Contraception is Cure for Economy?


This is a perfect example of how those in power right now (the Democrats) are going to use this economic “emergency” to try and justify a massive amount of economic “stimulus” to push their underlying agenda onto Americans.

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. – Drudge

This is absolutely ridiculous.  First they promote fear of everyone losing their jobs and this being the worst thing since the Great Depression.  Then they throw out huge stats about how many jobs they are going to create with this economic stimulus.  And then you look at all of this garbage they are trying to push through as part of this trillion dollar stimulus package that has nothing to do with stimulating the economy or creating jobs.

Let’s put aside the fact that nobody has ever in the history of the world stimulated the economy by giving out free contraception.  Even if it did stimulate the economy (which it doesn’t), there are innumerable other and better ways to stimulate an economy – which is what makes this move so obviously agenda and ideologically driven.

Every single dollar they are proposing to take from taxpayers as a part of this monstrous welfare check to America should be used in the most efficient way possible.  The fact that passing out contraception is even a part of the conversation should tell us that they are being less than honest about their intentions.

As if we needed any more reasons not to trust these people!  Actually, apparently some of us do need more reasons since we’re blindly trusting them to put us trillions of dollars further into debt in order to “save us”.

What we need to be saved from is out of control spending by our government.  And the government has come up with the perfect solution – more out of control spending by our government.  Oh, so brilliant and wise government.  Maybe one day they’ll teach all of us the secret to paying off our debt that way.

Anyway, the fact that politicians, let alone the Speaker of the House, can spew things like this with a straight face to the American people is astonishing to me.  Does she think we’re stupid?  Or does she just know that those Americans who do buy into their underlying ideological agenda are going to also buy into the garbage that passing out contraception just happens to also be one of the best ways we can spend hundreds of millions of dollars to stimulate the economy?  Give me a break.

We can argue on whether or not passing out contraception should even be the place of government (I personally don’t think so).  We can argue about whether or not contraception is moral (I personally don’t think so).  But any honest person should admit that this has absolutely nothing to do with doing what is best for stimulating the economy.  It’s about taking advantage of the American people in a time of need in order to pass their own ideological agenda – and at the expense of doing what is truly best for us.

And this is not even to get into the fact that Nancy Pelosi professes to be a Catholic.  Or that the hundred million dollar gift of “contraception” she wants to bestow on the American people also often operates as an abortifacient.

It’s scandalous when any Catholic supports contraception and abortifacients, not to mention one who also happens to be one of the most powerful leaders in our country.  Honestly, it’s embarassing for her.  It shows a lack of principle and character.  Why profess to believe in a Church with which you don’t actually believe?  Not only does it make you look uneducated, but it leads many others astray – which is actually very serious.

We don’t need more birth control.  We need more self-control.  And we certainly don’t need more government control.  We need more control of our government.

22 comments Add comment

Jason January 26, 2009 at 3:18 pm

“We don’t need more birth control. We need more self-control. And we certainly don’t need more government control. We need more control of our government.”

Extremely well written!!!

contranautgirl January 26, 2009 at 3:24 pm

As one of our group’s signs said from the March for Life. “Want Economic Stimulus, End Abortion.” And since in today’s society abortion is a form of contraception this makes sense as a solution. Nancy Pelosi’s arguement on the other hand does not.

Denise January 26, 2009 at 3:44 pm

We need far better sex education for our youth. I regularly visit several women’s health forums, and I am constantly baffled by the total lack of knowledge about human reproduction, sexuality and how the two go together.

While the government works to fund abortions and passing out contraceptives, they continue to feed into the side effects of the true problem: a lack of decent education into sex and the “consequences” of it — both emotionally and physically.

Johnny January 26, 2009 at 3:58 pm


As an “ardent, practicing Catholic” this is a shocking move, right?

Despite what some think (see here for short (“”) or here if you don’t trust the tinyurl: “”), I think our Clergy – to include extraordinary ministers – need to deny the Eucharist to those that don’t follow these very important Church teachings. How does one explain these situations to children? Or newcomers to the Church?

Shouldn’t we protect the Eucharist – the BODY OF JESUS CHRIST – with more fervor?

Matthew January 26, 2009 at 6:31 pm

“Anyway, the fact that politicians, let alone the Speaker of the House, can spew things like this with a straight face to the American people is astonishing to me. Does she think we’re stupid?”

She knows that the American people are stupid enough to elect Democrats, so, yes. I think she’s acting perfectly within the worldview prevalent in American society now.

Phil January 26, 2009 at 10:25 pm

Pelosi is a loon. This was not an idea that came from Obama or the whitehouse. Nor is it supported by Obama or the whitehouse. Pelosi supports it. Don’t jump to conclusions and put this on Obama and the DEMS as a whole. Yet.

Obama will meet with house and senate leaders tomorrow in what he says will be “a serious attempt” to get ideas from the opposing party.

Betcha $1 the final bill doesn’t include silliness like this. Otherwise it won’t pass. Obama knows this. Let’s give him a chance and see what he does.

Manya January 27, 2009 at 1:04 pm

I’ve always been amazed that partial birth abortion has been professed to somehow protect the health of the mother. How can anyone state that with a straight face when it couldn’t be further from the truth? So I’m not at all surprised that Nancy Pelosi states that giving out contraceptives is somehow good for our economy. It’s sad that people will state and believe nonsense when it suits their purpose. It’s mind boggling that a majority of people choose to do this.

Phil January 27, 2009 at 3:16 pm

Look’s like I win $1

“That request for opposition came one day after Obama extended Republicans an olive branch, appealing to House Democrats to jettison an estimated $200 million ticketed for family planning services for low-income people.”

Obama stays true to his ‘time for change’ stance and reaches across the isle. Somehow it will be spun into he’s the most liberal, leftist in history (even though he seems to frequently ask for and put to good use input from the GOP). So far at least.

Matthew Warner January 27, 2009 at 3:27 pm

I’m not interested in spinning anything. There is no question he holds similar views as Nancy Pelosi when it comes to this stuff. But the HOPE he’s giving us is that he’s going to govern more practically than his own personal views. That he will be an honest politician (not allow dishonest attempts like sneaking in $200 million worth of ear-marks and political pandering to planned parenthood and other big democrat lobbyists – and then calling it economic stimulus). AND that he truly does want to work across the isle.

This today does indeed give us hope. And I commend him for it. I hope he continues to do so.

Albeit, it will still take continued pressure and reaction from the opposition in order to get him to do so. I’m not convinced that Obama would have asked for the change had republicans not been upset about it. But that’s the purpose of checks and balances.

The trouble is that when the ear-marks and “pork” favor both the democrats AND republicans you lose the check.

Phil January 27, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Let’s try the glass is half full approach just once on this blog!

Matthew Warner January 27, 2009 at 3:47 pm

I am an eternal optimist when it comes to life in general. The government is a totally different story – and with good reason.

I’m happy to give some props to B.O. whenever he does something good. But just because he makes the obvious no brainer right decision in this case does not mean he’s earned a golden ticket. It just means he’s not as bad as Nancy Pelosi – which isn’t saying much.

Phil January 27, 2009 at 9:50 pm

Really? I think it’s saying a lot. Obama is nothing like Pelosi and I think you know that. But the pessimism goes on…

Comparing that loon Pelosi to Obama is like comparing Rush Limbaugh to John Mccain.

And I’m not so sure this was a no brainer. None of them are. It takes courage and leadership to, in the first two weeks, a)stand up to your own party refusing to play politics as usual and b)reach across the isle in a blatent attempt to make nice.

Both moves really put B.O., as you so eloquently call him, in a position to receive much critism from both the left and the right. But he doesn’t seem to be getting much. And he doesn’t seem to be bothered with the usual politic-ing. He simply squashes it. Bravo. He seems to be above all that – what an elitest! (lol)

But that’s not even the point. The point is HE did the RIGHT thing. And it’s moot to try to say whether or not he would have done it the same under different circumstances. He did the right thing, period. Those who try to discredit him for doing the right thing show their true colors in doing so.

I understand your GOV pessimism. But it should stretch accross the isle and not just towards the DEMS. Seems a lot more optimism exists on this blog when speaking of the GOP and what a wonderful man Mr. Bush is! So are you pessimistic about GOV or DEMS?

Does GW’s track record warrent such optimism? Doubtful! Mccain’s campaign? Not quite! So why not give Barry a chance? Let’s be fair and centered!

Matthew Warner January 28, 2009 at 12:13 am

I did give credit to Obama. I think he did the right thing. I was dissin on the House democrats and Nancy Pelosi.

And I dissed on the republicans, all politicians, and the government in general two comments ago saying that often neither parties do the right thing (republicans included) when it is politically expedient for them both to do the wrong thing together. Hence the lack of optimism about government in general and hence not seeing the government’s glass as half full all the time. That’s all. And I’ve mentioned quite a few times things that I’ve disagreed with republicans or GW on.

I try to be fair and centered on the Truth – not “fair and centered” between two political parties.

Cindy January 28, 2009 at 12:04 pm

How does Democrat or Republican play into this? Stop already with the identity politics. This is the haves vs. the have nots. Moral vs. immoral. They want to limit the number of poor people.

Phil January 28, 2009 at 12:39 pm

Well I think if you look at the history of your topics on this blog one could easily make a case against you saying that your goal is to be centered on truth. It seems to be more party driven when you don’t agree with something. Just saying.

Either that or you think that 99% of the GOV ‘truth’ problems are due to the DEMS. Just look at the topics of your last 10 polically related blogs! Where are the truth seeking blogs on the Iraq war, on torture, on Katrina, etc. . Yes, there are many untruths being pushed by DEMS but it is dilusional to think that the same amount of untruths are not being pushed by the GOP. Yet we certainly NEVER hear about them on this blog! That’s all I am saying!!!

If you are pessimistic about GOV then I fully expect to see that pessisim span across both parties not just the DEMS. That would be being centered on truth. But I can’t seem to find one blog in the last 6 months that slams the GOP…and to boot there is even one gloriyfing GWB! Just saying!!!

Matthew Warner January 28, 2009 at 1:08 pm

#1) those are all past events…this blog tries to stick to largely current events – which mostly deals with those in power – the dems. Katrina, the war, torture (some of which I have questioned) are all in the pretty distant past.

#2) And to say that there are the same amount of untruths on both sides is unfounded and fallacious logic.

That’s the problem with this whole “fair and balanced” approach to news. People think that just because they hear two sides of an issue that they’ve gotten a “balanced” or “fair” view of it. That’s only true if both sides are equally wrong, equally right, or equally fair.

If one side is mostly unfair, and the other side is mostly fair and you hear both sides presented as equals then you have not gotten a fair and balanced perspective AT ALL. It’s an illusion.

I’m skeptical of people/politicians in power in both parties. I do, however, believe that the ideals presented in one niche of one party are much nearer the truth than others. Those are two separate things. You can call that biased towards a party or person. I call it biased towards the truth – if that’s bias.

Matthew Warner January 28, 2009 at 1:17 pm

#3) As a Catholic there are non-negotiable issues of morality. The Democratic party largely stands against a number of these issues – far more than the republican party.

For example, Dems and Repubs BOTH want to help the poor (a good thing). Repubs just think it can be done better by different governmental principles. Morally speaking – that’s a legit disagreement and I leave to far less harsh scrutiny (although I think still very important…it’s a practical point, not a moral one).

On the other hand, with issues of marriage and abortion, for example…they are diametrically opposed. These also happen to be morally non-negotiable as a Catholic. Issues like these are the main points of your perceiving my bias against dems. But the truth is that they are very wrong on these issues.

And even issues like the war or torture…they are not necessarily arguments of principle. Bush didn’t stand on a principle of “going to war a lot” and the dems “against going to war a lot.” He had a tough decision to make and the safety of Americans and the freedom of Iraqis/afghanis stood in the balance. (And most dems supported it ALSO).

We can argue about his decision or the morality or justness of the war. Fine. But it’s not the same as standing for a bigger immoral principle to criticize him or the party for.

And I don’t think I glorified GW. I thanked him for keeping us safe and doing his job the best he could with what was best for America at heart – which I believe he did.

Phil January 28, 2009 at 1:40 pm

Did you take a look at your last 10 politically driven blog posts? You don’t see a party driven bias there? Quit playing ‘defense’ and just try to see the big picture here. All I am saying.

Contraception is the cure for the economy?
MSM and Obama disrespect unborn as expected
Fair coverage for the march for life? (slamming liberals)
And the battle begins (slamming Obama)
The 50 million missing man march (slamming Obama)
Is G.W. Bush your homeboy (praising Bush)
Yo Adrian! We did it! (calling DEMS extremists)
Obama could close Cathlic hospitals
Barack Obama: prince of theives or man in tights?

One must be truthful to oneself before one can demand truth from others! This blog is not truth centered I’m afraid. When the DEMS do good it is a no-brainer. When the DEMS do bad it’s what were they thinking…the GOP on the other hand can do no wrong. Again, please show me an entire blog that questions at least ONE GOP related issue? If you can not then it’s really an injustice to say you are centered on ‘truth’! Just saying!

And to say the war in Iraq is too distant to want to seek truth is a cop out! Need I remind you we are still there. Topics such as war, torture, etc. are all topics that should be constantly under scrutiny, irrepective of who initiated them.

Look, I have no problem with anyone who is a conservation Republican. But don’t try to pass the buck by saying you are focused on ‘truth’ when the clear focus is on DEMS ‘untruths’. That’s not GOV pessisim

Matthew Warner January 28, 2009 at 1:56 pm

Phil, it’s not party driven – you’re missing the point. Just because my views happens to align more with one particular party does not mean it is party DRIVEN. THat’s my point. You view the world and say both sides are equally wrong/right therefore a “fair” or truth centered approach will attack both sides equally. This is a false premise.

Instead of searching my blog for untruths to show that I’m not truth centered you search for any sign that I seem to align with one party over the other and then say I must not be truth centered. That doesn’t make sense. And holding personal views in correlation with a party’s views does not mean causation (i.e. I’m party driven). And it certainly doesn’t say much about whether or not it’s truthful – a totally different question from party.

I happen to believe that one party (at least a niche within that particular party) is far closer to the truth than others. Therefore my posts will align more closely with that.

Even more fundamentally, I hold that the teachings of the Catholic Church are true. And on issues not matters of faith and morals I believe in the limited government principles that made our country great. The party lines can fall where they may.

Further, just about every one of those “political” issues you point out above have very serious moral issues at the heart of them. That TRUTH is what drove me to write about them. Not some party.

All that said – I’m not perfect. I’m sure I’m wrong on some things.

Matthew Warner January 28, 2009 at 2:11 pm

Further, it’s not all the exciting to talk about the war in Iraq right now…I’m not sure what you want me to say. Everyone is pretty much in agreement that we need to responsibly finish and leave as soon as possible. I’m not sure what you want me to criticize there in order to be considered “truthful”?

It’s more interesting and important to talk about topics that are impending and have serious consequences – like most on that list of post titles you list above.

Phil January 28, 2009 at 2:29 pm

I understand what you are saying. And I agree that a lot of what YOU write stems from how you align yourself on moral terms rather than party terms.

This began when you said you were pessimistic about GOV as a whole. I guess I don’t see your pessisim for GOV, just for DEMS. There are many questionable GOP goings-on that go unquestioned in this blog. Just look at how many new things they threw in the latest version of the stimulus. They are pushing an agenda on Barry as well. And it’s arguable as to whether or not it is in the best interest of citizens. It’s politics. But if it was the DEMS, you would surely post a blog on how they are politic-ing these things in. But I don’t think that you want to write about it because it wouldn’t fit the agenda, which is conservative driven. This makes you as centered on truth as John Bohner. And that’s fine but you shouldn’t portray otherwise

My whole point was even in this first month there seems to be much pessimism about Barry and crew. I also want truth and I will question any politcally driven decision the DEMS make that is not aligned with campagin promises or the good of the country. But I will also give praise to either party when it’s due. And I won’t be so critcal to say that any decision is a no-brainer

If you are going to portray that you are truth seeking and pessimistic about GOV as a whole, acknowledging that the GOP has done/is doing questionable things and writing about them in this blog is a good start

Phil January 29, 2009 at 10:48 am

How about of piece on this? Today is a good day!

Previous post:

Next post: