’s ninny-headed thinking, at the worst it’s a bad beginning to a dangerous end.
Moreover, it’s difficult for me not to infer, based upon the statement, that, somewhere down the line, it might become our “civic duty” to avoid or limit childbearing. Or at the very least, it may become the civic duty of those partaking in government services to forgo child-bearing.
One too many sci-fi novels in my personal library? Possibly. But then again, it’s been done before. Thus my “woo hoo” reference to Chariman Mao.
Actually, Louis, I may have given this too much thought…
Thanks for checking in.
reyespoint
26 Jan 09 at 10:15 pm