It’s just like that… except it’s not at all.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. had an apoplectic fit over increased funding for birth control in the stimulus bill. He takes issue particularly with a comment by Speaker Nancy Pelosi about how funding for birth control helps the economy:

“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.”

Navarrette squeals about how this implies Pelosi support eugenics just like Margaret Sanger. But is Pelosi saying anything incorrect?

Children cost money. Maybe in Navarrette’s world they don’t but here in real world they do. They cost money to the parent for food, clothing, etc and to the government for education, health care, food stamps, etc. More children = more expenses. Pelosi is not advocating forcible sterilization like eugenicists; she’s saying kids cost money and if people have less kids, we don’t have to spend as much. It’s common fucking sense.

Navarrette seems to think there’s something racist about what Pelosi said but perhaps Dr. Martin Luther King would disagree. From his acceptance speech winning the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood:

“The Negro constitutes half the poor of the nation. Like all poor, Negro and white, they have many unwanted children. This is a cruel evil they urgently need to control. There is scarcely anything more tragic in human life than a child who is not wanted. That which should be a blessing becomes a curse for parent and child. There is nothing inherent in the Negro mentality which creates this condition. Their poverty causes it. When Negroes have been able to ascend economically, statistics reveal they plan their families with even greater care than whites. Negroes of higher economic and educational status actually have fewer children than white families in the same circumstances.”

Women have abortions to not get stretch marks

Or so says our friends at Wisconsin Right to Life. WRTL claims that under the Healthy Wisconsin universal health insurance plan Wisconsin taxpayers would be forced to pay for abortions for any woman including(with my commentary in parenthesis):

• The married woman who isn't sure who the father of her baby is and doesn't want her husband to know she's got a boyfriend. (Evil slutty women... And couldn't that be in order to protect her safety from an abusive husband?)
• The woman who is having her third abortion. (Evil slutty women)
• The woman who doesn't want the inconvenience of a baby to interfere with her career plans. (Evil greedy slutty women)
• The woman who doesn't want to appear in her bikini with stretch marks. (That's just too ridiculous to say something about here)
• Any other Wisconsin woman, for any reason, at any time during pregnancy, for as many times as she would choose to have one, with no restrictions whatsoever.

The last one is laughable because it implies Healthy Wisconsin allows abortions past viability. However since the state still bans abortions past viability (hell the state actually bans all abortions but its an unenforceable law) these abortions wouldn't be covered anyway.

Do they really think most women are so shallow as to have abortions to keep from getting stretch marks? How deluded are these people?

Isaiah 55:6-7: "Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."

Abortion is Evil

Great title huh? Watch this video. In it the poster asks anti-abortion protestors, some of whom have volunteered about 5 years, are asked what the punishment should be for a woman who chooses to have an illegal abortion. Stunningly only one would accept that a woman who killed her unborn child should receive jail time. Every single protestor says without hesitation that abortion should be illegal but stammer and stumble when asked what the punishment should be for a woman who kills her baby. The conversation with the elderly lady is priceless and show how little abortion foes have thought through the consequences of their plans.

As pointed out in Newsweek, there are two ways of looking at this issues:

1. Abortion is murder and if outlawed, women who get abortions should get some sort of jail time (likely similar to pre-meditated murder).
2. Abortion is not murder and abortion should be legal.

Abortion opponents claim without doubt that abortion is murder. If that's so, why should women get anything less than the punishment for murder? I'll be the first to support rehabilitation and compassion criminals but there's no chance I would support convicting someone for first degree murder and letting them go without some time in a prison or mental institution.

By my estimation, if a pro-lifer supports anything less than a charge of first-degree murder for a woman who gets an illegal abortion they view the life of a fetus as less important than other life. Isn't that the meaning?

Oh readers, what should the punishment be for a woman who get illegal abortions?

Philippians 2:9-11: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."