Planned Parenthood’s final budget solution

Why should the American government spend more with Planned Parenthood? Well, the more you spend, the more you save.

Or, as Planed Parenthood President Cecile Richards said a while back:

“I think it’s important … to understand that unlike some other issues of cost, birth control is one of those issues that actually saves the government money. So an investment in covering birth control actually in the long run is a huge cost savings because women don’t have children that they weren’t planning on having and all the sort of attendant cost for unplanned pregnancy. So we actually feel that covering birth control is not only the right thing to do for women, it’s good for women it’s good for their health care, but it’s frankly good public policy.”

The dignity of every human being can now be measured in budget savings? Society has a vested interest, you see, in limiting population via birth control, abortion and who knows what next might become socially acceptable. (Let’s try not to get the Planned Parenthood folks together with the animal rights crowd or we might have baby-free cities. Think of the money we’d save if we didn’t have to spend all that money on schools!

There is something very dark about the thought process that leads Planned Parenthood to articulate what looks like the final budget solution. Each life we end … and ca-ching! goes the register. A little — just a little — intellectual honesty on the subject is needed. And we can start by stop using euphemisms on the subject. "Preventing" babies is not an "investment" in better government.

News Headlines
Local Spotlight
Add Event
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like