One of the lesser known aspects of the Madoff swindle is that it has left America’s number one abortion provided in dire financial straights:
Another nonprofit organization has found itself a victim of Bernie Madoff’s alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme. A one-two punch of fundraising woes sparked by the economic crisis and the unfolding Madoff scandal have put The Planned Parenthood Federation of America on its heels, prompting a 20% layoff of staff , according to a report published on Crain’s New York’s website.
Given the vital role that organizations like Planned Parenthood play in the progressive imagination, it should come as no surprise that congressional Democrats have responded to this crisis by proposing a bailout:
Now comes the latest revelation about the congressional Democrats’ “stimulus” plan: it includes taxpayer funding for contraceptives and the abortion industry. Specifically, a provision in the legislation clears the way for expanded federal funding of contraceptives through Medicaid for those who aren’t even poor.
A Clinton-era program allows states to seek a waiver to offer Medicaid “family planning” services – even for those who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. If they seek the waiver, the federal government matches the state funding with $9 for every $1.Yesterday, during consideration of the congressional Democrats’ spending bill by the House Energy & Commerce Committee, the panel eliminated the waiver requirement. The result? All 50 states will now offer Medicaid “family planning” services (including contraception) with the federal government offering the same $9 to $1 match.
Speaking on This Week, House Speaker Pelosi defended funding contraception as a part of the economic stimulus, saying that doing so “will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”
I am somewhat familiar with this issue, having done work for a pro-life organization when it was opposing one of the Clinton-inspired waiver requests. The basic idea is that by paying for contraceptives now, the state can save money on things like education, health care, welfare, etc., later, because the children who would be receiving those services would never be born. A side benefit to the plan (which was not discussed publicly but which was a selling point in the committees) was that the state could count the women receiving family planning services as having health insurance, thus making it look like it had had more success in reducing the number of uninsured. Make no mistake. Should this provision of the new stimulus package be enacted, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its various affiliates will be the main beneficiaries.
Writing in the New York Times, Vox Nova’s favorite Nobel Laureate says that opposition to the stimulus package based on things like the contraception provision is “bad faith economics.” but even leaving aside the purely moral issues involved in using tax dollars to prop up America’s number one abortion provider, the contraception provision does seem to raise questions about the stimulus as a whole. Some defenders of the stimulus seem to have overly optimistic views about how it will actually play out. Brad DeLong, for example, recently defended the stimulus by arguing that there would not be any government inefficiency in the stimulus package (he also assumed that 150% of the stimulus money would be spent on currently idle resources, an optimistic assumption to say the least). Provisions like this one, however, suggest that congressional leadership may be using the stimulus as a means to give government goodies to politically favored groups, rather than for its stated purpose.
Ok – Since we’re apparently quoting partisan propaganda at length, here’s a response from The American Prospect:
Hooray, Obama-voters! Well done!
Matt,
Do you actually agree with the American Prospect’s argument (which is essentially, though not explicitly, in favor of eugenics) or do you just feel some sort of need to quote an opposing piece after seeing that Blackadder used a GOP source?
Does it strike you at all that perhaps it’s not the government’s job to provide birth control through Medicaid regardless of financial need?
Does BA’s point about how state governments use this program to fudge their uninsured statistics strike you as at all bothersome?
Beyond the fact that this policy would save the government money in the long run
I don’t agree that the policy would save the government money in the long run, but that’s kind of beside the point.
Hooray, Obama-voters! Well done!
While they may be fun to write and may offer to their authors a sense of moral righteousness, I am not sure that this sort of post-election sarcasm does anything to either help the situation or bring about any regret or repentance in those who voted for Obama. That said, why don’t we cease leaving these comments?
What percentage of Americans see something morally wrong with contraception?
I am not sure that this sort of post-election sarcasm does anything to either help the situation or bring about any regret or repentance in those who voted for Obama.
If they had properly functioning consciences it would. For example some people, like Mark Shea, came to publicly regret voting for Bush. One hopes that there are enough functional consciences among Catholic Obama voters that we might see some of the same. Time will tell.
Stimulus package contains contraceptives
priceless. What else is in the package ? =oD
As far as contraceptives go, nobody cares, except maybe 2% of Catholics.
It really doesn’t make much sense. I don’t care what your moral view of contraception is. We’re already entering a period of our history where large numbers of baby-boomers are retiring – many of them drawing on Social Security and other government assistance. Because of the nature of the beast, these people need current workers to be productive – paying into the system. It simply won’t work if we contracept ourselves beyond the point where this is no longer viable (some say that time has come and gone already).
If they had properly functioning consciences it would.
I always thought well-reasoned arguments are what convicted people with “properly functioning consciences” and not sarcastic, sanctimonious comments.
“I always thought well-reasoned arguments are what convicted people with “properly functioning consciences” and not sarcastic, sanctimonious comments.”
I actually quite agree and I would suggest that those that have been the barb of “sarcarstic, santimonious:”comments the last 4 years try to not lash out since it is a big big temptation to say what is good for the goose is good the gander.
So I follow Policratus lead in this new direction of ending the sarcastic and trust it shall be evening applied
What a surprise!!!?? Obama, who pledged his support for Planned Parenthood, would provide stimulus for them? Using our taxpayer money?
Within a week:
- Obama funds foreign abortions using our money
- Obama pledges a stimulus for Planned Parenthood, a well known abortion pushing “family planning” group that is known for allowing donations for specific races, and for lying to push young women to favor abortion.
- Obama administration pledges a escalation in Afghanistan, promising more american and civilian casualities.
Sounds like he’s failing on all accounts. It’s sad that the only fervor about this is the people saying “criticism won’t help the problem”
And since when does the monetary value of PEOPLE count for whether or not their existence should be debated?
It does not follow how that argument even has a place on a Catholic discussion blog.
Tim,
A sperm cell by itself is not yet a person. Neither is an ovum.
I always thought well-reasoned arguments are what convicted people with “properly functioning consciences” …
You must be an idealistic youngster. In my experience people who are dug into a position rarely change their minds at all; but when they do it usually is not the result of being persuaded by a rational argument, but more likely (though again, it is a rare occurrence generally) from becoming appropriately ashamed of themselves in a moment of lucidity.
(Oh, and the hope is that their consciences begin to function properly).
A number of posters and commenters at this blog could use a few healthily lucid moments of shame.
A sperm cell by itself is not yet a person. Neither is an ovum.
That is true, but contraceptive practices are, in the words of the Magisterium, shameful and intrinsically vicious.
Yes. But that was not what I was responding to.
What do mainline Protestant Churches, Orthodox Churches and Evangelicals teach about contraception?
What do mainline Protestant Churches, Orthodox Churches and Evangelicals teach about contraception?
Oh, they pretty much capitulated on the issue in the 1930′s. Before then every Christian denomination condemned contraception as intrinsically vicious.
The difficulty is how does one implement restrictions on contraception in a democracy in which even the majority of Christians are taught that it is permissable within ‘proper’ contexts.
We can start by not providing it with a bailout.
The Democrats are the party that is in in principle opposed to traditional morality.
Progressive Catholics fit right in!
Zach,
Your statement adds nothing, other than maybe some self-stimulation on your part…
Ok this s hilarious:
“You know, I’m concerned about the size of the package….. how you can spend hundreds of millions on contraceptives,” House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) later said.
MD,
And what does yours add?
MD – I don’t know if you realize how off base you are in the context of a Catholic discussion on these policies.
The Democrats are now saying they’ll drop the family planning funding. I’d like to know what genius thought of putting something so controversial in a stimulus package that won’t succeed unless the country is unified behind it. Without even considering the moral issues, the Democrats risk committing political suicide if they keep trying so hard to toe the NARAL party line. They need the country unified, and overturning the Mexico City policy and bailing out Planned Parenthood is a great way to achieve the exact opposite. Let’s pray they realize this before they cause too much damage (yes, it would be ideal for them to have an actual change of heart, but they are politicians, after all).
I’ll believe it when I see it, and it still wouldn’t put democrats on the right side of this issue.
Actually, the AP is reporting that it’s because of a personal appeal from President Obama. Of course, I’m sure it’s just because he wants his stimulus package passed, but at least this shows that he is not totally blind to the political implications of a radical pro-abortion and pro-contraception agenda at a time of national crisis.
It’s quite simple really why there needs to be funding for contraceptives. With all the out-of-work and underemployed there will be following the multiple disasters of the Bush years, people will stay at home and entertain each other a lot more while the stimulus package gets into gear. Guess what they’ll do to entertain each other. That’s right, they’ll do to each other what Bush did to the country. But one hopes with more love and affection. Unless you want several million more unwanted children around in a year or two, you’d better hope that people know how to use contraceptives and have access to them. Let me tell you Catholics and rightists, it is not radical to be in support of abortion and contraception; it is, in fact, a matter of common sense, decency, and the civil rights of women as well as men. The idea that every sperm and every egg is destined to become a fully fledged human being is so pathetic in a moral way and so unsound in a biological sense as not to be worthy of serious discussion. I was raised Catholic. I know exactly what a ridiculous cult it is. It’s full of shortcomings.
Without even considering the moral issues, the Democrats risk committing political suicide if they keep trying so hard to toe the NARAL party line.
Mickey,
Why would people who want — more than anything else in the world — to perform as many abortions as possible (as some pro-lifers imagine to be the goal of NARAL and Planned Parenthood) support contraception? The more successfully contraception is used, the fewer abortions there will be. Why would NARAL and Planned Parenthood want to put themselves out of business by promoting contraception?
How many Americans do you think believe that contraception is a moral question. The estimates I have seen are that 95 percent of Catholic married couples use contraception. If that many Catholics ignore the teachings of the Church, how many who are not Catholics think contraception is a moral issue?
political implications of a radical pro-abortion and pro-contraception agenda at a time of national crisis.
Mickey,
As I understand it, there was nothing in the stimulus proposal about abortion. It was about contraception. Of course abortion is controversial, but what is a “radical pro-contraception agenda”? I am sure the overwhelming majority of Americans would approve of the right for anyone who wanted to use contraception to be permitted to do so, and would further approve of giving some assistance to poor people by government funding of family planning services. There is a raging controversy over abortion, but opposition to contraception seems to me to be in the same category as opposition to gambling, or dancing, or drinking alcoholic beverages. People who oppose such things on religious grounds deserve a measure of respect, but not so much deference that public policy should be shaped to accommodate them.
The evil is being unleashed thanks to all the Catholics that voted these clowns into office.
TeutonicTim’s main problem is that he doesn’t love and adore Barack Obama. I advise him to strike himself repeatedly in the head with a blunt object until he sees the wisdom and beauty of the man.
The evil is being unleashed thanks to all the Catholics that voted these clowns into office.
Catholics do not deserve the credit/blame for electing Obama. No single group elected Obama. He got the majority of the popular vote, and he won in the Electoral College. Those who earnestly hope he tries to maximize abortion and euthanize the sick and elderly may enjoy blaming everything Obama does on their fellow Catholics who voted Democratic, but it was the country that elected Obama, not Catholics.
And it seems in this case that he has actually stepped in to prevent contraceptive funding from being included in the stimulus package, but of course that counts for nothing.
David,
If the same proportion of Catholics that voted for Pres. Bush had voted for McCain we would not now be experiencing Obama’s evil policies. You and other misguided Catholics dropped the ball.
If the same proportion of Catholics that voted for Pres. Bush had voted for McCain we would not now be experiencing Obama’s evil policies. You and other misguided Catholics dropped the ball.
Knuckle,
Looking at the statistics, you can say that about Protestants, too. You can say it about practically everybody. You are singling out Catholic voters merely to demonstrate what a great Catholic you are and how so many others don’t measure up to your standards.
The evil is being unleashed thanks to all the Catholics that voted these clowns into office.
I’m glad to accept the honor. No regrets, no second thoughts. The greatest Republican defeat in 44 years. 79% approval ratings for the President. The political marginalization of the right wing as they now work diligently to make conservativsm smaller and more orthodox. You cannot imagine my joy.
David,
If all Catholics had voted for life we would not be in this mess. Don’t try to divert responsibility away. We Catholics should be standing up for life. We should be the leaders in this effort. Don’t give me the argument that Democrats are so caring about all the other issues. Baloney! If you voted for the Democrats you voted for death. Period.
A vote for the Democrats = a vote for death. Catchy slogan. I’m afraid the Dr. Death title is held by Dick Bush. He retired the number. Evil unleashed ? I didn’t think there was any left after 8 years of Bush. Well, I guess if one belongs to the .5% who believe condoms are eeeeevil…..
Gerald,
I suppose you think that a vote for Democrats = a vote for compassion. Where’s the compassion in ripping a baby limb from limb? What about leaving a baby to die in a closet? What’s next, killing Alzheimer’s patients or the handicapped?
[...] move, President Obama has contacted Henry Waxman, whose committee was responsible for placing the contraceptives fuding in the stimulus package, and had him remove the provision. MSNBC [...]
What’s next, killing Alzheimer’s patients or the handicapped?
It seems to me there is not a decreasing concern about Alzheimer’s patients and the handicapped, but an ever increasing concern about prevention, early detection, and care for Alzheimer’s patients an an ever expanding concern for the rights of the handicapped.
It also seems to me that concern for the rights of the disabled is more attributable to the evil liberals than to the sainted conservatives. In fact, liberals are so solicitous of the rights and the feelings of the disabled (or the “other abled,” or the “physically challenged”) that conservatives make fun of them.
David,
Fair enough. I’ll take your word on that. Now explain how these compassionate liberals can tolerate “ripping a baby limb from limb” and “leaving a baby to die in a closet.”
It also seems to me that concern for the rights of the disabled is more attributable to the evil liberals than to the sainted conservatives.
It isn’t quite that simple. Liberals are more than happy to abort the already-born, for example by deliberately starving them to death, and using other techniques.