Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 01/27/2009 9:50 am

Limbaugh Attacks Pelosi Over Contraceptive Stimulus

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© AP

Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives are hopping mad over economic stimulus money meant to aid state family-planning programs. And it appears they’ve won this battle.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been taking a lot of heat for including money in the $825 billion stimulus bill for state family-planning programs, including Medicaid-funded contraceptives. The bill contains $87 billion in emergency Medicaid funding to help states. It has turned into a lightning rod for some Republicans who say not only does this program not constitute job creation or stimulate the economy, but it is also paramount to abortion.

Limbaugh on Monday essentially said family planning "is abortion all over the world," adding: “When I think of reducing budget deficits, it would never occur to me to think about eliminating people … If she wants fewer births, I have the way to do this, and it won’t require any contraception. You simply put pictures of Nancy Pelosi … put pictures of Pelosi in every cheap motel room in America today, that will keep birth rates down because that picture will keep a lot of things down." We doubt that’s true, but the Democrats do appear to backing down.

Here’s what Pelosi recently told ABC News about why the money was originally included:

Well, the family-planning services reduced costs, it reduced costs. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crisis now, and — and part of it, what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements that are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those — one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, is — will reduce cost to the state, and to the federal government … We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Now, that plan may not be "stimulus," per se, but it seems the economy should have little to do with family planning. If you’re not in a position to have a child, then shouldn’t you have access to proper programs? What do you think?

404 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Steve R
Looks like you are one “up” on them, Alias. 8-)
By Steve R on 01/28/2009 12:55 pm
Robert Thompson
Call it what it is PORK!!
By Robert Thompson on 01/27/2009 11:14 am
deber B
Pork it is!
By deber B on 01/27/2009 1:56 pm
f p
Look to the earmarks the repubs did during their reign then you can talk about pork with some authority.
By f p on 01/27/2009 11:20 am
Marjorie C.
f p: Look to the earmarks the repubs did during their reign… How does it feel to walk backwards all the time? Plus, the Dems have held the majority for the past two years. Not that they were very effective at anything.
By Marjorie C. on 01/28/2009 7:11 am
f p
Marjorie until we get to the bottom of this current econ crisis and how it all started how can we move on? I’m not praising the Dems—they’ve wasted a ton of time sitting on their fingers—but this crisis started with Reagan and the end is yet in sight—. So looking forward yes—but looking backward too to see where the mistakes were made, erasing as much as possible of them and then moving on from there. A good start has been made—but this isn’t going to be cured in a day or a year.
By f p on 01/28/2009 10:42 am
Zera Lee
Vetoes and filibusters were quite effective. Until Obama can get Congress to work together, filibusters will remain the obstruction of choice.
By Zera Lee on 01/28/2009 3:38 pm
Ms. Dee
Any young woman who can avoid an unwanted pregnancy, whether she keeps the child or not, has a much better chance of being a contributing member of society. Contraception also eliminates the health-care costs involved in unwanted pregnancies and the societal costs of giving birth of unwanted children. I think the long-range economic benefits of this item could be substantial.
By Ms. Dee on 01/27/2009 12:54 pm
Beth Hereth
Ms Dee, you used the word “unwanted” twice in your post, and your solution. It brings to mind all the millions of unwanted elderly and others who are unwanted in this country. Same solution?. You are scaring me.
By Beth Hereth on 01/27/2009 1:46 pm
R.J.B. Reed
How is preventing the creation of a child the same as getting rid of an existing person? It makes sense to help people prevent pregnancy who are not financially able to afford a child because ultimately that will cost us money since it would be morally reprehensible to not support a child once it does indeed exist.
By R.J.B. Reed on 01/27/2009 2:01 pm
Ms. Dee
Thank you, Ms. Reed. I couldn’t have said it better.
By Ms. Dee on 01/27/2009 5:46 pm
Marjorie C.
Beth: It brings to mind all the millions of unwanted elderly and others who are unwanted in this country. It is starting to smell bad, isn’t it? The click, click, click of steel-tipped heels on the cobblestones.
By Marjorie C. on 01/28/2009 7:17 am
Mugsy Peabody
Thanks, Ms. Dee… Mugsy is off writing about why we need the Ledbetter Equal Pay act on her blog, MugsyPeabody Online. More fun than arguing with fools who are so out of it they can’t understand why the planet doesn’t need more people.
By Mugsy Peabody on 01/27/2009 2:14 pm
f p
You said it Mugs—.
By f p on 01/27/2009 3:36 pm
frances roehm
Well ,S.J. Morgan, It keeps those pesky female workers from getting “preggers” while manning their 35 hour a week meaningful jobs at Walmart with no health insurance.
By frances roehm on 01/28/2009 12:32 am