Perhaps you thought it couldn't get worse for the cause of life after President Obama reversed President Bush's pro-life position on the Mexico City policy. But never to be outdone in the eyes of the Margaret Sanger wing of the pro-choice movement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called and raised Obama's bet with this oddity on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous this weekend:

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.

While it's true that children born to poor parents can increase welfare payments, I don't think I've ever heard it put more coldly and crassly than that. Is Pelosi quite sure that poor children cost the American taxpayer more money each year than, say, truly unnecessary expenses like first-class treatment of top legislators in flights home to their districts?

Meanwhile, just to show that Madame Speaker's logic is not inevitable by a long stretch, take a look at what other governments are telling their workers about creating babies. Apparently, Japanese officials view a healthy number of children as a big plus for Japan, not a "cost." Hmm.....

(H/T Some Have Hats: See here and here)

Comments

[Lisie]

The link to the Japanese statement isn't working for me.

[Catherine Larson]

It sort of reminds me of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" only in this case, the speaker isn't being satirical.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Sorry, Lisie. Try it now.

[Steve (SBK)]

"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

new birth of freedom...
shall not perish from the earth...

...for the people?
...or for the economy?

[Lisie]

It's working. Thanks.

[labrialumn]

I would guess that she hasn't suddenly decided to let the unarmed invasion of the US by Mexico come to an end and be reversed? How can she maintain that fewer lives is better, but insist on tens of millions streaming across the borders to work for below-minimum-wage, and in harmful working conditions, which so many politicians appear to rely upon?

Also, you can see how government health care will be run, and what principles will be used to determine what will happen to the chronically-ill and elderly. Or any others labled lebens unswerten leben.

[Benjamin Ady]

I'm fascinated that you find this "grotesque". It seems very reasonable to me that historically smaller families and higher standard of living, in terms of the distribution, are very clearly correlated. Empowering poor women to avoid having more children seems anything but grotesque to me.

I love this quote from the article you linked. It made me grin hugely

"In addition, Japan's population is aging at a faster pace than any other country in the world."

How do they *do* that? Those Japanese are just *so* darned inventive. =)

[Lori]

Pelosi is costing me money via my tax dollars that go to pay her. Any suggestions what I can do about that to help deal with the consequences of the downturn of MY economy?

[LeeQuod]

Benjamin, I'll let Jason Taylor seize on your use of the word "historically" much like a bulldog does on a chewbone. But as I see it, smaller families are only a very temporary advantage when you can't afford big ones due to a shrinking economy (which will probably reverse course within our lifetimes and begin to expand again). Having few children is (as the farmer's granddaughter would appreciate) like eating your seed corn, or (for an economic metaphor) like spending all your retirement money before you retire; generally the more children you have, the more secure your old age.

And speaking of which, you may have missed the post on the Japanese caretaker robots which are necessitated by a lack of young people (nurses) to care for the elderly there. I would suggest weaving your own prayer rug and bowing 5x/day in the direction of Microsoft headquarters lest, several decades hence, a software bug causes you to get dumped on your keister while being lifted from bed. Programmers try, but they can't always anticipate every situation, and if Rosie goes "tilt" as she's holding your frail hips 4 feet above the hard floor, well...

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Lori, you could avoid paying your taxes -- but then they might sentence you to be Treasury Secretary.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

[Stephen]

Something for Ben:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090127/D95V83N81.html

[Steve (SBK)]

"I'm fascinated that you find this "grotesque". It seems very reasonable to me that historically smaller families and higher standard of living, in terms of the distribution, are very clearly correlated. Empowering poor women to avoid having more children seems anything but grotesque to me."

I'm morbidly fascinated that you say this Benjamin. It's like I'm passing a carwreck of an intellect that was upholding material wealth as more valuable than family, or who sees the complete reasonableness of the government empowering the unfit people to be sterilized so that they and society will not be burdened with future crazies.

"Grotesque" may not be a moral enough word. People are 'grossed' out by babies being born - and of course that doesn't mean that's wrong (well, maybe I shouldn't use THAT analogy).

You would be surprised, *historically*, the kinds of rationalized reasonableness that can be perpetrated/propagandized by us fallible humans (rich and poor).

[Susannah]

Let me get this straight: Low income people are intrinsically less valuable than middle-to-high income people?

Crass, indeed.

I thought liberals wanted to "help the downtrodden." Seems to me they'd rather just abort them and be done with it.

[labrialumn]

You can't take money with you. But your saved children, you will. Along with all the shared memories. Toys are such cold, lonely things in comparison.

He who dies with the most toys - dies.

[Terrell]

Tadaaaaa.... Susannah has nailed it. The Eugenics of John ( the Decimal Guy ) Dewey and Margaret ( Planned Parenthood ) Sanger is the operating philisophy of Ms. Pelosi. The help the downtrodden get is to abort them and help them not to be a burden on society or humanity. That's why we export abortion, to make the whole world a better place. The trick is to educate the downtrodden who are jsut as valuable and help them to understand the agenda and reject it. Hurrah to MLK Jr.s daughter whose name escapes me for bringing light on the Blakc Genocide. If we had used waterhoses and tear gas on all those babies there would be blood in the streets but the slow silent genocide has gone unnoticed.

Thanks Susannah. You're on your way to Centurion.

[LeeQuod]

I wrote: "And speaking of which, you may have missed the post on the Japanese caretaker robots which are necessitated by a lack of young people (nurses) to care for the elderly there."

I hesitate to pile on here, particularly with a story so steeped in human trauma, especially since it's likely to get Benjamin very upset and I don't like to do that to friends. Nevertheless, it underscores what Gina was saying, and adds exclamation points: http://www.wztv.com/template/inews_wire/wires.international/256539e6-www.fox17.com.shtml

[LeeQuod]

...what *Stephen* was saying - sorry.