I have been reading this quote a few times, and I think I finally figure out what the Speaker of the House is saying. She stated today on “This Week” on ABC:
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.
From what I understand, she is saying that if we fund sexually active couples by providing them contraceptives or abortions, we are saving money since there are less kids to provide education and medical services for in a few years. So I have two questions for you:
1) Is Nancy Pelosi correct?
2) Is this a practical application of taxpayers funds?
Loading ...
This would not help at all and has nothing to do with me being pro-life. As far as contraceptives, condoms are not expensive and in fact already free at most colleges and many high schools. If they weren’t using them already, they won’t use them now.
As far as abortion goes its not like you can’t go to planned parenthood or organizations like it already. There are already tons of places where a girl can go to get an abortion.
Plus, pro-choicers say they don’t mean to encourage abortion they just think women should have a choice. Well trying to provide free abortions through government funding and saying more abortions would relieve financial stress sure sounds like you are encouraging girls to abort their babies to me.
Tax payers will either be funding contraceptives or funding welfare and medicare. Personally…I’m for contraceptives. There’s too many stupid, poor people now and I don’t want them reproducing anymore. I’m sick and tired of looking at them when I go to Walmart, since my town is deemed too poor for Target.
Oh no … I wrote a long reply but lost it. *sigh* I will rewrite it tomorrow. Sorry guys.