What Is The Socialist Agenda Regarding Low Income Women?

This isn’t so much a blog post, as random notes I’m taking. I’m sure many of us have been so outraged by something they’ve felt compelled to say something. This was one of  those times for me. Bear with me.

Who funds the family planning industry, besides the federal government? http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8505CB6F-93D8-44C5-8330-2E8533E1E965


What kind of misinformation is being pushed by the family planning industry? (hint: typing “Low Income Women” in a search engine usually will get you some family planning propoganda, as if Low Income Women exist solely as a function of the “reproductive rights” agenda).  


“For reproductive rights to be meaningful, women must have access to a broad spectrum of services, including sexuality education, family planning, emergency contraception, prenatal and postpartum care, fertility services, reproductive cancer and STI and HIV/AIDS prevention, screening and treatment. Access also implies adequate transportation, child care, and linguistic and culturally competent services.”

It makes me wonder how the species has managed to exist at all, if society hasn’t already been paying every single female for this laundry list of “must haves”. Not that providing all of this money would present any kind of incentive to be reproductively responsible for themselves. If I’m a poor person struggling to pay the bills, and find out that the government will pay my bills if I get pregnant… At least that’s what it seems to encourage.


ACLU’s take on public funding has the most bizarre assumption I’ve ever seen on public funding:


“Will it cost taxpayers money to fund abortions?

No.  Because the costs associated with childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care greatly exceed the costs of abortion, public funding for abortion neither costs the taxpayer money nor drains resources from other services.6

6.  See, e.g., Committee to Defend Reprod. Rights v. Myers, 625 P.2d 779, 794 (Cal. 1981) (finding that “whatever money is saved by refusing to fund abortions will be spent many times over in paying maternity care and childbirth expenses and supporting the children of indigent mothers”).

This logical fallacy is pretty glaring to me, and I shake my head that people write this kind of stuff.

$(childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care) > $(abortion). Therefore, taxpayer$(abortion) = 0

If it costs taxpayers nothing, why ask for public funding?