Pelosi: Birth Control Will Help Economy

It seems to me she was referencing "welfare babies" who would bring on more of a strain to the economy.

Kids are expensive and if your too broke to get BC then your probably going to be leaning on the government to take care of the child you have from not using BC. Makes sense to me and as a birth control advocate I'd LOVE to see it covered on more insurance programs and such.

Where did she say anything about enforcing a limit on kids?

makes sense to me One thing I can't stand is when people who can barely support the children they have keep having more children. I have no children, why should my money go to support other people's kids? ETA: now I don't have any problem with paying taxes to support the school system or paying taxes to help children who are disadvantaged, but it makes me crazy when those children who are disadvantaged have 7 brothers and sisters

I cannot believe I agree with that woman.

I'm going to venture to say that "in most" places (as this has been the case everywhere that I've lived) you can go to the health dept. or Planned Parenthood and get BC pills for affordably if you don't have insurance and cannot afford them. My sister got hers this way for years and paid about $5 a month. Additionally, there are other methods that are more cost efficient than the pill as well. I chose an IUD, which would be nice to see insurance cover, as it was a 1 time cost of $500, but will last for 10 years, thus saving me several thousand dollars in the long run.

Less kids, less of a need to pay to educate them. Spiraling population only adds to the burden on the environment, which is going to cost our government a lot of money in the long run. It's a long term strategy.

I'm not sure how it immediately affects the economy. Perhaps if people have birth control they will go out and buy more party clothes?

Yes she means less people will be on welfare if they don't have so many kids..

I don't get it. The Dems are usually all for adding to the pool of potential voters. Between this and the expanded abortion agenda, they're culling out their base.

(Sorry, that sounds harsh, but I don't know how else to put it.)

This is true but those generic brands don't work for everybody. Unfortunately, when it comes to hormonal BC it takes time, patience and money to find one that actually works well with your body. Now, I understand that beggars can't be choosers and I'm fortunate enough to be able to have a choice because I am financially stable but for others who aren't it might be easier to not use HBC because they can't afford one that works for them. Oh, and I'm planning on getting a copper IUD after my son is born and here's the crazy part... if it costs me $500 and I only keep it for 2 years it's still cheaper than the name brand BC pills by about $20 a month!

NEWS FLASH, it's outta the package. Supposedly someone called Pelosi and Reid and told them to take it out.

Only 800 trillion more to go!

So the dems WANT women to get pregnant, even when they aren't ready to be mothers just to add to the pool of potential voters??? Did I get this wrong or is that what you really think? That is insulting and silly.

Yes, you are wrong. I said it confuses me as their message is normally one advocating freedom to pursue abortions, along with their need to add as many voters as possible to their rolls (y expanding welfare benefits, etc.) I didn't say I agreed with it, I said its a confusing message as to why they wanted to expand abortion rights and curb birth rates when they continually seek to expand their voter base.

Not unlike the S-CHIP legislation going through the House now, it would expand their base. S-CHIP increases the number of people on federal medical aid, they grow up thinking that's "normal" to be on federal programs, so they'll be more receptive to it in the future when they have a chance to vote.

so are you sayign they want to increase the population size in order to get more votes? That really is silly lol I don't get it..

oh you mean expanding welfare and trying to curb population growth at the same time is confusing to you..Apparently though it doesn't take away any votes, the really poor who are on welfare are in general mostly democratic or apathetic...

So democrats don't support benefits to the disadvantaged in order to help them? It is solely to expand their voter base, not because they believe it's the right thing to do?

If that's what you believe, no wonder you're confused. Perhaps the dems want to curb birth rates because helps families.

Hard to explain the "illogic" that I saw.

Yep, that is pretty much what I believe about most democratic politicians.

Keep 'em down and keep 'em dependent. Give them hand outs without a hand up. Take away their self worth.

i think its a bunch of BS that health insurance doesnt cover BC pills, ive always been responsible about my sex life and have been on BC for many years, but lately theres been times i really didnt have the money for my new pack of pills and its exactly what i say....if i get pregnant...owell...they didnt want to pay for my BC so let the govt pay for my kid now!

That is my take on it, too!

There are a lot of family planning clinics that offer them at a huge discount already. There are clinics in my city that offer a depo shot for free ..

Anyway I feel like this birth control funding along with all the other funding for arts and random things, was put there just so that there is something to get rid of when the republicans start demanding compromise...

I believe that as much as I believe that Republicans are selfish and stingy. Each party has their reasons for believing the way they do. Each party has a valid point too. To think the worst of each other is perpetuating our disagreements. This country cannot get stronger when we insist on working against each other. Changing our attitudes is at least a step in the right direction. How about we give it a try?

I agree with this.

Also, babies and children require certain basic health and nutritional needs to be met (including proper prenatal care and nutrition) in order to avoid permanent damage to their future health and mental capabilities, so they can grow to become productive citizens.

Our government thankfully recognizes the importance of this reality, and tries to help avoid allowing babies to suffer for the irresponsible choices or unfortunate circumstances of their parents by providing basic medical care and nutrition programs to help make sure their basic physical needs are met.

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/131/2/431S

The programs that provide for these health and nutrition services cost the public tax money. Making birth control more readily available to those who are unable to pay for it helps reduce the cost of these services in a humane way, by reducing the need for them.

With unemployment up and the cost of Medicaid spiraling out of control, this makes sense to me.

I fail to see any connection to China in this; I saw no mention of forced birth control - merely the desire to make it readily available to those who need it.

I would suggest calling your doctor and asking for samples to keep on hand to get you through lean times, or contacting your local family planning clinic to see if they can provide what you need at a reduced cost.

I don't think that birth control really fits into the stimulus package, but only because the package is focused on short-term goals. I do absolutely believe that subsidizing birth control can help our economy in the long run though.

Heidi, I'm sorry, but I still don't get what bothers you.

I'll take a stab at it:

Real women don't wave their issues around like they can't handle them without someone running to their rescue. This being dragged into this already inflammed bill makes it a hot issue, and birth control should be something that parents handle with their kids, not the government handing out handfuls of free glow-in-the-dark Trojans.

Thank you both for explaining. I think I get what you are saying now... I think. I'd like to leave abortion out of the equation though.

I agree that the stimulus package is the wrong place for this.

I understand the standpoint of less government. I guess my view is - what is the lesser of 2 evils? More government vs. preventing unwanted children? Responsible people will use birth control no matter what they have to sacrifice. Sadly, there are way too many irresponsible people. "Real women" aren't the ones we need to be concerned about.

More education, IMO, would have little to do with unwanted pregnancies. I think most sexually active people already know about birth control. I hate to say it, but I think too many people think "It won't happen to me," they get caught up in the moment and didn't plan ahead, or they are just plain irresponsible. I think the cheaper it is and the easier it is to get, the more chance there is that they will use it.

I disagree that if birth control were free or less expensive it would be making it a purely financial issue. I work with a young married couple who have a 3 year old and are not ready for another child. They work hard, but struggle to make ends meet. Day care is barely affordable. If they had help with the cost of birth control, I don't see how that would cheapen life.

To me, few things are more sad than a child without a home or a child who is neglected or abused because he was unwanted.

If a bill came up in the future to help cover the cost of birth control, I would be in favor of it.

It already happened. Actually, years ago, my husband and I were in a local bar. A state agency (don't remember the name of it) dropped off a case of condoms in "lolipop" colors! (I admit that did seem cheap) My husband took some and at Christmastime handed them out to people saying "Have a safe holiday!"

Oh my, this is a tad upsetting. This mindset is disturbing to me.

The government is not your daddy. Like someone else posted there is low cost BC available. It is not big brother's responsibility to supply you BC free of charge.

I do, however, agree that it is stupid for health insurance providers to not cover BC. In the long run I would think that would save them money.

I somehow missed that post before. I agree with you.