Planned Parenthood President: Fewer People Saves Government Money

Planned Parenthood President: Fewer People Saves Government Money

The president of Planned Parenthood appeared on the Bill Press radio show today with an unconventional way for the government to say money. lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/plannedparenthood7.jpgBy sending more taxpayer dollars to the abortion business to pay for birth control, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards contends the government would save money in the long run because fewer people would be born.
Presumably, Richards believes the more people who are born the more people will need the support of government programs and services — ignoring the contribution people make to society.
“I think it’s important, Bill, to understand that unlike some other issues of cost, birth control is one of those issues that actually saves the government money,” said Richards, according to Lifesite. “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.”

more…

**Pray for us Holy Mother of God!

How sad that some people, like the PP crowd, Blessed by God with the precious gift of life, consider it something to be destroyed merely for profit.

How could they focus on the false premise of potential savings in Government spending, what about more taxpayers!

What about the person murdered through abortion who would care for these PP people when they are old & in firmed?

What about the person murdered through abortion who would have discovered the cure for cancer…**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

actually, birth control will cost in the long run as our population ages.

Who cares about the population aging? We’ll just work until we drop. No problem! Retirement? Pfft! The government raided social security so many times to give pork barrel projects to politicians, they don’t have much left. So the peasants will just have to live as they did long ago. Grandfather will be out pitching hay with the rest of the old folks.

And people? Nothing but numbers. Overpopulation? What to do? We’ll just euthenize them old folks. Free up a bed for the next paying customer.

God forbid,
Ed

This is, unfortunately, the way a lot of elites view “people”–just consumers of government benefits. Not producers, not taxpayers, not the future generation of citizens, scientists, educators, builders, philosophers. Just useless eaters.

So, if the government wants to save money by producing fewer people–OK, but when all the people are gone, so is the nation and the culture.

And fertility decline is in full swing among western nations, ensuring depopulation and ultimate extinction.

Jim,

You’ve got it all wrong. Well solve that problem by importing more people. How many doctors do you know that are from India? We’ll just import more people from India! They’ve got extra. No problem.

Peace,
Ed

Well yes, we will. Actually, that’s one reason I think that concerns over immigration are overblown. The U.S. will need immigration. Right now, our nation is not at a below-replacement-rate fertility level, but it’s close.

Europe needs immigration just to maintain itself, but eventually it’s culture will change to match that of the immigrants.

Of course, if every nation tried to rely on immigration, we’d all disappear in a demographic death spiral.

What a stupid thing to hang their hat on. Of course, if all the world’s people were killed, with the last one committing suicide, the government would not need to spend any money at all. It wouldn’t have any, either, but the budget would certainly be balanced.

A little negative there, don’t you think? Certain undeveloped or underdeveloped countries have booming populations. The immigration “problem” in the US only became a recent problem because of the current financial mess. The policy planners in Washington are hoping we drop below replacement. There are 300 million people in this country and they don’t want to see it go to 500 million. I mean, if that happens, where will they be able to find 500 acres to build their mansions on?

God bless,
Ed

Disgustingly Utilitarian and just plain Evil.

Jesus Christ, Son Of God, have Mercy on HIM, a Sinner. :signofcross:

And for me, too, the Worst of Sinners.

They can’t even do 500 acres per person now… unless they confiscate it from someone else.

Land area of U.S.A. = 3.79 million square miles (of which 6.76% is water, so only 3.53 million square miles of actual land).

0.012 square miles per person (at 300 million people) is only 7.5+ acres per person.

0.007 square miles per person (at 500 million people) is still 4.5+ acres per person

I’m not saying your numbers are off but there are deserts and national parks plus mountains.

God bless,
Ed

Is Cecile Richards really implying that certain people are a burden on society and the government should spend money to make sure they don’t reproduce?

I think Mrs. Richards is just a racist, disguising her racism in the form of “compassion” I don’t think she believes that there is a problem with upper middle class white people like herself are having too many children. But Blacks and Latinos are a different story. Planned Parenthood needs to teach those savages how not to reproduce themselves to poverty. Ahhh, White Man’s Burden. It is a tough job but someone has to do it.

Now obviously Mrs. Richards isn’t a burden on the government. She actually pays a huge amount in taxes. I couldn’t find her salary but her predecessor had a total compensation of $935,000 in 2005 so Mrs. Richards probably makes something similar.

How about this for an idea, instead of killing Blacks, Hispanics and poor white people, the government can save money by just not giving it away. It reminds me of a SNL skit about how to not get into credit card debt. It’s on Hulu “Don’t Buy Stuff”

… and so the religion/cult of abortion continues with infallible statements from Pope Cecile.

Our Lady of Guadalupe please pray for us.

Peace, Graubo

Yes I realize that. Marshes and swamps, too. It was just a theoretical exercise.

Much like the one that divides the population of the world (6.7 billion or so) by the land area of Texas, to discover that the population density would be roughly that of NYC proper. Yes, there are deserts and mountains and other uninhabitable areas in Texas, and no I wouldn’t personally like to live that close to everyone… but the point is that if we did, we would still have the whole rest of the world to grow food, etc. We wouldn’t have a population or resource problem, we’d just have a distribution problem.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.