January 26th, 2009
05:00 PM ET

Pelosi says birth control will help the economy. Is she right?

From CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The $825-billion stimulus package that President Obama wants on his desk by mid-February is supposed to start turning the economy around. The President talked about transparency and has even announced that a Web site will give an accounting so people can keep track of how the money is spent. He's also vowed that there will be no pork in the bill.

House Speaker Pelosi recently said that contraception would “reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”

Over the weekend lawmakers got on their soap boxes. Democrats were out peddling the plan and Republicans were pointing out the problems.

On ABC, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended hundreds of millions of dollars in the stimulus package earmarked for family planning.

She said family planning reduces costs and explained that the stimulus plan includes assistance to states and part of that includes children's health and education. That includes contraception, which she said will, "reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

What exactly did she mean? Are the millions of dollars for birth control supposed to stop people from having babies? She's starting to sound like Chairman Mao.

When asked if she had any apologies for those remarks, Madam Speaker answered, "no apologies."

Here’s my question to you: Is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi right when she says adding birth control to the stimulus package will help the economy?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Mari from Salt Lake City, Utah writes:
Having birth control either covered by Medicaid or by one's health insurance will save our nation millions if not billions! But it’s not enough to hand out birth control pills, etc. We need to educate women, especially the poor, undereducated women in our cities and rural areas. If poor women would use birth control responsibly we would cut the cost of welfare moms and, for the Pro-Life folks, cut the number of abortions. Pelosi is right!

Pete from New York writes:
Ah yes, the values of a rich white San Franciscan. Perhaps Nancy was looking across to Oakland and its poor people and she became uneasy. I hate to say it but this could fall into the category of racist comments if we could get her to describe the kind of person who is going to receive these condoms. What would the reaction be if someone in the GOP said we needed to stop the poor from breeding so that we can save money? This is a Democratic leader and not some flakey back bencher! What an embarrassment to the country.

Don from Ottawa, Canada writes:
She's right Jack! If we had enough sense to plan our families we wouldn't have so many mouths to feed, jobs to fill or kids to educate. It's these same "no to birth control" crusaders that are the first to criticize poor welfare families.

HD from Phoenix, AZ writes:
You must be joking? With all the hard challenges this country is facing, this is the best she can come up with to help stimulate the economy. The People's Socialist Republic of California needs to put a muzzle on that woman.

Melanie from Iowa writes:
She knows what she’s talking about. As many of us remember during the barrage of Presidential commercials, many people with financial woes give up medicine first. Helping provide birth control is a cost saver to the government in the long run.

Mary from California writes:
Pelosi needs to mind her own business and stay out of Americans personal lives! Not only is it pork, but it is socialism.

soundoff (703 Responses)
  1. Gerry in Toronto

    Is Pelosi saying this just because she can't have any more children and she wants to ensure no one else does?

    January 26, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
  2. Paul Round Rock, Texas

    Jack she does have a point that it can help the economy. However Pelosi or anyone else for that matter should NOT try to force either a pro or anti birth control issue. When it comes down to it the couple should make that choice or the woman that needs to make a choice if she is unmarried or without partner and makes the choice of having sex and the posible child that could result.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
  3. Tom in Dubuque

    Jack; what has the Speaker been smoking; I would love to hear how birth control will help short term to stimulate the economy?This is pure pork, and the President needs to stand up to Pelosi and Reed and say "no"!

    January 26, 2009 at 1:19 pm |
  4. Anj in CA

    Pelosi needs to stick to the task at hand, or she will tank the stimulus package. Whether adding birth control helps or not is small ball and outside what needs to get done now.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:19 pm |
  5. mac from traverse city Michigan

    What is the rich heiress from California trying to say Jack? That those damn poor people breed like Hamsters and it costs to much to feed em all? I never cease to be amazed by the ignorance of the elite Jack. Tell Ms. Pelosi to fix the economy and desperate young woman wont have to make babies to get on medicare and welfare to survive. People who dont want babies will get their own birth control Jack it will not help the economy to offer free birth control to people who need babies to survive.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
  6. William of Iowa

    Maybe we should stop calling it a "stimulus" package. People are getting confused.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
  7. Sandra fromTexas

    She probably is right to an extent. However, I make it a point to Never disagree with Nancy Pelosi.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
  8. Kyle- DuPont, WA

    She is a flake, Jack. The only way birth-control could help the economy is if Nacy Peolosi's parents had used it.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:25 pm |
  9. Diana Ewing NJ

    Yes if people can afford it.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:25 pm |
  10. Kerry Diehl

    What a bimbo!!

    Does she think that by giving the people birth control it's OK for the government to continue to screw us?????

    Let's face it, not even Bush would propose such a ridiculous waste of tax monies. In spending, the old saying "Waste not Want not" should be applied and this idea is wasteful to say the least.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:26 pm |
  11. Donna Colorado Springs,Co

    I don't really understand her connection between birth control and the economy. Does she think this is China? We don't have state mandated birth control here......at least not yet. I think the old girl had a senior moment Jack!

    January 26, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
  12. Carrie

    She's right, only in the sense of, less people less money needed to spend on their health care, food and education.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:29 pm |
  13. Dave from Orlando

    At least in the future it will help add fewer people looking for jobs to the population. But anything that woman says is suspect. If it works out it is only by coincidence. She ties Reid as the next worst thing to Bush.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:29 pm |
  14. Don (Ottawa)

    She's right Jack. As the population grows so do their needs, many of which require taxpayer dollars to satifisfy. Population growth is the basis of most of our economic problems, including environmental degradation.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:30 pm |
  15. Jim


    She's correct. Making affordable birth control available to all will cut down on unwanted pregnancies, hence unwanted children, and the social costs associated with them. I will never understand why those who oppose abortion also oppose birth control. Cheap and effective birth control widely available could all but eliminate abortions.

    Reno, Nevada

    January 26, 2009 at 1:31 pm |
  16. Richard, Syracuse, NY

    Yes. If we can set aside all the Religious ideals and look at this clearly. If a family can delay having a child until they are financially ready or stable it will do nothing but benefit the family and the child. But to have a child when the Family is not financially secure or they are uncertain about their future is a recipe for disaster.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:33 pm |
  17. Joe in DE

    Hard to see any rational argument supporting the Spoeaker's pronouncement. It might make it easier for some individuals.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:34 pm |
  18. John in Rohnert Park

    I hate to say it but the biggest problem children Pres. Obama is going to have to deal with will NOT be republicans . . . they will be Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid! These two TOTAL IDIOTS need to go as NOTHING intelligent comes from either of them!

    January 26, 2009 at 1:34 pm |
  19. Jack in DC

    Jack, sure it does. It will not save the economy but its the right way towards recovery. Build a contraceptive producing plant and put people ranging from contractors, plant operators, suppliers, sale representatives, plant managers to work. It would also help curb unwanted pregnancies and STD's which really milk many states' funds as they try to provide healthcare to these people. The money saved through this chain reaction can in turn be used for other job producing projects. So its crazy when you hear Boehner asking how this would help the economy, may be he should try to think before he speaks next time.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
  20. Roy Munroe

    If it stops the idiots of the world from having little idiots then it would be a true statement.

    Olympia, WA

    January 26, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
  21. Dave, Brooklyn, NY

    It’s too late. Pelosi’s parents should have used birth control.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
  22. matthewbenzor

    Old nancy sounds like and expert or God scared of that one why is it that everbody in congress acts like they know whats best for us they cant even agree on anything why is it that republicans marry dems and dems, republicans and at home they sleep together raise familys but they cant get crap done for this country something is very wrong with this picture

    January 26, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
  23. Terry "the hillbilly Hooser"

    ~~~~~~~~~~What Pelosi was thinking, is, since all these people are going to be out of work , they'll have to find something to do with their time-another baby boom.
    This 'would not be good-birth control' , if jobs ever make a comeback- we'll need lots &lots of workers to pay off the national debt.
    _______NO TO BIRTH CONTROL!______________

    January 26, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
  24. Katiec Pekin, IL

    Yes, birth control will help all over the world. There are too many unwanted, unaffordable pregnancies due to lack of knowledge and availabiity of aid. Abstinance has proven to not work. Birth control will.
    People need to be able to plan for children.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
  25. Ayse - London

    I think that Speaker Pelosi has overused her hair-straighteners, and the heat seems to have fried up a few thousand brain cells.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
  26. honest john in vermont

    ??? Her logic is kind of fuzzy. But, maybe if people didn't have kids they could afford to buy more cars and toasters and TV's? I guess then we would have to bailout the diaper and baby food business.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
  27. Conor in Chicago

    I suppose you could argue that helping women obtain birth control would help in that there would be less mouths to feed moving forward. How it can help stimulate the economy seems a little weird to me. I mean seriously: Is the next economic bubble in the United States going to be based on birth control in some way?

    January 26, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
  28. Jeff in Glen Carbon IL

    Please tell me that this was a typo and she really didn't say that. If this is what we can expect from her in the future, we need to tell her California district to commence a recall or we need to find a way to take her Speaker's role away. We do not need such ridiculous comments or discussions distracting our focus or giving ammo to the crazy right wing radio nuts, lest they start sound less crazy than the supposed center.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:40 pm |
  29. nora CC TXAS

    She is wrong of course. What better birth control than knowing you cannot afford to have kids. I think her saying we need to add birth control to the stimulus package shows us just how ridiculous this idea is, if people stop having kids, who does she think is going to pay for all this money that is being spent now, jeez Nancy catch a clue!!!

    January 26, 2009 at 1:40 pm |
  30. Katy

    Jack, she is right. Less mouth to feed less worrying; the fewer childten (1 or 2) the more parents will focus and pay attention to their welfare & education.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
  31. Ed

    I think it's convenient to shift the blame onto the unborn.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
  32. Steven Bradley

    Birth control, in Pelosi's case, came some 50 years too late.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
  33. Ralph, Corpus Christi

    No, what we need is some Self Control to thelp the economy!
    Ralph-Corpus Christi, Texas

    January 26, 2009 at 1:42 pm |
  34. Chuck from Sheboygan, WI.

    Are you kidding me? People better start making LOTS of babies right now! We're going to need them to pay for this mess we're in.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
  35. Charlie in Belen, New Mexico

    I'm sorry Madam Speaker, but you are going to have to get a bit more into detail for me to understand your logic as applied to this subject......

    January 26, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
  36. pete in ny

    Ah yes , the values of a rich white San Franciscan. Perhaps Nancy was looking across to Oakland and its poor people and she became uneasy.

    I hate to say it but this could fall into the category of racist comments if we could get her to describe the kind of person who is going to receive these condoms. Will they be distributed in inner city schools or in affluent suburbs? It would be interesting to know what the bill actually says. For whom is this "stimlus interruptus" intended?

    What would the reaction be if someone in the GOP said we needed to stop the poor from breeding so that we can save money?

    This is a DEMOCRATIC LEADER and not some flakey back bencher!!!!! What an embarrassment to the country.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
  37. Jack in DC


    Whats Boehner's issue with contraceptives?

    January 26, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
  38. Dave in Saint Louis

    Birth Control? I guess the Speaker does not under stand what Stimulus Package actually means!

    January 26, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
  39. george c paree

    In some previrce way what now we can kill our children before there born what a great lady.Jack tell her to return to hell were she belongs.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:46 pm |
  40. Sally, Iowa

    Jack as many couples have cut back spending on entertainment, they are having fun staying home. This reduces stress and makes you feel happy, but you don’t want to worry about another mouth to feed in 9 months. So birth control will help stimulate something to keep our minds off the economy until it gets better.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
  41. pete in ny

    This is the same arrogant nit wit who tried to tell the Catholic Church what their historical position on abortion was.

    The woman is certifiably arrogant and should be out of office.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:50 pm |
  42. Jim from Tahoka, TX

    Excuse me Jack. Do I read the question correctly regarding birth control? I did not know the drug companies needed a bail out.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
  43. RC in SC

    Help the economy? Easy – send Nancy P. back down to the minors.
    Birth control and the economy? Is this a trick question? or a Late Night TV joke gone bad?

    January 26, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
  44. Don (Ottawa)

    She's right Jack! If we had enough sense to plan our families we wouldn't have so many mouths to feed, jobs to fill or kids to educate. It's these same "no to birth control" crusaders that are the first to criticise poor welfare families. As for abstinance, just ask Sarah Palin how that works.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
  45. Axl in Iowa

    Well, If we aren't being told the true story and the real problems with the U.S. ecomomy are somehow related to over-population and not cuz convenience store clerks are taking out loans for $350,000 houses and $60,000 Corvettes. Then I guess birth control might help a little.

    January 26, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
  46. priscilla in nh

    I think that is ridiculous, and it definitly doesn't belong in a stimulus package. The package is to stimulate the economy....not someone's limbedo!!!!!!!!!!

    January 26, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
  47. Paulette,Dallas,PA

    I believe she is right on this one Jack. When people have no money they entertain themselves the only way they can. It must be the hedonistic streak in all of us. People want to feel good and have a good time sooooo,with few alternatives,more babies are born which these fun seekers cannot afford. They ultimately end up on the welfare rolls. Different strokes for different folks – I read earleir today that Japan told their workers to go home and make babies!

    January 26, 2009 at 1:59 pm |
  48. Ken in Pinon Hills, California

    Nancy P. is right on.The population explosion coupled with overwhelming legal and illegal immigration will implode and smother what is left of our economy.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:00 pm |
  49. Willow, Iowa

    I think everybody should have that option, however, I can't figure out how that will help the economy in our country. Birth control should be covered in the health care package, as an option, just like viagra. But I think birth control is a private matter, and can't figure out why it would help the economy. People tend to have the children they want in our country. If there are "accidents", they are usually due to lack of responsibility, not cost.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:01 pm |
  50. Barry from Granger, Indiana

    I don't know what she is thinking.....Maybe she's saying "nothing else seems to work, screw it, let's party!"

    January 26, 2009 at 2:01 pm |
  51. Linda in Charleston, SC

    Only in the sense that it won't bring babies into the world that can't afford to be in this world. But hey Jack, I'm a grown adult and can't afford to be in this world myself. What's a babe to do?

    January 26, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
  52. Mickie

    Pelosi should have been replaced before this - she can't stand not being in the limelight.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
  53. Terry from North Carolina

    What planet is this woman from ? There was no intelligent thought at all before she made this comment. How long do we have to put up with Pelosi and Reid ?

    January 26, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
  54. Frank from Peterborough

    Unfortunately Jack there are millions of people throughout the world that need both birth control information and affordable means of birth control.

    Having children and having the means to provide adequately for them quite often don't go hand in hand. Intelligence isn't required to have children but common sense and money are sometimes required to avoid having them.

    It is surprising how many people respond negatively to this idea through either ignorance or religious beliefs or a combination of both.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
  55. Chris - Ottawa, Canada

    Jaok, the phrase "stimilus package" is slang for a man's you know what. So your question "Adding birth control to the stimilus package" is absolutely hilarious!

    January 26, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
  56. Steve

    God forbid Pelosi and her ilk stop spending money! No, why would they do that? Instead, let's keep people from bringing human beings into the world. These people (all of Congress) have got to be the most idiotic bunch I have ever seen. I have news for you folks, this economic mess will continue for years – and you can thank these morons and their ideas for making it so.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
  57. Bob D, Morrisown, NJ

    Yes Pelosi is correct, BUT . . . !!!

    Unwanted pregnancies and birth are definitely a drain on the economy. in some instances they make the difference between people who may continue their education and become productive taxpayers or be forced to abandon their development and become welfare drains on the economy. Clearly abstinence only education doesn't work.

    BUT!! I do not believe that legislation regarding this issue should be part of the economic stimulus legislation. The relationship is not that compelling, and the stimulus legislation should be geared to near term job creation, not legislation that would make more people available for work, or work at greater compensation levels.

    That said: The Bush travesty of denying people access to information about birth control alternatives to abstention must be reversed. However, this reversal should be done in separate legislation or executive order.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:08 pm |
  58. Dennis north Carolina

    Birth control is a fact of life for the planet not just the economy. How many people can this earth hold and survive? This is a question that needs to be address but it is not a popular one so the leaders of the world keep putting on the back burner for the next generation to answer. Time is running out for earth and the end may not be a ball of fire or a war but just lac k of using the brain that god has given us.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:09 pm |
  59. Rob , NYC

    No , but her mother should have used birth control so we wouldn't have to hear her drivel !

    January 26, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
  60. toni boutwell, myrtle beach, sc

    Yes, to many young girls are not getting the birth control they need, and abortions are expensive. They need to prevent pregnancy and finish thier educations, get good jobs and be contributors to our economic growth. The whole economic mess would never have happened if Bush's parents had practiced birth ontrol!

    January 26, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
  61. odessa

    she made a dumb comment about birth control because it is not an issue...birth control is irrevelant issue..they should have been concerning oversight and transparcey on the 350 billion dollars during the last administration..she made the wrong statement and the wrong time..oh boy, president obama is not having problems with old men gops but his own party too..somebody need to tell to shut up and do their jobs for the american people not boosting their egos...

    January 26, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
  62. don in naples, florida

    we are already over living our ecological footprint. As the environment erodes even further, it will only be a matter of time before our government mandates limits on child birth. There is a bumpy road ahead. But it is the price we pay for our wreck-less over-consumption up till now.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:13 pm |
  63. Rob , NYC

    Does she think this is China ? Pelosi really needs to be taken out of office . She's having issues with power going to her tiny brain.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
  64. toni boutwell, myrtle beach, sc

    Yes. we need to make sure all young girls have access to safe methods of birth control. Abortions are expensive, and hese young women need to finih thier educations and become working members of society to grow our economy.
    The whole economic mess would have been avoided had Bush's parents practiced birth control!

    January 26, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
  65. Tom Zorman

    Nothing can be more truth than Pelosi statement- stimulus package in combination with birth control will certainly sky-rocket the condom industry as an important element of the economy in general.
    Tom/Geneve CH

    January 26, 2009 at 2:15 pm |
  66. Do

    Bush tappes are phone-Channey tortures and Now controlling the population ? Were looking more like China everyday!

    January 26, 2009 at 2:15 pm |
  67. Mark in OKC

    You've got to be kidding me? Where did San Francisco find this woman?

    January 26, 2009 at 2:18 pm |
  68. Sam Fairview, Texas

    I don't see how Pelosi could be right. It is common sense that the more working people that there are the more tax revenue the government makes off of them. The more babys they produce the bigger the tax roll. Pelosi has it just exactly backwards. Unless of course she is promoting birth control for only the non working people. They would be the biggest burden on the government and everyone else. Personally I think Nancy Pelosi is a perfect poster child for abstinence. We certainly do not want people producing any more like her.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:20 pm |
  69. Betty, San Diego, Ca.

    I am sure the comedians will have a lot of fun with Speaker Pelosi's response. But birth control counseling is a social service that will provide jobs, no pun intended. I will also help reduce the cost to taxpayers for unplanned births and health-care costs.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:21 pm |
  70. Chad Jarman--Los Angeles

    Yes, she is right. Furthermore, I would suggest that nobody can have children until they can own a car first. If you don't have the resources to own a car, then you should not have any children until you do. And no second child until you have a second car.

    I know this is a socialist view, but there are too many families having kids when they can't even pay for thier own life's expenses, let alone care for a child. Quit being a detriment to society and provide some surplus to the community before you have any future welfare kids!

    January 26, 2009 at 2:21 pm |
  71. lynn

    Jack, please ask around to see if any of the pundits or reporters have actually READ the stimulous package or are they just reacting to every negative comment said about it?

    Condemns stop the spread of STDs!!!

    January 26, 2009 at 2:22 pm |
  72. Ray Kinserlow

    If the insurance companies can cover things like Viagra for men, they can sure as heck cover things like birth control for women. It is this double standard of sexual health care that rightly infuriates the feminists.

    Ray Kinserlow
    Lubbock, Texas

    January 26, 2009 at 2:22 pm |
  73. Gary of El Centro, Ca

    I can see where it might help in the long term (like 20 or 30 years from now), but it would do little to turn things around in the here and now.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:22 pm |
  74. el

    Hi Jack

    Pelosi may be a great person, but as a polictian...WOW. She is insane to even make such a comment. It begs the question, are we heading towards a "one child policy", the same as COMMUNIST China? Yikes, that's a very scary thought!


    January 26, 2009 at 2:22 pm |
  75. Terry in Hanover County

    Exactly what is she trying to stimulate? All she ever does for me is stimulate another rant. The birth control issue should have been in a separate bill or an executive order and not tied to the economic stimulus plan. This smacks of pork and the same ole politics of yesterday. Stupid is as stupid does. Please IMPEACH PELOSI NOW! Thank you.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:23 pm |
  76. Melissa

    Maybe but doubtful. It more seems to be that she's trying to push a Liberal agenda without consideration of the actual effect it will have.

    I'm a Liberal, don't get me wrong, but this is the worst possible time to push that stuff.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
  77. Ray Kinserlow

    As far as the GOP leadership is concerned, it is, no matter the worst economic bear to bite us in the butt since the Great Depression. I think they believe if they make enough noise we will forget who is responsible for this mess.

    Ray Kinserlow
    Lubbock, Texas

    January 26, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
  78. Rose in Az

    If she really wants to help our economy she should think about givng up her plane and all those trips to California that cost taxpayers thousands of dollars. I wonder about this woman sometimes, I think she is three bricks short of a load.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
  79. Al in IA

    Adding birth control to the stimulus package will prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce abortions and is far more likely to produce a benefit to society than relying on congress to practice any self-control when it comes to spending their wad.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:29 pm |
  80. KarenB, Florida

    under normal circumstances (?another lifetime ago), I'd say the woman should back off on that, tho' she does love to hear herself talk....so,who here still doesn't get it? the wind is blowing toward the govt controlling everything anyway–so, why worry about birth control at
    this point..

    January 26, 2009 at 2:30 pm |
  81. Randy from Salt Lake City

    You bet. If we produce fewer children, that means less children will be educated in our broken school systems, which means less stupid people, which means less Fox News toadees.

    I'm hoping that they make birth control manditory for Rebulicans -especially the Bush girls.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:31 pm |
  82. Chris, Kansas City

    Good lord I just wish everyone would stop saying whats making the economy bad and just fix it! ENOUGH WITH THE ARGUING!

    January 26, 2009 at 2:31 pm |
  83. Hank, MD

    They've already tried that in 1930's Germany, Jack. It didn't work.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
  84. Jayne

    It makes sense to me. If women can prevent unwanted pregnancies they can stay in the work force and contribute to their family's income. It would probably have an impact on the number of children on the welfare rolls as well. Mr. Boehner may think all of this is quite humorous, but he's got a cushy job with a good salary and healthcare benefits. Many of the rest of us don't.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
  85. Melissa from New Orleans

    No. Now is not the time to push the Liberal agenda. And I'm a Liberal.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
  86. Stacy from Leesburg, VA

    Jack, Nancy Pelosi is a national disgrace and a canker sore upon the Democratic Party. I am in favor of the stimulus package, but not for things like birth control. The stimulus package should be targeted to infrastructure, green economy, improving school buildings, and items similar to these efforts that create jobs and long-term growth. I do not want to see my party mess up this needed package with pork barrel and earmark spending. Speaker Pelosi, thanks but no thanks.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
  87. Pat,Clearwater Florida

    Absolutely, Yes, Yes, Yes. A measly unemployement check doesn't
    go very far. A strapped family does not want the stork to stop. This
    situation causes child abuse, which we have too much of.
    The Christians want to stop Abortions, this is a good start.
    Kudos to Nancy she has a real brain!!!!

    January 26, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
  88. Tina (Texas

    You are not going to get people to stop having sex. The officials refuse to give out condoms and now they want birth control added? Nancy needs to come up with a better program.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:39 pm |
  89. Doug from Indiana

    Birth control will solve all of the world's problems if it is used far more than it is now. We simply have too many people on the planet. Behavioral birth control is the best kind. Stop having kids, particularly in areas of the world that can't support growing populations. "Scarce" resources will not be so scarce anymore. For example, the "water shortage" is not a problem of quantity. It is a problem of consumption: too many people taking from a supply that has always been more-or-less constant for millions of years. Pollution: too many people driving. Deteriorating atmosphere: too many people. Too much war? Yes, due to too little space being used up by too many people. Seeing a pattern here?

    I stopped at 1 kid. Why can't you?

    January 26, 2009 at 2:41 pm |
  90. HD Taylor - Arizona

    You must be joking??? With all the hard challenges this country is facing, this is the best she can come up with to help stimulate the economy. The People's Socialist Republic of California need to put a muzzle on that woman.

    HD in Phoenix, AZ

    January 26, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
  91. Oregon Wally Las Vegas Nevada

    if only her mother would have used birth control, she reminds me of a speeding car without breaks or a steering wheel.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
  92. Larry from Georgetown, Texas

    It's difficult for me to agree with Dopey about anything but in this case she is right. I only wonder who gave her the correct answer. Can you tell that I don't think much of her as a leader but I don't think I'm alone in this case.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:45 pm |
  93. John, Fort Collins, CO

    I have trouble understanding Nancy Pelosi's logic on this one. It would cost nothing to just follow pastor Ted Haggard's example for birth control. After fathering five children, he turned to gay sex.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
  94. Dot in Omaha

    I think the stimulus package is a great idea-especially infrastructure spending to create jobs. However,I can't see how some of these expenditures (birth control,tv set conversions) can possibly be justified as a part of it

    January 26, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
  95. Susan

    Nancy Pelosi is an idiot. How did she become speaker of the house?There had to be more intelligent people than her available for the job.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
  96. Steve of Hohenwald TN.

    If we use it.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:50 pm |
  97. Bizz, Quarryville, Pennsylvania

    Right now people are losing their jobs, the last thing you would want or need is to have some unexpected pregnancy in your family, especially children that are still in high school. So anything that can help prevent that from happening, I think is a good thing.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:50 pm |
  98. Lois, Ont., Canada

    What on earth has Ms. Pelosi been drinking lately???

    January 26, 2009 at 2:51 pm |
  99. Jeff in Connecticut

    Absolutely Jack, especially in low-income areas. However, if Congress would just enforce the terms of the already distributed TARP money, including jailing CEOs and freezing their assets we'd accomplish more.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:52 pm |
  100. Jackie in Dallas

    Only if it is retroactive and we could get rid of some of the people who got us INTO this mess, including Pelosi!

    Ok, now that I got the obvious joke out of the way, here's the serious answer. Without reading the entire context, which isn't up yet, I'd have to say that there is a possibility that birth control could help. Welfare checks could show a decrease, and some of our "free" hospitals would see less in the way of ob/gyn cases. Plus, of course, it would be a bit of a stimulus for the pharmacological companies (yes, even they are hurting right now - of course, they have better access to anxiety meds and pain killers!).

    January 26, 2009 at 2:52 pm |
  101. Mary - California

    Pelosi needs to mind her own business and stay out of Americans personal lives! Not only is it "pork", but it is socialism. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!!!

    January 26, 2009 at 2:55 pm |
  102. Tony from Torrington

    Nancy Pelosi hasn't been right on any issue that I have ever heard. So I guess I'll say "NO" to your question.

    January 26, 2009 at 2:58 pm |
  103. Albert R.Killackey. Los Angeles

    Jack,, is this a joke? Getting stimulated and having birth control during an act of Congress. Did she really say that?

    January 26, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
  104. Michael "C" Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: Adding birth control to the stimulus package will only cause more "stimulus"---if you get my drift. It is the only thing that you can do without a job. And these elected officials come up with this idea--and the rest on the non-stimulus members believe it---I guess if you don't eat---you can loose weight too---right Jack?

    January 26, 2009 at 3:00 pm |
  105. Marie Ontario

    The religious right thinks praying and preaching will prevent unwanted children but also know if these tactics don't work then it just means there will be more members for their cults.

    In contrast reality tells us there is a desperate need for information on both birth control and STD's. Providing information and an affordable means for both birth control and disease protection will certainly help the economy in the long term.

    Unwanted pregnacies and STD's are a huge drain on the nation's economy and any steps taken to alleviate these have to be considered not only proper but necessary.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:02 pm |
  106. Albert R.Killackey. Los Angeles

    Jack,, is this a joke? Getting stimulated and having birth control in an act of Congress. Did she really say that?

    January 26, 2009 at 3:04 pm |
  107. Mike S., New Orleans

    Birth control will only help the future economy if it is mandatory.
    The problem is most of those who breed indiscriminately and expect society to pay for the results wouldn't use birth control anyway.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:04 pm |
  108. LM from Fayetteville, NC

    No. Mandatory sterlization after 2 babies without benefit of marriage – and the deciding factor is WHO is paying the bill? It is rampant here. Social services pays women who have babies without benefit of someone supporting them. Birth control is not always reliable but mandatory sterlization would be a little more certain.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:04 pm |
  109. Deanna Mollner

    How will it help? I quess millions of unwanted children will not be born . Which translates to more children able to live out their potentials. We have to grow up and be responsible for our society.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
  110. Huey

    I would like to see our soldiers and their families get some of that money. un-Planned Parenthood is enough

    January 26, 2009 at 3:07 pm |
  111. David,San Bernardino,CA.

    Birth control only further benefits the greedy and corrupt pharmaceutical industry. All of the pork needs to be taken out of the bill and real stimulus
    kept in. We are on the verge of total collapse because of bush and his cohorts ans we are in dire need of finding honorable people to run this thing.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
  112. Melanie in rural IA

    She knows what shes talking about. Eliminating the number of belly buttons claimed as dependents on income tax, will save the govt money. As many of us remember during the barrage of presidential commercials, many people with financial woes give up medicine first. Helping provide birth control is a cost saver to the Govt. in the long run.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
  113. Mike, Syracuse NY

    This will work if she makes birth control mandatory for welfare recipients. Better yet, offer anyone on welfare a $1000 incentive to get 'fixed'. In a generation welfare will be gone.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:13 pm |
  114. Nancy, Tennessee

    Birth control won't help the economy directly. It may help with healthcare costs. Everyone knows that the rise in healthcare costs are directly related to the number of people who cannot pay their bills at clinics and hospitals. If less people without insurance have babies that we all pay for, that would leave more money for the purchase of other products. Although it is a stretch to tie it together, birth control could help our economy.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
  115. Richard - Knoxville TN

    Sounds to me like most of the "commenters" (at least so far) must be republicans and think the Democrat's adjenda is to ensure all recipients of any type government assistance must be on birthcontol, or better yet, be sterilized before receiving any benifits - Where as the republicans want it to be selective and apply to those who don't vote republican, you know, especially those people, you know, non white anglo saxon protestants who voted for - well - HIM -

    January 26, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
  116. Mari Fernandez, Salt Lake City, Utah

    Many of the comments here, miss the point! Having birth control either covered by Medicaid or by one's health insurance will save our Nation millions if not ..........billions! But its not enough to hand out birth control pills, etc., we need to educate women, especially the poor, undereducated women in our cities and rural areas. If poor women would use birth control responsibly we would cut the cost of "welfare moms" and ...... for the Pro-Life folks........ cut the number of abortions!

    Pelosi is right!

    January 26, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
  117. chris

    heck no what will help the economy if we cared and helped the average taxpayer with money that is what this should go to every taxpayer legally in the u.s that make under 100,000 after taxes taken out every year from their pay checks

    January 26, 2009 at 3:18 pm |
  118. Chryssa

    Absolutely. Every month, I pay $50 out-of-pocket for my generic birth control pill prescription. If that came down to a reasonable amount, it would free up a good chunk of change for me to spend elsewhere.

    For the less responsible couples, some of whom can't even afford pregnancy tests or abortions, it would help prevent children being born when no one can afford them.

    Boise, ID

    January 26, 2009 at 3:22 pm |
  119. JR in Norfolk VA

    Yes, because poor people should not be allowed to have babies, period. If you make less than $25, 000 per year, you will be given free contraception for life, and if, in the words of our Dear Leader you are "punished with a baby" you will have government-supported abortion services. And if that doesn't lower the population and "reduce costs", there's always Soylent Green.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
  120. CJ in Atlanta, GA

    Birth control will benefit the economy by increasing jobs associated with an increase in pill production, distribution, education on the subject. By decreasing the number of babies born to families unable to support them financially we'll all benefit by having less of our tax dollars paid in welfare. Sounds good to me!

    January 26, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
  121. Sherri

    I am very disappointed in Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Schumer who is behind the earmark Student Loan funding that has been added to this Stimulus package & the birth control add-on. What in the heck does birth control & student loans have to do with getting people back to working again???. Her explanation to George S. was demeaning to the American people's intelligence and she owes us all an apology. This Stimulus package started out as a great idea BUT now with the added earmarks that President Obama promised there would not be any, well I'm not too sure AND I am very ticked off because there are millions of JOBLESS Americans that are hurting but Pelosi & Schumer are only thinking about their own self-interest just as they were with that $700 Billion dollar bailout that had earmarks for student loans added by none other then Sen. Charles Schumer. Why is President Obama allowing these 2 people to do this to the Stimulus package?. Its despicable and disappointing to me & many other Americans who voted for the change!

    January 26, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
  122. Gigi in Alabama

    I don't know if it would help the economy or not, but it might help the population explosion.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:24 pm |
  123. JR in Norfolk VA

    Yes, it is after all a modest proposal.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:25 pm |
  124. Constance - Seattle

    Make birth control affordable for all would be acceptable in the package.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:25 pm |
  125. Billy G in Las Vegas

    might this be related to the Republicans "drill baby, drill"?

    January 26, 2009 at 3:26 pm |
  126. Annie, Atlanta

    Though I agree it would save on resources in the long run, it reminds me of China and their 1 baby per family rule. It makes sense and creeps me out at the same time.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:27 pm |
  127. Sid...Texas

    It's to late for birth control to help out now, but , it certainly would have helped if it had been readily available to certain present politician's parents.. I could easily name a dozen right now without even to thinking about it.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:27 pm |
  128. tom, madison, wisconsin

    For once Polosi is right about something. It should be mandatory for every woman in the world.

    World population is going to lead to extinction, and it is closer than anyone wants to admit.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:28 pm |
  129. Richard - Knoxville TN

    Funding birthcontrol for those less fortunate who desire it is an admireable endevor - However - I don't for the life of me see how it is going to stimulate the economy --

    Personnaly, I think the so called "stimulus" package, for transparancy (or clarity and ease of understanding) should be split into four (yes, 4) parts -

    1 – Actual infrastructure stimulus projects that create jobs – (roads, highways, bridges, electrical grids, etc.)

    2 – Social Items - extending unemployment, paying for birthcontrol, extending medicare to whoever, paying for extra police, etc.

    3 – Earmarks - You know, bribery to states, like Alaska's $4 Billion gravel road to a village of 50, water parks, museums, etc.

    4 – Outright Bribery to republicans to get them to vote for the stimulis package -

    Might open some eyes -

    RB Knoxville TN

    January 26, 2009 at 3:29 pm |
  130. Tripp Mechanicsburg, PA

    The old adage was that the rich get richer, the poor have more babies. Today's would more correct in saying that the well-educated get better jobs, the uneducated have more babies. Pelosi should push for funding education, not birth control.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  131. David

    Not in the short run but in the long run it could. Especially with un-wanted pregnancies that could give them more of chance to get an education and perpare Themselves for a more solid future.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:32 pm |
  132. Jackie in Dallas

    Nora CC TXAS:

    Not having the money to have a baby works about as well as the rhythm method as birth control - which is, not at all. Why else do you think that we support millions of welfare babies, nationwide?

    Abstinence is the only absolutely sure way of not having children, but we've all seen how well that works thrown in our face during the entire election. Low- or no-cost birth control is a legitimate option that should have government support behind it. Now, whether or not it belongs in the economic stimulus package is the real tricky question!

    January 26, 2009 at 3:33 pm |
  133. Katja in Bradenton, Florida

    Birth Control is NOT the issue at this time. Saving jobs and eliminating the pork in the Stimulus package is. Can someone PLEASE, PLEASE just shut this woman up. She is the true definition of an idiot.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:34 pm |
  134. Paul S. Columbia, SC

    Nancy Pelosi clearly loves the attention from photo ops, the spotlight and cameras and will say just about anything to get her face "on air". America is in deep trouble and to look to the likes of a 'narcissist' like her for leadership is dangerous and stupid.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:35 pm |
  135. Angie IN PA

    The More Birth Control avaliable the Less Abortions Most Insurance compaines do not cover Birth Control

    January 26, 2009 at 3:36 pm |
  136. Tasha

    This proposal really sounds like a waste of money to me because most people still will not use them even if they had them. Besides, if a person want condoms and stuff, all they have to do is go to the health department or free clinic and they can get a whole bag for free. Well, you can in southern Mississippi. I don't know about other places.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:37 pm |
  137. Robert in Galveston

    It may help kids like sara pailins daughter from a loveless relationship but as to helping the economy, I can't see it.

    Robert from Galveston, Texas

    January 26, 2009 at 3:40 pm |
  138. Constance - Seattle

    Also, Pelosi does represent a state that is in dire straights and one reason is all the folks there that can give birth at no cost to them. So guess who pays for it? US Don't know if it would help in that situation. Just food for thought.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:40 pm |
  139. Chris

    President Obama said there WOULD NOT be any earmarks in the Stimulus package so what in the heck is birth control, lawn maintenance, $$$ for government cars & lets not forget Sen.Schumer's pet project of STUDENT LOANS, all added to the Stimulus package that has absolutely nothing to do with getting people back to work and creating jobs!. Speaker Pelosi should be ashamed of herself for adding in birth control plus trying to explain why with some cock & bull story that even she had a problem swallowing, after the words came out of her mouth. George S. looked at her as to say " Are you kiddin me".

    January 26, 2009 at 3:40 pm |
  140. Don in Fort Gratiot MI

    I for one think there are too many people in this country and too many people in this world. We can't support the population we have and some of our systems seem to be breaking down due to over use. But how about putting a freeze on immegration first...

    January 26, 2009 at 3:40 pm |
  141. Paul from Parry Sound, Ontario

    Economy means making available resources go as far as possible. It does not mean, as Republicans seem to think "spend as much as possible until all resources are used up and we are loaded with useless junk". Pelosi's proposals would lead to fewer people. Fewer people means less strain on panetary resources, fewer unwanted children who turn to violence and crime. She's right.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
  142. Kim in Dodge City, KS

    I guess her next 'big idea' would be to exterminate everyone over 65 so we could save money on social security.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
  143. Judy from Canada

    Why is birth control more of an issue these days than any other time.? It would certainly cut down on unwanted pregnancies. If people remember to take them But the cheapest safest birth control is obvious. Keep zippers ziped up Thar wont happen either.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
  144. Jenna Wade

    Is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi right when she says adding birth control to the stimulus package will help the economy?

    If people can't afford to have children they shouldn't be birthing them into the world. Its just that simple.

    What is the old saying "The rich get richer and the poor get children"

    Roseville CA

    January 26, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
  145. Steve in Clearwater, Florida

    So, greedy corporate CEO's aren't the problem...babies are?

    January 26, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
  146. don Calgary,Alberta

    amnesty for 25+ million illegal immigrants and tell your citizens to stop having children; so what state/country does she represent??

    January 26, 2009 at 3:42 pm |
  147. Sid....Texas

    I don't know if birth control may be the answer or not, but I wonder if Pelosi has been talking to some high powered pharmaceutical industry lobbyists........

    January 26, 2009 at 3:43 pm |
  148. angel in LA

    Actually she does have a point. Do you have any idea how much money this country spends on aid to dependent children? Do you think we can continue feed these children, educate them and see to their medical needs if there is more money going out than is coming in? What's better, having fewer children or letting the ones we have go hungry?

    January 26, 2009 at 3:43 pm |
  149. John in Santa Barbara, CA

    Somebody once told me to never buy a car that was manufactured on a Monday, because the autoworkers would party all weekend and build Monday cars with hangovers. I think Pelosi partied all weekend.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:43 pm |
  150. Phil, Georgia

    Yes, she is sorta right. It will help people be a little more responsible and hopefully slow down the spreading of diseases. Its better to educate and provide for those who can't afford protection for who knows how many mistakes could be prevented if someone only knew or had a couple of dollars to buy protection.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:45 pm |
  151. Sue -Idaho

    Jack, I don't care much for her but she's right, I have been saying for over fifty years that what the World needs is Birth Control. Look at the millions of starving children around the world, yet the women just keep producing them. It's not their fault, a good many aren't educated about birth control, and of course their's the religious element. I don't remember reading in the bible that women were suppose to keep producing children when they cannot feed or cloth them. But, of course we all know most preachers and priests make the stuff up as they go along.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:48 pm |
  152. Linda in Arizona

    You don't give enough detail for me to understand her point, however, if Pelosi is for it, it can't be a good idea. She and Reid annoy me to the maximum of my threshold. Why can't the Democrats produce something better than these two morons?

    January 26, 2009 at 3:49 pm |
  153. Denis Duffy

    I guess it's too late to ask why her parents didn't think of birth control. I wonder what her comment would be on that.
    Why didn't her constituents think of aborting her in her most recent re-election.
    Her comments are graceless and grotesque. Typical of a sleazebag politician.
    Perhaps her district should screw her before she screws them.
    Sorry for the sexual comparisons.

    Pittsburgh, Pa.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
  154. JW in Atlanta

    Absolutely. Out of control opulation growth is a huge problem. Every citizen absorbs raw materials, social services and quantities of fuel over a lifetime. There is a point where too many people produce exactly the situation in a society that California is experiencing. As Lincoln once elegantly said: "too many piglets and not enough teats". It's high time we got honest about population in this country, even though there's not much we can do about the problem abroad.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
  155. Darren

    If it looks like pork, smells like pork, and tastes like pork...

    January 26, 2009 at 3:51 pm |
  156. Linda

    Yes, if course she's right. Using birth control would prevent unwanted births. Less unwanted births would require less in social spending. Thus, a plus for the economy. Birth control should be mandatory for all women of child-bearing age.

    Our poor world can't fit too many more people in it.

    Sarasota, Florida

    January 26, 2009 at 3:51 pm |
  157. Eileen Peabody MA


    Adding birth control will only help with those responsible enough to want to control the size of their families.

    However, if you have a portion of the population which depends on social assistance (and you know I mean welfare) in order to expand their checks....they will have as many children as they possibly can.

    So what good will it do? It won't change the size of the population on welfare.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
  158. Deb I , Nauvoo, IL

    Pelosi is an embarrassment in so many ways. Not the time for this debate, Nancy. And really, for birth control to work, it must be used. I am not sure we have an access problem or a usage problem. It is time to stop the rewarding of young men/women who refuse to support their children.Aid for children and families should be given only to those who work or have worked in the past. If you can't work why do you think you should be allowed to have children–kids are the most precious work there is.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
  159. alice & sharon from tn

    didn't she have 5 children ?..

    January 26, 2009 at 3:53 pm |
  160. Jim Los Angeles

    Jack, Viagra for him ......take your chances for her. Perhaps we should eliminate contraception altogether and if an unwanted pregnancy happens , and SHE carries to term, then HE would agree to have his penetrating offending organ amputated. We could call the agreement "tit for tat" I bet that would clear the air! The very Conservative Senator Simpson from Wyoming said, "the pregnancy issue is a womans issue and the decisions should be left to women" not religious icons in funny hats and politicians pandering to idiology.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:53 pm |
  161. Tom from Boston

    Maybe she thinks us having more sex with less worries might make us forget what a bunch of idiots she and the rest of Congress are.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:53 pm |
  162. Jay-San Antonio

    Jack; the fact that she may have a valid point, is not an issue of right, but more than that it is unconscionable, we should never place Human worth on the state of the economy. If we do we may find that sooner our worth will be defined in such a way that we are done away with. I support birth control and the woman's right to chose, but this is beyond choice.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:54 pm |
  163. Queen (utah)

    Of course it will Jack, they don't want us to get the $1000 child tax credit so they can use the money to bail out more idiots!

    January 26, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
  164. Franky

    "Is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi right when she says adding birth control to the stimulus package will help the economy?"

    Yeah, I need a shot already, LOL!!

    Ohh lord, lord...at least these next four years will be fun, to say the least.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:56 pm |
  165. Al, Lawrence KS

    Oh boy, here we go again. Of course this is all about helping the states with funding. But mention birth control, or condoms, or anything related to sex, and you drive all the crazies out from both sides. This is really an issue for the small minded.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:56 pm |
  166. Jenny from Nanuet, New York

    It's common sense-the fewer pregnant women there are, the more women there are who can go out and spend money on partying, thus stimulating the economy.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
  167. George

    If you will accept the truth, and If you will do the math you will see that she is right. Way to many children are being born to people who cann't afford to take care of them, so therefore it falls back onto the taxpayers to pay their way. Taxpayers have rights too, and the only way to put things on an even playing field is to do exacxtly what Nancy Pelosi is saying. No one took care of me when I had a child at 17. I finished High School, got a job, and took care of my own. Don't tell me that people who have little ones can't work, because in working families it happens every day because they don't want to leach off of the WELFARE SYSTEM , but there are many who do, and most of them are capable of doing something to earn money if they would just get up out of the horizontal position long enough, and do something with their lives, thay will find that it is a much better palce to be, and offers a great deal of satisfaction knowing that you are standing on your own two feet.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
  168. Tom from philly

    I hate to continue an ongoing theme, and as someone left of center I hate to bash my own, but its nancy's time to ask her doctor if antipsychotics are right for her. I dont think it matters one way or the other, but anyone thats responsible enough to know they shouldnt bring life in the world because of their current personal situation should get the tax deduction and welfare/foodstamps and section 8 housing, NOT the people spewing out children not knowing if they can feed them. So under those terms yes it would stimulate the economy thru tax cuts for not haveing children

    January 26, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
  169. JustMe

    She is wrong. What will she try to legislate when the people forget to take their pills? Will she mandate taxes on kids over a certain number like they do in China or perhaps mandate hysterectomies? You cannot legislate common sense. We took our niece end who was having a hard time, not charging her but $100 a month for rent and food. She just had to stay working and pay her bills. She ran up a $400 long distance bill. She did not pay the $100 or the phone bill. She quit her job. You can give some people what they need but they will not take it. It is not a perfect world especially if the government tries to make it so. Antibiotic resistant germs exist because people can't bother to remember to take their antibiotics for the whole ten days. Try remember birth control for the rest of your life. A lot of Pelosi's target for this birth control don't care. You cannot legislate a fix for that or can you? We could sterilize anyone on the public aid. Holland has euthanasia that can be perform without parental consent if the doctor deems a birth defect or condition to be affecting the quality of life. What about old people on Medicare in nursing homes? Are we going to start euthanizing them as they are a burden on the economy. Next time old Ted Kennedy keels over let's not have medics come to the rescue. They cost the tax payers money and Ted is a burden on our economy.

    January 26, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
  170. Carl Ball


    Birth Control should not be part of the Economic Stimulus Plan. Congress could take it up as part of the next set of Federal Budget bills if they want.

    It's time for people in responsible positions to act seriously – not like children in a candy store.

    Carl from pahrump

    January 26, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  171. Lisa Casey, Ashford, Alabama

    Less unplanned births = less poverty

    January 26, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  172. Jerry Harris

    Jack, it may do it, with all the people out of work what else is there better to do then work at increase your family size, but while you may go broke it would help the companies that produce items for babies.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
  173. frankie

    I am pro-choice because I belief you have to respect the value of a woman's life, too. However, Pelosi's statement disgusted me. But when this morning on CNN a pro-family conservative started asking why producing lots of new workers wouldn't also be good for the economy, I was equally disgusted. I wish she had not said that, and I actually wish he had talked about the sanctity of life instead of making that creepy joke. I do not think Pelosi represented the reasons choice should be made available to all women.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
  174. fred N.C.

    hogwash! less people = less spending. true but..... it also means less taxpayers to fuel the machine! what an idiot this woman is!

    January 26, 2009 at 4:02 pm |
  175. garrick

    hi jack
    birth control might help her because we dont need her to breed anymore like her.please let that bill pass.glad her daughter isnt following her footsteps.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:02 pm |
  176. John

    I'm a life long Democrat. Pelosi is an idiot!

    January 26, 2009 at 4:02 pm |
  177. Juliette

    I know I'm just a homemaker, but if the population goes down, just tell me exactly who is going to fund social security through payroll, Fica taxes??????? Why DO we have social security anywhy, that darned socialist Roosevelt.....that Pelosi has SanFranciso fog between her ears....

    January 26, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
  178. dee

    She's right but that should be part of the stimulus package..the conservatives will have a big problem with that one!!!

    January 26, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
  179. Nick

    Boy, some people are dumb as bricks. Sure, higher population creates more costs to feed everyone, but it also carries with it more earning and production capacity. So it's a wash in the grand scheme of things. Common people, use your brains.

    The nerve of people to say that someone else shouldn't have a child never ceases to amaze me. Especially given the fact that every single one of us were once children ourselves. As if you all were born 45 years old and knowing everything. And they say youth is wasted on the young. I say perspective is wasted on the old.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  180. Anna from PA

    This is not meant to teach to use abortion as a birth control method, instead to educate the youth on FAMILY PLANNING. Education will alway equal health of the economy!

    January 26, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  181. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    Nancy Pelosi is so wrong on this one. Our population growth has dropped over the past years with a projection of older people being the majority in years to come. It's our children and our unborn children who will be burden with paying taxes for any stimulous package, not people living on retirement and social security.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  182. Kevin - Albany

    The short-term benefits seem limited, but in the long-term it could reduce demand, which would ease prices.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
  183. Brandon, Chapel Hill, NC

    Nancy Pelosi has gotten it wrong again. How will providing free medicine stimulate anything? I used to wait tables, and often overheard less fortunate people saying they needed "one more baby" to get to that next level of welfare. If it does anything, it will reduce crime.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  184. Mike in St. Pete Beach, Florida

    No. People will just stay home stimulating each other instead of being out there stimulating the economy.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  185. Hugh ~ Tracy, California

    Less birth-control does lead to an increase in pregnancy, and many unwed mothers will later ask for government assistance. In the long run this will weaken the economy, as fewer women will be unable to reach their career goals while juggling the responsibilities of being a nurturing mother and a struggling student.

    Pelosi's comments have merit but they are counterproductive, devisive, and a firestorm for conservatives. Her words will be denounced with fiery rhetoric and inflame the religious right, who will condemn liberals as being responsible for the moral decay of American values. For the good of the country, Pelosi needs to work on keeping her mouth shut.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  186. amy

    I don't see how it could hurt. Any women of child bearing age should be given birth control for FREE for as long as they are willing to take it. The number of children who are unwanted, abused, abandoned, and neglected in this country is unforgiveable. Add that to the number of single parents who are on state/federal aid, this seems like a no brainer to me. This would not be the government mandating birth control, it would be providing it for those that want it. A pack of pills is a whole lot cheaper then prenatal care, medical costs, WIC, welfare, health care, child care etc.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  187. Terri Lovato

    I think Nancy Pelosi is wrong. I think she is way too left for our new President and most of the country who is really more center. I think she is going to continue to promote bi partisan bickering more than anyone. I don't like her. I think she should shut up and wake up and understand that the American people want a change from her sytle of crap in Congress.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  188. Teri in St. Augustine FL

    It helps by adding less of a burden to the economy. When there are a half million (or more) job losses each month, that's less money for contraception. Plus there's less money for entertainment, so put two and two together. Who will pay for these babies when everyone is out of work? She isn't 'forcing' birth control on anyone. She's just trying to add less mouths to the welfare lines.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  189. Tripp Mechanicsburg, PA

    China put a limit of one child per family and that nation's prosperity has boomed. The reason something like this won't work for the U.S. is that, in spite of all of Bush's efforts, we are not governed by a totalitarian regime.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  190. Jack Carlson

    Pelosi is so full of hot air ! Gov't might provide Birth Control Pills to young women, and end up with thousands of cancer cases.
    Same composition is in Birth Control and Hormone Therapy.
    Whatever happened to people taking care of themselves – has anyone noticed with these loose morals, want to abort babies, etc that respect for life has been lost and so in the young people as well who throw their babies in the garbage.
    We are a sick society and need cleaning up.
    Jack Carlson
    Seattle WA

    January 26, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  191. Leo in Oakland

    It absolutely would help the economy. Most people have too many children and many people have children they cannot affort and we end up supporting them through our taxes. Children are evil...

    January 26, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  192. Kevin, Chester Springs PA

    Geez... you know... it's hard to even respond to that statement by Pelosi. It just sounds, well... stupid. Why can't the Democrats keep to the program and focus on an economic stimulus package that creates jobs. The Republicans don't need to get this kind of fodder served on a silver platter, or in this case, a foil package.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  193. Lois Canada

    That's a lot of condom's....I'm investing in rubber!!

    January 26, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  194. J

    I don't think the government should pay for birth control!! My husband had the "surgery", we're not having any more children.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  195. Ralph Nelson

    Usually when people are unemployed or after wars they have lots of sex. So it's probably a good stimulus plan. How about $1 Trillon dollars worth and a further tax cut if you only stimulate American women? Ralph, Yakima, Wa.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  196. sweetpea

    RN with 20 years of seniority in a contract hospital – unless the hospital closes, I have one the most secure jobs in the world right now.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  197. Marilyn from Louisiana

    How many children does Nancy have? (5). Oh, please, let's get on with our lives.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  198. Henry from Connecticut

    Nancy Pelosi is indeed right. If couples can have only the children that they want and can afford, they will be less likely to go into debt or have their house foreclosed. If unmarried teenages have fewer unwanted pregnancies, this will ease the strain on taxpayer supported social programs. If there are fewer young mothers, more young people will be able to get a better education and get a better more productive job. This is just such common sense that I don't see how some Republicans can be against this.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  199. mary sullivan

    1) This is for POPULATION control!

    2) And more importantly; this is to fund the makers of Trojan condoms to produce a MASSIVE size condom to cover the Dome of the Capital!
    Yes; to allow Congress to continue SCREWING the people under cover!
    pass the Viagra!

    January 26, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  200. Victoria

    Yes, she is correct.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  201. Doris Ky.

    Jack, I don't think Pelosi said mandatory birth control would help the economy but birth control would help. People are not going to stop having sex and this will help prevent unwanted pregnancies the economy is bad.why bring more children into the world that you can't take care of ?

    January 26, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  202. ronvan

    TOUCHY SUBJECT: However I give Pelosi the guts for saying it! Unfortunately, all those "GROUPS" that would get on board to defeat this subject would detract from the more important issues we are facing!

    January 26, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  203. Fred May Sr.

    Jack, Birth control should be up to the couple or the single woman involved. Nancy Pelosi should keep her opinions to herself. If the pregancy is the result of a rape it should be up to the victim as to whether she wants the child. It is the choice of the person as to how to handle it.There are things that government should stick their noses in and some they should not. This is one that is none of thier business. Nancy Pelosi take note.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  204. James in TN

    All this talk about the past well people back then had 13 kids before they were 30. Now we look at that and go wow but that was then and this is now.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  205. Meredith

    It would help some economies...in 3rd world countries....but not over here. People are smarter than she's giving credit for. Teenage pregnancies are down, the average first-time parent age is up... I'd rather see money spent on public transit than on baby prevention.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  206. Jane (Minnesota)

    I believe what is needed more is immigration control instead of birth control Madam Speaker!!!!!

    January 26, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  207. Jay in Texas

    The government is already spying on Americans and violating nearly every Amendment in our Bill of Rights. This being said, I don't believe the government should spend any money intruding into what goes on in our bedrooms.
    Brownwood, Texas

    January 26, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  208. slightner


    I see many of your commentors forget that every unwanted child among the poor ends up on the welfare rolls and destines many young mother's to life long poverty. What I see in many of these comments is head in the sand approaches to our continuing poverty problem. Say, why don't some of you spend some time in the Ghettos with children from unwanted families on the street stealing your tires or selling you drugs.

    Steve L.
    Camino, CA

    January 26, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  209. Jerry in Cincinnati

    Of course birth control will help the economy! Poor families are the ones most likely to take advantage of free or low-cost birth control, and if poor families have fewer children they are less of a burden on the rest of society.

    My wife and I both have jobs and together we have an impressive six-figure household income. We worry about the economic impact of having more children and we made the choice to use birth control so we don't have too many children. On the other hand, my nephew can't hold down a job and his wife is unemployed ... but they don't use birth control and have more children than we do ... all of those kids are on some form of government assistance.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  210. Rian McMurtry

    Probably not as much as she thinks (though I'm sure Trojan agrees with her). It puts more people out there looking for work and reduces costs on families. But new babies also result in buying clothing, toys, furniture, formula, baby food, and other things–second hand, often. but such purchases also stimulate the economy.

    Davis, California

    January 26, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  211. Barbara in Las Vegas, NV

    What costs less, Jack, $20 a month (if one has insurance) for a pack of birth control pills, or the alternative (if one does not use such protection)–one or more children that need food, shelter, medical care, and so much more, and who are likely to need to depend on government benefits to obatins such if job losses continue at their current clip (i.e., you mentioned earlier there were as many as 63K today?). Nancy Pelosi is right.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  212. Jodi

    I don't see how increasing Family Planning spending will make an impact. It hasn't yet, so why would it make a difference now? There are a wealth of programs out there that already deal with this issue. The problem is that not enough people take advantage of them.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  213. Allen in Hartwell GA

    Jack, I suppose theoretically she has a point, but this is really stretching it. I think she has been under a lot of stress lately. Maybe she'll have a better answer after Congress hammers out and passes some sort of stimulus package.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  214. Casey | Sebastopol, CA

    Anything that helps control the population of the world is a good thing, in my opinion. I don't think abortion is family planning, but availability and some real education about birth control PREVENTS abortions – it doesn't increase them.

    It's time to put aside the ideology and theological BS that has dominated politics in this country for the past 20-30 yrs... we have truly serious issues to fix.

    And how hypocritical is it to deny FOOD and MEDICINE to starving and ill people because you think they might someday decide to have an abortion? That's just STUPID and narrow-minded.

    Free your mind and the rest will follow.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  215. Denis Duffy

    Can you just see Pelosi going door to door in her district, asking:"Hey, would you like a rubber to cover your stimulous package?".
    If she is a leader of the Democratic party, how did the Democrats get a majority!
    Forget about her being a Democrat, she is too stupid to be in or at any party!

    Upper Saint Clair, Pa.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  216. Lynn

    It is scary to hear people now try to justify what Pelosi;s reasoning is in spending millions from the stimulus bill on contraceptives, since her words and beliefs came off so badly. She said CHILDREN ARE A BURDEN ON STATE AND FEDERAL BUDGETS and anything we can do to eliminate the numbers would help our economy. This came out of the mouth of a mother of five and a supposely practicing Catholic. CHILDREN ARE BLESSINGS NOT BURDENS!

    January 26, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  217. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    Hi Jack,

    it probably came out the wrong way...but what I can add to this is : it is a fact of life that we need planned parenthood. It does not take away the freedom to chose and it does help in reducing unfortunate teens pregnancy and look at around the globe...we all need planned parenthood! We cannot even take care of children being born at this time and protect them! Planned parenthood is a responsibility and again it does not take away the freedom for anyone to chose otherwise at any time in their own life!

    January 26, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  218. Dee in Florida

    Is she right? Duh! Not just the economy!

    Birth control would help the entire EARTH!

    This is not an infinite planet that will expand as population grows. Everyone should learn that and act accordingly. At some point the number of people will absolutely overwhelm the resources.

    The Chinese have a grip on this concept, but even their restrictions on number of children only slows their population growth somewhat.

    The more people there are, the more impact on the planet. It certainly should not take a rocket scientist to understand that! Why do people think that in the old days, when families were large because of the need for labor, even then the sons had to move off the family land and establish themselves separately? That was because any given plot of land can only sustain X number of people. Extrapolate that to the entire earth and you can see that at some point the earth can only support a certain number of people.

    What that numbr may be I do not know, and since at that point in time I believe there will be large scale human suffering, I really do not want to know. Sadly, if we do not quit breeding like flies, my children's children may well learn the truth.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  219. Lois Canada

    She would be better off buying every childbearing aged couple a stroller and a pack of Huggies......having children stimulates the economy!

    January 26, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  220. Keith - Cleveland

    Jack, She is right on target. The only trouble is that she's in the wrong shooting gallery...

    Bail-out is to free up the financial market, not prevent what fornicating was designed to do...

    Has she been taking her meds or sniffing something else.?

    January 26, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  221. Fred May Sr.

    Jack, When I think back to when Nancy Pelosi's ancesters were the mayors of Baltimore City MD, read what her opinions are of the current issues it is hard to believe she is an off spring of them. They had the skills to do and say what they thought was right for the citizens and not for themselfs. Nancy should hang it up and go back to private life.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  222. Jim, from Las Vegas

    I have said for decades now that over-population is the number 1 cause for the major problems facing not just the US, but the world at large. When China recognizes it and takes draconian measures, there has to be something to it. Pelosi is right, but it needs to be controlled in more than the US. Add in the ever-increasing life-expectancy for humans and one should shudder to think of the natural resources that will be consumed to allow a bare minimum level of existance.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
  223. Ken in NC

    Jack it is nothing more than an earmark. Once started, someone will push to make it permanent and there by increasing the burden on the budget. If this lady was smart she would know enough to be quiet. She is not smart so she cannot be quiet.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
  224. jeff from alabama

    Jack, personally I think birth control is a hell-uv-a better idea
    than abortion. Preventing life is not near as henious as taking

    January 26, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
  225. Carlos C.

    Where do they come up with this stuff?! I am totally against this Bill now after hearing this and most of the others things loaded in the bill, and if our President decides to pass it, it will be his first Iraq sized mistake. This Bill is loaded up with peoples side projects, though I agree with some of the things in there they have NOTHING to do with the economy and should be in a separate Bill!!!

    I voted for our President, but these past few days I've lost complete confidence in that they must have no idea how to solve the economic problems in this country apart from naming what they are, quick sombody tackle the guy who's going to carry this BIll to the Oval Office!!! ==NJ

    January 26, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
  226. Tom, Bradenton, FL

    In a way she is right, the Earth is over populated and we are outsrtipping reources fast. That is part of the reason for a rise in cost of food and gas.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
  227. James from PA

    Who needs sex when the government is more than willing to stimulate us?

    January 26, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  228. Anna

    There will be jobs under the"birth control" money, let's not forget Public Health staff will continue their work to educate and reach out to communities. Don't forget some of these programs have closed due to counties cuts back.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  229. Ken M . Millington MI

    Hello Jack. Not saying its right or wrong but here is a question to ponder. There may come a day soon when americans are restricted to only one child like china. over population is a real threat around the world and a problem that we as americans will have to face like it or not. It would be nice if we could work things out but i know thats to much to ask.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:34 pm |
  230. Karen - Tennessee

    If more young people finish their educations before becoming parents, and adults can choose if and when to start or increase the size of their families, how can it be wrong?

    January 26, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
  231. Bill in South Jersey

    Of course she's right, Jack.

    How much does it cost to have a baby? If the parents can't pay, does that mean that the baby doesn't get born?

    How much does it cost to raise a child? If the parents can't afford it, does that mean the child doesn't get fed and clothed?

    What's needed to teach the young person decent values and make him or her a productive member of society? If both parents are working their tails off and give the kid no supervision, who eventually pays?

    Which family has a better chance at living in some kind of decent conditions, one with one or two kids, or one with seven or eight kids?

    The Speaker may be politically incorrect, but logically, she's right as rain.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
  232. Janny from NJ

    Is there anything we can do to get her replaced? She scares me.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
  233. Dan from Alliance, OH


    Another joke out of Washington. Put those people to work so they have less time to make babies.


    January 26, 2009 at 4:37 pm |
  234. GC

    Just in time for my 14 year old daughter. Its about d**n time since men have been getting reimbursement for Viagra for years it's about time that women had birth control if they want it. How that affects the economy, well if women are happy, everybody is!

    January 26, 2009 at 4:37 pm |
  235. Jim Handy

    No she is not right and it's not the governments place to spend OUR tax money on birth control. That is a personal responsibility. Our congress will never be fully functional and working in the best interest of the country as long as Pelosi and Reid are in charge.

    Inglewood, Ca.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:38 pm |
  236. Susan from Greenfield, Wi.

    There are several items in the draft that need to be removed, and this is one of them. Even leading Republicans have pointed out that this draft does not resemble Obama's description of what he wants. What I find interesting is that it is the Democrat's that have defied Obama's orders concerning no pork or special interests were to be introduced into the package. It didn't take long for Pelosi, and gang to mess things up. Welcome to Washington, Mr. President. Man oh man.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:38 pm |
  237. Jasmine in Germany

    Yes. Family planning and health education should be promoted. It's pitiful and inconceivable that a nation which calls itself the greatest has so much poverty, not to mention ghettos. Wake up and move into the 21st Century.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  238. Leo in Oakland

    BTW: at the very least we should stop giving people tax breaks for their children since children take up more of our resources and the rest of us who don't have kids end up paying a disproportionate amount. You want kids? You should pay for them, not me or anyone else who doesn't have them. Like I said....kids are evil, they will be our downfall and having swarms of them is what keeps poor folks poor....i pitty the fool!

    January 26, 2009 at 4:41 pm |
  239. George from NYC

    Um... this one is a bit out in uber-left field for me, and I'm pretty on the left.

    Is family planning a good thing? Absolutely.

    Will it make a long term difference? Maybe.

    Does it matter as much in the short term as creating jobs, relieving financial burdens, and helping people pay their debt? Not really.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:41 pm |
  240. Brittany, Palm Beach FL

    Just because something could help the economy doesn't mean it should. We could become like China and limit families to one child per family and I bet that would help the economy. Doesn't mean we should do it. She is already way to comfortable with the new Democratic President in office. I have a feeling this is just the beginning of her hair brained ideas. I am sure she will spur on some great blogs for you Jack. Have fun.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
  241. John

    Our orphanages are full. If a woman doesn't want a baby that she has to carry then why should I "john Society" have to pay to educate, feed, medicate, and otherwise raise it.
    Why should an unwanted child be pushed from one home to another. Why should they be mistreated, abused, etc. I think as unacceptable as abortion is to me , everyone doesn't have my morals or ideas.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
  242. Jason, Koloa, HI

    Overpopulation is the the single greatest threat to every person on this planet. There are simply not enough resources to sustain at the current rate of human growth. If we don't proactively attack this problem on a global level right now, nothing else is going to matter in the future. People will look back on our current economic problems and yearn for the days that the economy was the biggest problem facing humans. We are heading for a mass die-off at our current rate of growth.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
  243. Maria

    Why not...conservatives are allways complaining about having programs like Welfare etc...so if we can prevent those people who abuse the system from having more children why not...

    January 26, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
  244. Ed

    Sounds like more pork to me but then I'm just an average citizen of the US who isn't able to think like Nancy and some of the other so called smart politicians. Could this be a lobbyiest who is pushing for this or has she just gone dumb all on her own. Give me a break Nanacy....better yet, just get out of congress and get someone in who is more intersted in the people and our main concerns right now. Keeping out jobs. Get your head out of the sand.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
  245. Jan Howard

    Pelosi is not my favorite person .. but, let's face it .. most parents can't even afford the kids they have now yet they keep having them .. and what about all those young girls and unwed girls having children .. maybe some form of contraceptive is a good thing .. by the way .. why does CNN keep referring to President Obama as "Mr. Obama" .. i'm going to have to switch to fox if they keep it up .. i find it disrespectful .. don't remember ever hearing you refer to Pres. Bush as "Mr." Bush ..

    January 26, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
  246. Matt

    Jack –

    I think it is funny that the leader of the house who has had more Botox injected into her face to re-flate the airbags is making statements about family planning.

    This is the same woman who said that she was going to take over the house for the future of her children and grandchildren with them in tow.

    We should thank her for doing such a good job in ensuring that her grandchildren will need to hold three jobs, in which two pay the government for all the spending they have done in the last six months.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
  247. Affy California

    sure it will. there are many ways we can stimulate our economy...like the legalization of marijuana, imagine how much we can tax that jack, and how happy and peaceful everyone will be.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
  248. Betty---IN.

    What happened to No Pork, No Pet Projects?? Some think Biden has a real problem with his thoughtless remarks, well, seems to me Pelosi is even worse. It's beyond me how she ever became the "Speaker" when she doesn't know how to keep her mouth shut at times when she should.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  249. Jen, Maryland

    Population control is everything!! I applaud her comments! Quit pushin out the kids so the rest of us can live comfortably!

    January 26, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  250. FormCritic

    Yes. She's right.

    I agree with Pelosi up to a point. I'm not in favor of plans that disguise federal help for Leftist organizations as "economic stimulus."

    I'm also not in favor of mixing the terms "birth control" with "abortion."

    January 26, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  251. Matt, Minneapolis MN

    This doesn't help the economy. Right now we need more people to plug the holes filled by retireing baby boomers. We need all the unplanned pregnancies we can get. In all seriousness though, how are we going to help the economy by spending 200 million on groups that already get plenty of federal and private funding. I can think of one trillion reasons why not to vote for this bill.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:49 pm |
  252. Pugas=AZ

    Nancy has her hands full with the child at her side (Harry Reed.) We will, however, need money for birth control since the government continues to screw us. If Nancy wants to help the country she should devote her efforts towards the living.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:52 pm |
  253. Clementine from Fort Bragg, NC

    Jack, Doesn't it seem like our government has a serious case of ADHD? They simply don't have the ability to stick to the task at hand. They were given the task to draft a solution to fix our economy and instead they are using this situation to push a social agenda. It's like they can't help themselves. There will be a proper time to introduce a bill to provide for family planning and whatever other social programs they want, but right now the only thing they should be focusing on is the economy.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
  254. Harold from Anchorage,AK

    Yes,but the ones who need such services themost have been brainwashed and won't apply.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
  255. Markel Houston

    Speaker Pelosi is just being realistic. Children are having children. Unplanned pregnancies are a significant problem. Teens will have sexual relations with or without contraception. The vast majority of those unplanned children are supported by the public in some form.

    Providing contraception to teens in an effort to prevent unplanned pregnancies may not be palatable to everyone, but I think we would all agree that it is preferable to some of the alternatives.

    Teaching "abstinence only" doesn't work. Making contraception available to teens will help to prevent the drain on our financial resources. We can pay a few dollars to provide contraception or we can provide tens of thousands of dollars for the care of the mother and the child for the next 18 years or more.

    A pregnant teen is forced to make decisions that she is probably not mature enough for:
    * She might opt to give birth and attempt to raise the child herself; she is not likely to succeed alone. Most teen fathers are neither willing nor prepared to participate in the care of their child.
    * She might opt to give her child up for adoption; there is a shortage of qualified and willing foster and adoptive parents.
    * She might opt to abandon; abandonment is certainly not a good option.
    * She might opt to abort; but abortion is unacceptable to many.

    How is the quality of the childrens' lives completely unimportant to the opponents of the contraception plan? The children I speak of are the teen girl who gets pregnant, the young man responsible for her pregnancy, and the product of that unplanned pregnancy.

    The teens miscalculated and as a result, their child might not live up to his or her potential because of the situation they were born or placed into.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
  256. Shelly

    I didn't realize that babies were the reason the stock market has gone haywire and the banks are closing, credit is screwed up and the housing market is a joke. Now that I'm enlightened, can I have some of those drugs she is on?

    January 26, 2009 at 4:55 pm |
  257. Alan, Buxton Maine

    Only if the condoms are issued just to Republicans.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:55 pm |
  258. Barbara - NC

    I find it hard to believe that people are continuing to pay for cable to watch and listen to you all stir up the hate and divisiveness. You're getting pretty bad about it too, Jack, with some of these hot button questions you put out.

    I won't even tell you how unwanted pregnancies impact the economy of states and countries, and families. You and your brilliant friend Wolf can figure it out.

    January 26, 2009 at 4:58 pm |
  259. Barb in Arlington, VA

    Speaker Pelosi has it right. Use of contraception allows (prospective) parents to choose when to have children, mostly likely when they are (almost) able to support them. It stands to reason that lack of contraception leads to having children who cannot be supported except by federal or states funds (i.e., our tax dollars). Wouldn't it be better to have healthier children who live in families that have jobs and can contribute to the economy? Wouldn't be great to reduce SCHIP funding because there are fewer children requiring it?

    January 26, 2009 at 4:58 pm |
  260. Marietta

    Birth control and putting some clothes on when leaving the house might help, you think?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
  261. Dean in Pa

    May be if birth control was more affordable and easier to access the number of abortions would go down. I agree with Nancy on this one – less births, better family planning = less tax payers on welfare.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
  262. Lynn, Boise, ID

    She doesn't know what she is talking about, but neither does the republican opposition. That's the problem, this problem is above their pay-grade and they are all sounding more and more rediculous with their self-serving justification. What they should do is ask 10 top economists to sit down and decide how best to stimulate the economy and then swallow their pride and follow the plan.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
  263. kaye

    Shee needs to do some math on that idea! If we shrink the population where will the tax base be to pay for all this spending???

    January 26, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
  264. vern-t anaheim,ca

    many people will not agree with me but i see no problem in having birth control available to those who want and need it and yes that is a way of helping the economy,with fewer births the economy should improve.no one however should be forced to use mandatory birth control methods

    January 26, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
  265. Ken-Long Island

    If pro-choice and pro-life were put on the ballot for the country to vote on once and for all which do you think would win? I think Sara Palin settled that question once and for all because women voted against her two to one. If the question isn't banning abortion how about limiting the number of abortions. If someone doesn't get pregnant they dont to get an abortion in the first place. It seems logical to me. If Obama and Pelosi can limit or lessen the number of abortions by instituting more liberal policies toward birth control then it would seem that backers of pro life policies should support them. But of course they don't because they don't like contraception either.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
  266. Rick Medina,OH


    'Safe sex' certainly makes more sense 'pregnancy termination,' or unwanted kids. The social and health care costs are certainly much greater than an investment in education.

    Rick, OH

    January 26, 2009 at 5:03 pm |
  267. D. Texas

    YES I think so~~~~~~~~~~~~

    January 26, 2009 at 5:03 pm |
  268. Sara

    I'm a Democrat, but I am getting just as fed up with them as I am with the Republicans. They need to go back to Obama's original plan by creating more infrastructure jobs and health care jobs than all these other things they are starting to add. This plan is supposed to get people back to work, not be a place for pet projects.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:03 pm |
  269. Raj

    I fail to understand her comment. Reduce cost of what and how ? Is she talking about handing out condoms at street corners so people heading for Starbucks may head for wayside motels instead and relieve maternity ward overcrowding ? Or is she simply creating bimbo bytes for speaker sake ?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:03 pm |
  270. D. Texas

    YES I think so

    January 26, 2009 at 5:04 pm |
  271. Eli

    Dear Jack,

    It's a sad state of affairs when our children become a factor in this economic disaster. This is another aspect of our lives where we Americans should take responsiblity for our actions.

    Population growth is good for the survival of our society. But never is it good for the innocent to suffer.

    Children should be born out of love and commitment. This is what our society should encourage, support and protect.. This is a universal good. It's a crime to do anything less.

    They know not where, when, who or from whom they are born, but they will further humanity. Parents, society, and govenment decide how much further

    Eli of WA

    January 26, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
  272. J. Weidenbach

    Yes, Jack. Schools are cheaper than prisons.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
  273. jim north carolina

    Who knew botox kills brain cells!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:06 pm |
  274. Roland

    While you're at it, how about a little mouth control, Madame Speaker?

    St. George, UT

    January 26, 2009 at 5:07 pm |
  275. Sue Evans

    I fully agree with Nancy. It costs a *lot* more money to raise an unwanted child than it does to prevent one in the first place.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
  276. Bob in NY


    January 26, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
  277. Bob in Seattle

    Like other portions of the stimulus bill, this measure would not only aid states, but also provide preventative, cost-saving health care to help low-income women support their families and keep working. It focuses on access to recommended services and contraception to prevent unplanned pregnancies and promote maternal and infant health — not abortion.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
  278. David


    If madam speaker's parents had been forced into this avenue of grossly excessive governmental intervention in very personal matters, well, she might not be here with us today. Maybe she actualy is on to something here.


    Dallas, TX

    January 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  279. Gina - California

    Sorry but Pelosi is going crazy with our money..and please tell me why we need to pay for the white house lawn...it looks just fine!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  280. Phil from Myrtle Beach

    Why didn't somebody come up with this great idea BEFORE Nancy Pelosi was born?

    Myrtle Beach, SC

    January 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  281. Mark - Omaha, NE

    I see nothing wrong with providing birth control under this proposed stimulus package. Perhaps if there were fewer accidental mouths to feed, people could either save more money or spend it in the retail sector.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  282. renee in waukegan

    Jack, come on...when will they learn that there are more of us than them? Jus watch what happens...

    January 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  283. tom

    After acknowledging nationalizing the banks was a possibility, why would anyone think she wasn't serious about making it the business of government to control how many children we have? Big Government = Big Brother

    January 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  284. Lisa

    Yes, she is right. Every dollar spent making it easier for low income families to prevent unplanned pregnancies saves taxpayers $4. It is a necessary and valuable investment.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  285. Andy

    She's right of course. Less unwanted babies = less abortions = less babies = less healthcare cost = less cars = less greenhouse gases = less waste.

    For the price of a few cents, we save hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of the next 80 years. It's a brilliant investment !

    January 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  286. Tyson

    Absolutely. Statistically, lower income families are more likely to have unintended pregnancies. Statistically, lower income families are more likely to need government assistance. Do the math.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  287. George in N.H.

    Oh Jack – What is this lady talking about? She is the only person is was more incompetent that Pres Bush over the past few years. And, when I read her comment it make me wish that her parents used birth control.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  288. Art

    The burden on entitlement progams from unwanted teen pregnancy cannot be overestimated. Not all unwed teen mothers are lucky enough to have a governor for a mother!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  289. Nazia from New York

    Yes I think Nancy Pelosi is correct. Birth control will help better the economy because is family planning is administered more carefully, the number of unplanned babies will decrease. it is the government that has to provide assistance to these families and babies, and if there is a decrease in this number, there will be more money to be circulated else where in the economy.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  290. Scott Lucid

    She's absolutely correct... if you work for Trojan.

    Phoenix, AZ

    January 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  291. Larry

    It sure can't hurt !!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  292. K. Morrison

    Sounds like pork to me...either that or an old hag jealous of the fact she can't have kids anymore...

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  293. jason

    Isn't it all ready included in the medicade stimulus package. In the New York Times today it even talked about republicans having problums with this part of the package because, they dont want to pay for birth control and family planning centers, such as planned parent hood.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  294. Sergio

    Its no secret, most people that shouldn't be having kids because they can't afford them have many anyway. It's a product of our instant gratification society where people don't take the greater impact of their decisions into consideration and instead burden the state welfare programs due to their own inability to make responsible choices.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  295. Jerald from Montana

    She's right. Babies are expensive.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  296. Brittany Newberry

    Hell yes!! Our incredibly growing population is out-of-control and is the big white elephant in the room. No one wants to step on anyone's "reproductive rights" but the bottom line is that rapid reproduction puts a huge strain on our resources. Unfortunately people who keep having baby after baby just don't seem to "get it".

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  297. John I, MN

    Absolutely she's right! People who are prepared to have children do so while financially healthy and do not use contraceptives. If you give easier access to free contraceptives to those who do not want children you will see a great difference between the little spent on providing and the billions we pay to help raise these children!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  298. Bryan

    Yup, she is absolutely correct. You reduce the cost of contraception and then people have a chance to afford it. This means much less chance of people having children they can't afford which in turn reduces welfare.
    This is simple math and if someone can't see it, then I'm sorry for them.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  299. Mary

    Adding million to family planning will not stimulate the economy and suggesting that is the case, is an insult to the intelligence of tax payers. This is nothing more than pork..oink,oink,oink...Let's give President Obama the line item veto to help rid our legislative process of this dishonest and expensive practice.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  300. Denise

    Pay now or pay later!! I see too many teenagers with babies and more than likey they are getting assistance from the state. So whose paying then? I say let them have the contaceptives! You're paying anyway and if they don't have kids that's one less to pay for.........
    Wash., DC

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  301. Kenneth Leary

    Nancy Pelosi shouls immediately be excommunicated for her public support for Artificial Contraception and Abortion.

    Tell her to look in the Catechism and see how wrong she is! She is not a Catholic but an apostate in disguise. She must be denied Holy Communion until she repents of her immorality and codonement of what the Catholic Church calls contraception, an intensically evil act.

    Kenneth Leary
    (Not my opinion but the teaching of the Church Pelosi blongs to!(

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  302. Rachel

    Obviously, Nancy Pelosi is just pissed off she is too old for children and can't be House Speaker anymore because she did a bad job doing during Bushs' "Reigns." If she thinks, birth control will stimulate the economy, she's been smoking something after Obama's inanguration.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  303. Lynne Kramer


    It's not about having less babies, it's about having less UNWANTED babies.


    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  304. DJ

    nancy must be jealous because other people can have babys

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  305. David

    This is insane. It's a disguise to push through funding for something that would otherwise not get through.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  306. G. Rogers Eastman

    Fort Myers,Fl, Hello Jack, I think it is her way of letting us know we are going to be screwed again.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  307. Scott (Scottsdale, AZ)

    Of course she's right Jack. If more contraception is used there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies. Since most unwanted children are conceived by families that can scarcely afford them, it means fewer children drawing assistance from the public coffers.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  308. judy Sedgeman, Morgantown, WV

    Of course she's right. Unwanted children become a burden on society during their childhood, and then are at severe risk for becoming a burden to our judicial and prison system. We can pretend that there is a home for every baby born to a mother who is unable or unwilling to provide for it, but that just isn't so. There is a long-term cost to the ridiculous practice of keeping birth control information first, and abortion information second, from women unwilling and unable to bear their responsibilities. I prefer birth control to abortion, but I know there are cases when both are merciful.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  309. DB

    Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a lot cheaper, and dare I say preferable, to terminating them. Not to mention all those children so many fight for before they're born, then complain about supporting after.

    DB, New York, NY

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  310. Mike

    Yes, Nancy Pelosi is correct. We need to increase the condom production rate to protect ourselves from congress and the next bailout package.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  311. Suzanne

    I served on a county health board as a community representative and this may surprise some of you. In 1991, the costs for each child born out of wedlock was $200,000 per child that the State had spent on those children by the time they reached eighteen years of age.
    That was 1991 standards. I wonder how much it is now?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  312. Abby

    Having a baby is a tough decision to make, Jack. People need to have access to birth control, even those who can't afford it. Especially those that can't afford it! Education goes along with birth control too. The poorer the people, the worse the schools, the more the teenage pregnancy. Give people a chance to make their lives good, to learn and live and grow and THEN have babies!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  313. Willie Gene Wynn

    The Speaker's position is nothing more than a call to arms for the averave American voter to continue with their responsibility of performing house cleaning. Now that we have bought change to the Executive we must bring change to the Legislative. Our job must continue.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  314. mary jane Barenbaum


    This is a no brainer. the answer is YES, Yes, YES!!!!!!


    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  315. ike dixon

    Absurd. I'm not sure what this will stimulate, but certainly not the economy. Its obvious politic (s/ians) are out of control.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  316. Nancy

    Yes it will stimulate the economy as someone has to work in the clinics and someone has to make the pills. Where were these people complaining during the last 8 years when social security was paying sex offenders on disablities bill for Viagra.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  317. Robert J Sutton


    It has been established that a lack of proper sex education and education on contraceptive use leads to a higher rate of teen pregnancies. Unwanted teen pregnancies are hardly economic boons; therefor, birth control could lower unwanted pregnancies and mitigate taxpayer cost. It is not a short term solution with a lot of appeal. But short term thinking is exactly what led us to the position we are in right now. It's time for long term solutions. They may not be sexy or cool or a quick fix, but it's the right thing to do.

    Robert, Tulsa, OK

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  318. Ryan

    Birth Contol...YESSSSS! It's about time our politicans step up an do something about family planning. As a teacher there are plenty of families who cannot support themselves let alone six kids. This means less children on welfare, eating free lunches, and less students in already crowded classrooms. Go Nancy!!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  319. Gerard Canta, N. Arlington NJ

    Condoms save lives. They reduce unwanted lives from existing. Poverty is tied to population. Births make people poor.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  320. Sheldon

    Of course Nancy Pelosi is right! Not only will contraceptives avoid unwanted pregnancies, they will stop the growth of STD's and HIV and the AIDS virus as well as lower the amount of money we would be spending for healthcare for these people and the newborns as well. Many of these babies are born prematurely and have multiple health problems which is a severe drain on our economy

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  321. Zach from Bluffton Ohio

    Jack...no and I do believe that Pelosi is crazy!! I mean our debt is huge...if we are going to spend more money then lets not throw in all these earmarks...which is all this would be!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  322. Jarvis from Kansas City

    Of course it will help the economy. Congressmen and Senators need those condoms for their escorts, escorts then buy more lingerie, retail stores hire more salesmen, etc, etc. We'll be out of the recession in no time.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  323. Dr. Vincent DeGennaro

    Jack, birth control reduces costs in healthcare by giving people the option to choose WHEN to have a child, not whether or not to have a child, as dictated by Mao. In fact, 50% of pregnancies are unintended and the cost savings from preventing these pregnancies from never happening or at least being delayed until they are intended pregnancies, will be substantial.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  324. Carolyn

    I agree with Pelosi. The economic impact would include less subsidized child care (if the parents were working), MedicAid, welfare, additional income tax deductions (more dependents), and so on, but it's not just an economic impact. Contraception could reduce the abortion rate.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  325. chandran

    If by " contraceptives", she means "Condoms", then it will save money both in reducing unwanted pregnancies AND STD prevention. I assume the recipients will be those with limited financial resources who may not spend the money themselves on Condoms.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  326. Ross Foyee

    Of course Pelosi is right here. Geesh! If Americans are not smart enough to practice birth control at times like this, then they should maybe try to grow a brain before having sex. I don't know when the ignorance of what is going down with this economy is going to catch on with human beings! Less mouths to feed equal less money spent...end of story!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  327. Gwen Caranchini

    Absolutely. The "abstinence only" program of the Bush administration not only did not work, according to research, but those persons subscribing to it were less likely to use contraceptives. The lack of use of contraceptives can lead to HIV, other STD's, unwanted pregnancies, needless abortions, abuse of unwanted children, increase in drop out rates of girls have babies and dropping out of school to care for them. Will contraceptives help the economy? Yes, all of the above cost state and federal governments too much money that could be used far better for its citizens. I applaud Speaker Pelosi for speaking up for these much needed monies.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  328. Thomas (in Texas)

    I think Speaker Pelosi may be onto something. As a pharmacist, one of my biggest frustrations is seeing those parents come in with SEVERAL children who are all on Texas Medicaid. Rather than working, the mothers are in our store purchasing needless items yet getting all of their prescriptions for free (well you and I are helping to pay for them). In this respect, birth control, in the end, CAN actually help with the economy.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  329. Ryan

    No Jack, not stop people from having babies but help save the state and federal government money through FAMILY planning. When people make the right decisions about when and under what circumstances to have children this can greatly reduce the cost of family social services to the state.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  330. Godfrey

    Ms. Speaker you are out of touch with the middle class and the poor. WE, Americans need jobs and career paths. Spending money on birth control makes as much sense as that french queen who gave her people cake instead of stability..... and you know what happen to her..... Ms. Speaker you live the American dream, don't you think every one should???

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  331. D Hibler

    Absolutely, Birth control should be added to the stimulus package. The youth of today are inundated with sexuality from magazines, books, tv, video, movies, even ads for toothpaste. We have the ability to allow people to have sex without making a baby, and that needs to be promoted too.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  332. Courtney OBrien

    Welcome to the 21st century! For the last eight years birth control has been unnecessarily taboo in America! Yes, Pelosi is right! Having, three, four, five, sometimes more children is the last thing out of work, poor, or struggling families need. The same goes for our many illegal immigrants. Simple family planning makes more sense and is less expensive for tax payers than paying for public assistance, food stamps, and educations for unwanted and neglected kids. Those of us who want our children should plan for them! Those who don't, or can't afford them, should plan for that too!
    Courtney O'Brien
    Concord, Ca

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  333. Tom Barbour


    If you check the number of babies born out of wedlock and to high school students every year....you will understand what Pelosi is saying...yes, she is right and being honest. It sure can't hurt. I don't care if it's Maoist or if the Pope doesn't like it.

    Tom B.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  334. Cordai, Richmond, Virginia

    Yes she's right.

    Less babies having babies=More adults having money.

    What's the problem?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  335. Leanne

    Yes, she is right. When people don't have the money to go out to dinner, they have sex instead. When they are home all the time from not working, they have more sex. When the are bored, they have sex. Sex makes more babies. She is right!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  336. john woodworth

    Monies spent on contraception will absolutely help the econony. Assuming that contraception prevents unwanted children, who then become an expense to the state, then the issue ought to be clear-contraception and education=savings to the states.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  337. Jean Hudson

    Absolutely she right....women stay in the work force.
    And tax payers get a break by not having to
    fund welfare programs, when women have babies they
    nor their family can afford.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  338. Tom


    I feel she has rocks in her head, as do most politicians. They don't have a clue about what the average citizen of this country is going thru right now. They lead insulated lives because they don't have to pay for much of anything, its all on an expense form or a tax deduction.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  339. PelosiGetsItRightForOnce

    Yes, she is absolutely correct to fund contraception for those who want it. The analogy to Chairman Mao is ignorant. She is not forcing anyone to take it; only those who are intelligent enough to recognize they cannot afford to have a baby at this point in their life, and they also know the government can't pay for raising it. This will probably vastly reduce the number of abortions as well. How is that bad?
    If you don't like the idea, then perhaps you can put your money where your mouth is and personally adopt a couple dozen welfare babies.

    Simply put, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  340. Steve D.

    I'm very sorry! I must have been raised on another planet. When I see things like this, I understand something very well. What I understand is that Nancy Pelosi does not get it. We are going broke. Obviously she isn't. She's out of touch. She doesn't get it.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  341. Clay

    Contraception would have done this country a world of good had Barbara used it before George was conceived. As it stands now, if it prevents one unwanted child from entering this screwed up world, then I'm all for it.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  342. Kim Kerley

    In a broad way I think she is right. If more birth control is out their and the price is decreased then there will be more buyers. More buyers mean more money put into the economy. Also the businesses that produce birth control will find this helpful to them as they see more money enter their businesses which then flows to the economy. This would work if there are people who do not have birth control because they can not get it or its to pricey. This plan would would make more people possible buyers of the product. People buying is what is needed for this economy.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  343. stev in boston

    Seems like the Speaker believes in a different kind of stimulous; one where people can be stimulated without risks.....she is a different kind of delusional.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  344. Heidi

    It's not Americans who are having the largest number of babies. I really don't know what Nancy Pelosi does at her job except make bad decisions and constant mistakes. I'm embarrassed that she is still the Speaker.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  345. Katherine Forde

    Family planning allows women to be in control of their own destiny. America should absolutely endorse, encourage and invest in the same for the rest of the world.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  346. Angelo DiSilvestro

    Unless a contraception czar is appointed to oversee people using it. It is a total waste!!!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  347. Matt

    I'm no fan of Pelosi, but I completely agree with her on this one. If this money helps to prevent young, unprepared folks from having children they can't afford then its a good thing. What do you think is going to cost more: providing information and contraception or paying out welfare and WIC support for the unplanned babies?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  348. Ed Numrich

    Nancy Pelosi is a poor spokesperson for contraception, government funded or not. Just count up the number of kids she has.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  349. Matt

    I think most of the birth control efforts will be targeted at teens, and you would be hard pressed to convince me there's anything malicious about teaching teens how to not get pregnant. The other side of contraception is disease control, and last I checked, along with all the other crisies we're facing as a nation, we're also in a healthcare crisis.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  350. Rachel Sumi

    How ridiculous that this idea should spark controversy - of course we should fund contraception! From a practical standpoint, is it better to spend $50 on a prescription for birth control pills or tens of thousands on welfare, free school lunches and Medicare for unwanted children? Drag yourselves into the 21st Century. people!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  351. Wayne

    Jack, Nancy Pelosi is never right on anything. How did she get to remain Speaker of the House, should be your next question.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  352. Sandra Schutt

    Come On Jack!!! The only savings that will come from putting birth control in the stimulus package,,,,is that maybe some illegals will obtain it and stop having anchor babies that we will pay for until they are eighty.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  353. Steve Canada

    Only if applied retroactively and selectively to a select group of bankers, politicians and perhaps a few hedgefund managers..Other than that, I can't see the benefits.....

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  354. mivan

    I don't agree with Pelosi. Children make people responsible. Responsible people create jobs not the other way around!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  355. Roger Tracy

    Pelosi is 100% correct. Birth control will help the economy and you, Jack are 100% wrong that helping people with birth control is anything like chairam Mao. Aiding people in implemneting their own decisions is American. Chairman Mao tried to impose decisions on people!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  356. Jonathan Hochberg

    I believe if you look carefully, you'll see Speaker Pelosi's point is based on the idea that if you give teenagers contraception, you won't have to help raise their unplanned offspring with public money. Just a guess, mind you.

    Shout out to you, Jack, from an ex-NYC boy who remembers you fondly from WNBC.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  357. John, Fayetteville, NY

    It's too bad that Nancy Pelosi's parents didn't think about contraception just prior to thinking about her existence. It was certainly a wasted opportunity.

    Talk inserting a foot in her mouth......maybe she could think of her foot as a contraception device and stick it elsewhere.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  358. thomas

    Tampa FL – to highlight this as a major "controversy" is ridiculous. Of course family planning reduces costs to our social safety network and to our healthcare delivery systems. Can anyone make a case that it doesn't? All of this is another Republican/conservative christian whacko attack on the president's progressive agenda. Listen, Jack, you and I are older. This is not even a question among younger citizens/voters. You're wasting our time on this. PEACE

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  359. bill price

    Speaker Pelosi has it backwards. Viagra rather then condems should be included in the stimulus package

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  360. Judy

    This is the very first time I have agreed with Nancy Pelosi!!!
    She is absolutely right...women have the right to obtain help from their government... whatever they decide.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  361. George Grisham

    Using contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies will mean fewer pregnancy terminations, possibly prevent some STD, and lower the number of single mothers. I think Speaker Pelosi is correct.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  362. Susan in Laguna Woods, CA

    Yes, it will help the economy. Having a baby is expensive for a person and takes away from the full employment of a person(s). If you are caring for a child it is damn hard to get or continue your education to get a better job (read: pay more taxes and spend more). Not only does a child limit the parent(s) education but can also limit the child's education. Also many of children end up on some type of welfare – that COSTS the state and the economy.

    Over population is a major cost to the economy, the environment, etc. We need more educated, productive people NOT just more people.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  363. Anna

    There are always two sides to each story and this just gives something for the opponents to fuss about. What does a baby cost? What does a condom cost? Or a month's prescription for birth control? What does a welfare baby cost the taxpayer? But on the other hand, millions of dollars to stop baby making compared to giving a family a job that will feed the babies they already have is something you can get your head around. Unfortunately this country has a two party system. Each has its area to complain about. I'd prefer to use a different word, but this is a family show. Vote on the stimulus package and if it passes, wonderful. Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work. If it doesn't, then keep those sleeves rolled up, Congress and get to work.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  364. CJ

    You can add all the birth control pills you want to the package, it doesn't mean people with take them, Why should they when their government support goes up with each additional child. Birth control pills are not the magic placebo to help our economy, sounds more like to me some one is trying to pay some big pill manufacturer lobbiest rather than help the economy.

    Educate people and create jobs if you want to turn around the economy.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  365. H.R. Tschudi, Vancouver

    Jack, the whole plan is mediocre at best and lacks vision. We are facing the greatest opportunity for social progress in generations and we are discussing contraceptives. It is a disgrace and it does contribute absolutely nothing to address the collossal Global Economic Crisis.

    H.R. Tschudi, economist and entrepreneur, Vancouver
    You can look me up for more at hrtschudi on ireport.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  366. Desiree

    Pelosi is absolutely correct! Birth control increases the standard of living. Lack of birth control creates poverty. Parents must be able to afford to raise all of their children.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  367. Kristen Ingram

    Duh? Birth control information can help poor women and poor families, of course. The cost of childbirth, baby formulas, infant clothes, sitters for working momos, food, children's clothes and education is immense. And the information can help make every child a wanted child.

    Kris Ingram
    Springfield OR

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  368. Mari ~ California

    Oh brother! someone needs to tie her up..no pork well what is this? And while I am voicing my opinion how bout putting the Guantanomo prisoners in Washington DC? if not I like the Senators response of putting them at Alcatraz..torture do they care what they do to our soldiers? no come on Mr President think about this....being in the cold, forcing no sleep I wonder what Al Capone thinks about this..

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  369. American

    Pelosi must understand why we have seen growing US economy because of baby boomers in the past 40 years. When baby is born we are forced to invest money in economy right before birth till after death when we don't have what will happen to our economy. What an economist Pelosi now wants to remove consumers from economy. God help America

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  370. ralph saunders

    I think this is typical politics and coming from the speaker of the house is no exception. I like to see the President go line by line on the stimulus bill and use his line item veto. The American people will really see if he is up to the challenge to cut the pork from both parties and focus on the issue at hand.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  371. Casey, Leesburg, FL

    Pelosi is right, birth control helps to prevent AIDS, not to mention unwanted pregnancies.
    Any man or woman who wants birth control should be able to go to their local pharmacist and get it free. No woman should ever have to have an unwanted pregnancy because she can't afford birth control.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  372. keith in virginia

    I don't see any way money for contraceptives will stimulate the eceonmy, but rhe I don't see how $700 million+ for a school snack program will be "stimulative", either. If Nancy Peolsi is so concerned about education, she would do a lot better to funnel that money to teacher salaries.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  373. Susan Cunningham

    Well, duh ! People who can't afford to support a child should be able to prevent conception. Family planning makes all kinds of sense. AND why is the media giving Republicans air time with their nonsensical complaints? After all the damage they've done to our country, how DARE they sabotage an economic recovery package the working class sorely needs. Obama is trying to include Repubs in the decision-making process. bUT YOU CAN'T "PLAY NICE" WITH PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT THE WHOLE COUNTRY TO WIN..

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  374. Luciana Shannon

    I think birth control is a good plan. Less birhs and decrease of abortions. If we get the birth control , under control we will have less welfare which save our nation and strates money.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  375. Dawna Conway

    No. Mrs Peosli is incorrect if America's economy improves via the stimulus package then people will be more likely to start a family and have more children. The sole purpose for human existence is to pro-create and multiply. Why would people stop having children in a prosperous economy

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  376. james

    anything that helps keep people from having unwanted children or bringing children into this world when families are facing financial disaster is welcomed by me. Dont forget that many heath insurance policies do not cover birth control...loose your job and the last thing one has money for is birth control.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  377. terry

    Yes. Right now people are sitting at home getting drunk. Eventually some people will remember the 1980's where they only people who got help were those who had kids and got on welfare ... did we forget the welfare disaster, food stamps, projects/ Section 8, free medical. We have too many people who can not handle parenthood. How many more kids need to be killed because the mother hates that the child "ruined her life". How many mothers who have five kids need to snap and drown the kids in a :post partum/ I'm overwhelmed fit. How many more breadwinning men do you want killing the family, pets and then themselve because they are embarassed by going broke. Let people not have more kids they can not afford, that grow up like weeds and kill innocent people/ bystanders.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  378. Gabriel Gonzalez

    I find that suggestion absurd, then they should prohibit Viagra that should help in birth control. Speaker Pelosi seems to be going the way of the bank CEO's spending on things not at all with the matters at hand. Bail out doesn't equate to the rhytmn method.
    San Francisco, Ca

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  379. Katie

    OF COURSE...contaceptives are an important part of today's America culture. It is viewed by many to be irresponsible and dumb to have a child you can not afford nor have the mental capacity to raise properly. Familiy planning is a integral part to having a responsible U.S.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  380. Will Brooks

    Nancy Pelosi is abso-blankin'-lutely right!

    Every year I designate my payroll-deducted charitable contributions to go to Planned Parenthood. I figure, if they can do their job better, we might not need a lot of these other charities on the list. You can spend my taxes on as many condoms and pills as you want!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  381. Yveka

    People sonetimes forget thatunwanted children become the state's problem. It is a miserable life. Providing contraceptives is a great idea, and though it may sound backwards, it is a great way to cut costs. They stopped providing contraceptives on college campuses, and you could see abortion rates and stds rise. I'm just saying. Orphans or condoms?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  382. peter montague

    The only way Nancy's birth controle would help the eccomy was if her parents had been given birth control devises before Nancy was born.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  383. Rich Crump

    In college I had a biology professor that was disussing the depletion of our planets resources. He stated that the simple answer that humanity has seemed to carry over the years to solve the problem was either to decrease the birthrate or increase the deathrate. Either move is controversial. I agree with the Madame Speaker in her defense that something needs to be done.
    Centerville, UT

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  384. Paul Anthony

    It makes sense.....I have known a lot of people who have had kids and can't afford to raise their family and then they lean on the government or others for assistance. I think its a form of living beyond your means. Birth control prevents unplanned pregnancies. If you want to have children don't take birth control.....but I think its fair to offer it to those who want it. I'm not a big fan of Pelosi but she shouldn't have to apologize for anything.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  385. Michael

    Of course birth control would play a role in our current economy. I live in NYC and see families each day with kids they obviously don't want and/or cannot afford. Those parents eventually come to the governent for aid paid by use. Pelosi is a smart cookie.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  386. Anthony Theobald

    You have to be kidding me.
    When is the congress going to step up to the plate and stop with the "PORK"
    Birth control has nothing to do with fixing the economy in my opinion.
    If we aren't careful; we'll be like Iceland.
    If the money doesn't get into the pipeline within 12 months, do not even entertain it.
    Why can't they understand that those of us in Michigan are "bleeding" to death.
    I am listening as I write to the fact that Citigroup is buying a new jet.
    What part of the Billions that they got are being used to buy this jet.
    The crooks are winning !!!!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  387. Tom in Iowa

    Contraception as part of a stimulus package?

    Sure, Hey, look at it this way

    If your going to get Stimulated, you might as well have protection.


    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  388. Elizabeth

    You are missing the whole point for the inclusion of birth control, When poor women with no health insurance have babies, they add increased costs to the states who have to pay for the birth of these children. Also, these women often don't receive prenatal care, so a lot of times the children are born premature, causing long hospital stays and increased costs for the states. Free or low cost birth control would lower birth rates for this segment of the population and allow the states to spend their money on other pressing things.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  389. Viola Spencer

    The Right Wing is always complaining about minorites on welfare and how THEY are the ones paying for these women on welfare. They are speaking with a fork tongue. First, they don't approve of abortion, but secondly, they do approve of teenagers and unwed mothers continuing to have children.

    They can't have it both ways. I am a democrat but our country is also filled with bleeding hearts. We don't want abortions and we don't want to force the welfare recipients to be put on birth control. Since most of the women on welfare continue to have children while on welfare, we need to enforce a policy for them to go to family planning classes and make birth control part of the package for the country to continue taking care of them. But as for abortion, a woman should maintain her right to choose.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  390. Colleen from Los Angeles

    Preventing unwanted pregnancies will prevent more children in the welfare system, which you would think the republicans would support, since they are so against providing help for the poor. Of course it will not provide immediate economic relief, but we need to step back and think long term rather than having short term vision. That is why we elected Obama, to provide relief from the tunnel vision of the Bush era.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  391. Misty


    Family planning, despite what Republicans have been spewing for years, is a good thing. While on the large scale it won't help our economy, it will be a good thing for the long term. Raising five or more children is not something that just any two (or more often, single) adults can afford to do.


    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  392. Donna Jones Riddick

    The option of birth control for those who cannot afford or do not have insurance...hmm let's see...guess it could make a big difference in how many unwanted, abused children enter the social service system. Or maybe teenagers will avoid pregnancy's that vex their mothers' political ambitions

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  393. Fred Tondalo

    Jack: It's a far cry to compare Pelosi's birth control comments to Chairman Mao's baby QUOTA of 1 child per family!

    Think about it, the billions of dollars spent on pre-natal care, welfare, WIC, and the health care costs of unplanned children would be reduced extensively if contraception was not only available but actually TAUGHT in schools. The idiots who have been raising this generation of children obviously have fallen short on even teaching their children manners and civics, let alone how to conduct themselves as sexual beings.

    Not to mention the reduction in delinquency from unattended children of one parent homes, reducing crime and court , and detention costs.

    No she should not apologize.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  394. linda in Columbus, Indiana

    I think it makes perfect sense. Remember, Bush advocated the "abstinence" program for young people.(Yeh, right!) If birth control is offered to young unmarried gals, perhaps it will turn out to be less of a drag on all the taxpayers.
    Linda in Columbus, IN

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  395. Jimmy H, Washington D.C.

    Yeah, and while we're at it why don't we outlaw births for a year or two! Pelosi's a little misguided on this one Jack, this is a minor social issue right out of the democratic platform. These hundreds of millions of dollars can have a much better impact elsewhere, like worker education programs or helping people stay in their homes.

    How about a "keep it in you pants" clause instead of throwing millions of dollars at a social issue completely unrelated to a economicy recovery package. Maybe Nancy's been spending a little too much time with that cat of hers...

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  396. Amber T.


    The world is over populated. We are running out of food, water and more and more of the world's poorest people are reproducing.

    The more mouths you have to feed, the more money you need to be able to feed them and the more people that come into the world, the less room there is for animals and plants.

    I think House Speaker Pelosi is right on. The government is giving money to people via welfare and medicaid, and people are having kids by the litter that they can not only financially take care of but that they do not do a very good job of raising and so our society ends up picking up the tab for these people who make no other contribution to this earth other than to walk around and breathe air.

    Oh yeah, we are almost out of air too, so fewer people, fewer social problems.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  397. Andrew

    Of course. The major problem we have seen with the previous administration is the ignorance of the statistics. Abstinence only sexual education programs are government waste! It does not decrease underage pregnancy. Many policies in Europe include contraception education and are working to keep underage pregnancy numbers (and pregnancy to those beyond their means) down via fair family education practices (practices whereby religion does not interfere). There is no scientific reason why abstinence only sexual education should work. Look at the statistics for why this contraception spending is necessary.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  398. Jessica

    Education is one of the most overlooked facets of "Birth control"– and is usually the most effective tool in furnishing teens and adults alike with the knowledge that they DON'T have. Why the term "birth control" sets all the conservatives into a frenzy is beyond me. Education on the particulars of pregnancy shouldn't be a pro-choice or prolife issue...it is education. I applaud Pelosi for being bold enough toNOT be apologetic about supporting this plan.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  399. Branden

    Yes I do believe she is correct. I've seen what happens to a community when Planned Parenthoods et al are closed. The Bush administration was responsible for many of the closures when they removed federal funding. What Speaker Pelosi and President Obama are proposing would work to help organizations that assist so many families in planning for what would is the most important job in the world.

    Detroit, MI

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  400. anna klimaszewski

    Yes, of course it would help the economy. Why does no one want
    to touch the issue of over-population? It is vital. Maybe cnn could
    do a special? Contraception is smart. People will hopefully have
    more planned rather than pregnancies as a result of an impulse.
    Over population is about malnutrition, neglect, abandoned
    children, foster care, etc. We should not condemn but applaud
    Speaker Pelosi for such a brave statement.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  401. Nancy

    I don't believe she is talking about birth control for married couples who should know about such things. I believe she is talking about young adults and teens who have babies and we end up supporting both the child and the parent. In that case it definitely saves $$$.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  402. Mom in Vegas

    sure it will as long as it is paired up with the appropriate awareness outreach programs.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  403. michael from canada welland

    birth control is definately not the solution, l mean let's look at the problems we have now are they in any way linked to family planning? l don't think so let's stop blaming nature for our mistakes. let's change "birth" to "borrowing and lending " control then we are near to a solution but "birth control" is far from the solution.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  404. DR


    Nancy Pelosi is so far out of touch with real America. I don't know anyone who thinks she has any value to add in anyway shape or form. She is only in it for the power. The sooner Obama and America distances themselves from her the faster this economy will be revived.


    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  405. Dennis Smith

    Birth control is one thing. Preventing sexually transmitted diseases is another way to save government money.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  406. Lisa

    Yes, and they should also remove the loop-hole that allows ONLY the women to decide what to do about an unexpected ? pregnancy. I've met enough men who got fooled big time. I've listened to some women brag about whose paying thier bills,& it ain't them(women).

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  407. Tom


    This brings to mind the famous comment by Charles De Gaulle back in the '50's when France was setting up its national health system. The story goes... a politician asked the president ...will the health system cover birth control Mr. President ? De Gaulle looked at him squarley and said what ! birth control ! next you will ask me to pay for them to go to the cinema ! Nancy get real..............

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  408. Maria in San Diego

    No, she's not right.

    More disturbing though, is her smarter than thou approach which has her refusing to explain her position. What exactly will this contraception cover – does it include abortion? Is Ms Pelosi suggesting the governent use tax payers money to fund aborting those future citizens who might one day prove to be a burden to the state. This is starting to sound like eugenics...

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  409. Christine

    Absolutely she is right. Unwanted pregnancies drain resources form our country's medical system and make it harder for women to work and productively contribute to our economy. Plus there is the social issue that poor women should have the same access to contraceptives that wealthy women have.

    PS- You are my favorite Jack! Keep up the great work!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  410. Andre' of Maryland

    She is exactly right. I am so sick of Republicans running around saying they are fiscal conservatives yet they don't believe in birth control. Let's be clear...who pays for unprepared mother's to raise their kids. You can't have it both ways, take away ways to help the poor control unwanted child births and take away needed assistance for poor single mother's. The Rebulicans make not sence what so ever. The President has the right plan on this. Provide as much assistance in the form of contraceptives and education to reduce the number of poor single mothers.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  411. Red in SC

    This is one of the more idiotic questions you have posed for us. Of course, women should have access to birth control if they want it, and lack of money for such should not stop them. There is nothing more pathetic than a preventable, unwanted pregnancy.
    Come on in to the 21st century, where women should be able to control their bodies and their reproductive lives, and isn't prevention a better solution than abortion? Get real –

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  412. Sharon Coon

    Think about it - people out of work have more time for reproductive activities, less money to purchase birth control, and no insurance to pay for health care for mom and baby. Those of us still clinging to our jobs will be picking up the check. Birth control looks pretty cheap!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  413. E. Daniel Ayres

    Birth control is essential to the creation of a sustainable economy. One of the key reasons that the Chinese were consistently showing 9% annual growth rates in their economy was their "one child per family" rule. Frankly, the whole world could use about 40 years of this kind of discipline. Scientists tell us that 3.0 + or – .5 billion humans is the highest "sustainable" level the planet can bear. We are already over 6.2 billion, and it will take at least two generations for population levels to recede to a sustainable level, even with draconian policies. The more babies, the more human suffering, it is that simple!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  414. James Gillespie

    A new born baby requires a great deal of time and money to provide for. Pelosi's statement is patently false, having a new child causes couples to spend money which in turns helps the economy.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  415. Kiran Atlanta, GA

    In the first place you're wrong Jack. Why you take so seriously about Pelosi's words? She never said any thing that makes sense. When ever she opened mouth spelled only non sense.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  416. amy hollingsworth

    Yes, considering the amount of entitlement spending on behalf of children. Not to mention the abuse tolerated by children born into a family already stressed by the inability to provide the basic necessities.
    Austin, TX

    January 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  417. Allegra Bandy

    Hell Yes SHE IS RIGHT!

    When you think about adding up the costs of prenatal care, as well as post natal care; and then add in there funding for programs that support uninsured and underaged mothers, and then compare that to the cost of educating people on family planning, and making contraception more affordable and accessible, it is extremely obvious that having a kid is way more expensive than thinking about having it.

    Thank you for this opportunity to voice my opinion.


    Allegra Bandy
    Former Middle and High School Teacher

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  418. monica von berndt

    Jerome Idaho Your so right Jack just a couple steps away from government control on how many children we can have then will the prochoice have fullied their goals scary and sad isnt it

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  419. Angel

    It seems that in the midst bringing forth a process and strategy to deal with the economy, Ms. Pelosi and others are also finding ways to further their agendas regardless of what the majority of Americans have already spoken on. She, Senate Leader Reid and Barney Franks are a disgrace and it seems they have grown comfortable with that.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  420. Jim Livesay

    Jack, Pelosi makes about as much sense as the sorry excuse Citi-Group is making for their outrageous purchase of that plane!!! Has the whole damn world gone nuts? Obama needs to get rid of Pelosi and take the taxpayers money back NOWWWWWW!!!!!!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  421. Steve Harris

    The Speaker of the House so correct about this issue, it does not bear any further discussion! The cost of unwanted children is beyond calculation. If you want the statistical confirmation of this fact, I would suggest you read Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. The impact on crime alone is a stagerring statistic that every conservative minder of the public's moral substance needs to understand.
    Contraception is not a Maoist obligation, but extends control and choice into the lives of the disadvantaged. C'mon, CNN, you can do better than thumping the tub for the same old social engineering stuffed down our throats for the last 8 years, a clearly failed approach to dividing the nation's electorate. Carl Rove is gone...

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  422. A. Levine

    Millions of men get free samples of 'male enhancing drugs': women need a way to block all these virile men from impregnating them! Pelosi's stimulus package will help reduce the chances of unwanted pregnancies!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  423. Penny Lee

    Yes she's right! I've worked for social services before and personally talked with clients who were eligible for medicaid, WIC, food stamps and all the other benefits. Many say they could not afford the pill! The boyfriends run and we are stuck with the financial responsibility of raising the baby. This is very real. She is absolutely correct but you have to step out of those fancy CNN offices to see this.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  424. Linda Morrison

    The unavailability of family planning assistance, favored by certain religious groups, and by well-off people who want to insure an unending supply of cheap labor, has resulted in millions of unplanned pregnancies in the financial class of people who can least afford to raise more children. Why do you think that it's a good thing to refuse information and assistance to people who want it? Other people's lives are not yours to interfere with.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  425. Francine

    Yes. Unwanted pregnancies drain the economy. The parents overall are teens or young adults and cannot handle the expense of a child; the states take on the burden. The children potentially grow up in poverty and continue to rely on the state. Also, the education of the parent is interupted, usually permanently, and an undereducated class of citizens doesn't help the economy. The last thing we need for the economy is children having children. Boys will be boys!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  426. todd w

    I am a die-hard democratic supporter but Nancy Pelosi is a complete idiot if she thinks birth control will help the economy! How bold can you be to add money to the stimulus package for something that has nothing to do with financially helping americans? Nancy Pelosi's parents should have used birth control!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  427. Jennifer


    While her comments are controversial, they are also factually correct.

    An individual who is more educated about birth control, is more likely to use it. Fewer unwanted and/or unplanned pregnancies equals lower population, which (statistically) equates to lower costs for several government-run programs.

    That is simple math.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  428. Ladd Jasper

    Mrs. Pelosi needs to be seen and not heard. She has not said one thing that actually addresses our economic condition. Her remarks are an embarrassement to our country. The government just needs to help the taxpayers and quit playing with the big boys. Disburse these
    monies to the taxpayers and make sure their Mortgages,Auto Loans, and credit cards are paid.Monitor and oversee that they are in fact paid. Anyhow, the taxpayers are responsible for paying this money back over the years.
    Thanks For Your Coverage,

    Ladd Jasper, Jr.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  429. Annette Dailey

    I agree with Nancy Pelosi on this issue. Family planning options such as contraceptives are not going to be popular with conservatives and the religious right, but that makes it no less effective in reducing unwanted pregnancies as an education tool and alternative to unprotected sex. Abstenence is not going to work effectively as a single solution and providing contraceptives as one of the options within the family planning program is essential. I don't agree with Nancy Pelosi on some issues, but I do on this one.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  430. Will

    Dear Jack. Nancy Pelosi is as right as she has ever been and as right as she will probably ever be for a liberal. Our ballooning poplation with some day, sooner than later probably, catch up and surpass our dwindling resources and our limited ability to house and care for the welfare crowd and the criminals that will be a part of this new society. You chuckle and liken her to Chairman Mao......Maybe, in part, not so bad an idea

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  431. Patricia

    Yes! It's a no brainer, not Maoism. Unwanted pregnancies cost millions in taxpayer dollars every year, not to mention a toll on families who are already stretched beyond the breaking point. A lot of these unwanted pregnancies are teen pregnancies and contraception/family planning education can prevent them.

    West Baldwin, ME

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  432. Sally

    Think about all the dollars our states can save by NOT giving it to women that make it a career to abuse the welfare system by having kids so they can receive free rent and food stamps . Yeah, Jack, I think it's a FABULOUS idea–Nancy Pelosi has my vote!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  433. Nancy Tally

    Yes, if a woman is poor she can not afford birth control,, and she sure can not afford to have more children.
    Im a nurse and I see a lot of woman who do not want more children in these troubled times,, but can not afford birth control.
    Woman are the hardest hit when the economy goes to hell,, Yes woman should have help, if they do not want any more children right now.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  434. Dr,. Paul R. VeHorn, Ph.D.

    Great idea she has...more people will be put to work making condoms...fewer illegitimate kids will be born...and with any luck we will even have fewer republicans in the future to complain about progress...

    January 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  435. Whitney


    Speaking as someone who went from spending $10 for a three-month prescription to now having to shovel out $50 every 4 weeks, having more money towards birth control would certainly put that extra $40 back in my pocket. If that isn't a stimulus, I don't know what is.

    The cost of birth control is a main inhibitor to most women obtaining and staying current on birth control. As you might know, if you don't take the pill consistently, you raise the risk of getting pregnant. Also, some insurance companies won't let women purchase a three-pack (such as mine), which also raises the risk of missing or skipping a pack.

    As you can see, birth control is not a frivolous cosmetic medical product – and I applaud Speaker Pelosi for understanding that.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  436. Mary from Texas

    Of course it will help the economy,fewer mouths to feed,clothe,housing and the provision of health insurance. I am a nurse and worked in family planning clinics for people that could not or would not get the birth control pills. they were encouraged to limit tjier families and appreciated the help. It would also reduce the number of day care centers and mothers could work! Duh!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  437. Tom Cockle

    Pelosi's plan would absolutely help lower government costs going forward, by lessening the frequency of unwanted teen pregnancies, with their associated societal costs. Moreover, the magnitude of perceived need for abortions would likewise diminish–one would think that any rational thinker, religious or not, would recognize this as a win-win situation.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  438. Bill Schleigh in Venice, FL

    Your comments connecting her to Chairman Mao says it all. Better watch your back, Jack. When she's done with her wild-eyed spluttering and comes down from the ceiling, she'll be after you.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  439. Leonard Thomas

    Is she serious ? What she going to do, play those unmarried fathers to use condoms? She and Barnie Frank need to be brought up on charges of malfeasance.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  440. Roger G Backes

    Dear Jack,

    Overwhelming evidence shows that when women, anywhere in the world, are given the education and means to decide whether to get pregnamt, birth rates go down dramatically.

    This is not about handing out condoms on streetcorners, rather, it is about empowering women to control their own bodies.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  441. Geraldine, Wasilla AK

    I can see the logic of this, but I think her motives are purely political–aimed at Bay Area women support. The problem with all House members has been well documented: non-stop campaigning for their next election in just two short years.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  442. Jesse Gunn

    Jack I'm all for this. Family planning is something every single person in America needs to be concerned with. The amount of money spent giving people birth control is much less than the cost of providing welfare for parents who couldn't afford it in the first place. This isn't about abortion or population control it's about prudent and cautious use of the little money we have left to throw at this problem. It's obvious giving it to banks it's helping anyone other than the bank executives.

    Family planning will help those that need it most, families that are already struggling to take care of themselves.

    I'm all for it.

    Jesse, Sandpoint Idaho

    January 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  443. Jessica

    It may not be appropriate with this stimulus package, but maybe we can use this opportunity to remind people of the importance of safe and responsible family planning. In this economy people have had to go without important medications, contraception included. What we don't need is more unwilling and unready parents.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  444. Gary Canton, Ohio

    Jack just give the contraceptives to the Republicans…stupid people shouldn’t breed!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  445. Jill Gaetzi

    There are millions in the US without hospital insurance; they can't afford birth control; they can't afford another child. The Republican position against birth control because the country needs low wage workers is despicable. Let the worker class have some help for a change.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  446. Butch

    Yes! Whether you like it or not it will help. Abortion and contraception saves our tax dollars millions if not billions each year. Some people think their job is to have kids and milk the government for all they can. I would rather them bail out some teenager from missing out on school than bail out these corporate jet buying thieves.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  447. Mary Maddox

    Once again Mr. Cafferty shows himself to be a misogynist. The idea of women having control of their reproductive functions clearly alarms and offends him. He questions whether access to contraception would keep women from having babies. Not in his universe. After all, the whole purpose of a woman is to crank out those babies, isn't it?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  448. Pat C


    Funding for Family Planning and contraception is needed to reverse the effects of Bushs' abstinence only program. You know the program that has seen teen pregnancy rates hit record levels in 26 states.
    Babies having babies is costly and has a negative impact on the economy

    January 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  449. Sharon, Yonkers NY

    Jack, Don't be a bonehead male. Every woman knows that during downturns in the economy, whoppee is the cheapest entertainment and children are produced. This is a cost controlling measure both in the US and abroad. The Republicans hypocrisy and newfound desire for budget analysis would be laughable if it wasn't so very, very SAD!!! This line item has validity to every woman.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  450. debcoop

    Kaye says

    ""Shee needs to do some math on that idea! If we shrink the population where will the tax base be to pay for all this spending???"

    You need t ask this again. Reducing the population rather than decreasing the rate of growth requires actually, you know, killing people. Killing people in what ever manner REDUCES the number of people.

    Contraception is not execution.

    To Jack Cafferty

    The answer here is so evident you shouldn't have even asked it.

    Or are you only in favor of stumulatives in the stimulus package like Viagra which is covered under many federal statutes while contraception is not.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  451. Bob miami, florida


    Family planning (e.g. voluntary use of condoms) reduces accidental pregnancies and saves Medicaid and other money big time. But, Rep. Boehner (how is that pronounced? with an a or an o?) said it best the other day when he said he saw nothing stimulating about condoms. Can't argue with that. It was on CNN Jack.

    Miami, Florida

    January 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  452. Bob Abrams

    The short answer is no. The contraception initiative is too late for Nancy Pelosi's mother. Had it been in place back then, the huge expense and carbon footprint attributed to Pelosi's personal jet would never have been an issue. I'm sure even the American public can remember that debacle.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  453. Tim

    Pelosi is NOT right. All of these bail out plans are a nothing more than a band aid to the inevitable. failure.

    Rockford, Illinois.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  454. Claude

    Yes. Everyone is looking for a quick fix. That's natural, but it's not reasonable. Money invested in education and contraception will save money in the long term, improve peoples lives and save jobs.

    At first glance I thought there seemed to be a lot of spending being proposed that was not about economic recovery but upon reflection I see that the President is using his capital to put through measures now that will pay off in the long term.

    It is encouraging to see a President that is not thinking only short term.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  455. Eunice

    A better question might be" How much does every does every unwanted pregnancy cost me. How much does an abortion cost in money and life. How much does the uneducated ,mimimum potential teenage ,on welfare mother cost me. If you are going to spend my money, I would rather it be on birth control.
    President Obama said during his campaign, and I paraphrase. Abortion is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem of unwanted pregnancy.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  456. Josh

    The problem isn't necessarily with family planning, it's hiding the Governments spending to abortion groups, such as the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), in a economic stimulus package

    January 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  457. Irene Heath

    Thumbs down on Nancy Pelosi's idea. Subsidising contraceptives will be just another expense for tax payers. Since when does lowsering the population help the economy? All the less consumers.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  458. John

    Birth control legislation will not give us any relief at all from our economic crisis. We need to spend the money to stimulate the job market. If your looking for a job you don't have time for sex. If you have a job then sex may still be part of your life style. If your a teenager and want to have sex then it really doesn't matter does it???

    January 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  459. Helena Butler

    She is absolutely correct. All acts against women, which certainly include fundamentalist precepts against information and good health, affect the needs and rights of women in the workplace and in family finances and values. It also supports the separation of church and state. In addition all Christian fundamentalists are basing their virulent attacks on women and families without comprehension of the bible other than in a false context. The soul enters the fetus at the beginning of the third trimester. Intelligent women are thus required to have substandard health and jobs influenced on requirements of the far-right without a competent standard of reading comprehension. Women need to be respected once again and be on track for good jobs without external interference. Families now have an imperative for responsible family planning.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  460. Bryan

    Jack, like Pelosi, I am an ardent practicing Catholic and I couldn't agree more with this action. People associated with the church claiming to be pro-life, etc. repeatedly refuse to see the big picture. By giving our children health care, teaching them about safe-sex and contraception, and having birth control readily available, the overall affect will be fewer abortions and not only help our economy, but also fight poverty and increase our standard of living, which, like it or not, are also pro-life issues.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  461. Zim

    The stimulus package that needs to have contraception added to it is not the one in question.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  462. Niki

    THE ANSWER is YES. As a married woman who has struggled to be able to afford birth control in the past...Yes, it will help people who need it. As a mother who is still making payments to the hospital for my children's births...the answer is YES. I don't know how someone with less money could afford that. You either pay for birth control or you pay hospital bills, doctors bills, and checkups for children. The answer is YES because I look at this economy and I realize I cannot afford another baby. Having children costs money. It may not be romantic, but some people who are facing foreclosure or a job loss actually have to weigh buying food or paying a bill with paying for birth control. We live in a country that hates single mothers, belittles the need for birth control, throws sex and violence in our faces every time we watch tv or a movie, shows disgust at abortion and then thinks women on welfare have too many children. It just isn't logical. Women, particularly in tough economic times, DO need birth control if they need to control whether they give birth. That still is our choice, isn't it?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  463. Miss Johni

    I don't want the Granny Police but birth control, education and how to use it properly would help so many who out of LACK burden the rest of us. I am a healty 38 year old w/ no children. I want to be rewarded that just like Parents and their tax perks. And I don't want to support the Baby Mama Drama anymore! It's insulting!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  464. Viola Spencer

    Also, when you look at the billions of dollars being spent of welfare as well, new laws on birth control will reduce the burden on the economic. Family planning and enforce birth control policies will lower the number of recepients that are added daily to the welfare.

    You are off you rocker if don't think birth control especially for welfare recepients won't reduce the overall budget. It cost far more to take of kids that birth control methods.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  465. kathleen nolte

    Lets ask her this, A teenager thats been taught abstinence, and if mistakes happen, make sacrifices, love the baby enough to to the best out of love, adoption or etc. or a teenage that has been taught to use contraceptives because we believe they can't control themselves, and if accidents happen, they'll be able to abort because nothing should stand in their way. Who would you put more trust in? A teenager that has been taught to make sacrifices out of love, or one that shouldn't let anything stand in their way if they want it?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  466. Verne

    Yes. There are major costs to government that included things such as child housing, placement, care and/or medical costs due to people that leave their unwanted children for the states and government to take care of. Education and medical cost are already a challenge for the taxpayer. Responsibilities that come with raising children due to people not thinking, knowning or caring. Educational efforts seem to be the only to go. If not education many more kids will be on the streets and soon in jail and the taxpayer and government is still burden.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  467. cheryl elder

    children are not the problem. its the me first mentality that it seems many viewers of cnn have bought into that is the issue. We are in the mist of the most difficult economic times that most people can remember, but we can give money to anti-family causes without a bat of the eye. No apologies, Amazing !!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  468. Sigle working Mom in central FL

    Of course it will help the economy. Family Planning helps PREVENT countless unplanned teenage pregnancies. Teenage moms who would most likely end up on welfare, costing taxpayers billions on food stamp, medicaid and welfare programs.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  469. Robin Harwood

    It is also about sexually transmitted diseases, as well as, birth control.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  470. mitch

    Why not try it?? Take the 176 million a year that the Bush administration was pumping into abstinence programs and apply it to birth control. This doesn't sound nearly as idiotic to me!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  471. Tawana Mays

    NO! I think it is a sad and utterly irresponsible for Nancy Pelosi to think that birth control would stimulate the economy. We are in a real crisis people are losing their jobs and home and this is her answer I think its time she goes home.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  472. Mr Dean n Seattle

    they should have imposed birth control befor George W was born.
    then we wouldn't have this dire economy.
    So the answer is yes . It coulld prevent from more Bushes waiting in the wings.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  473. Mike Puterio

    Jack, I do not know if it will or it won't. The only thing that I know is that no one knows what, if anything, will work. The only thing I would like to see is a bi-partisan attempt at something, something other than what has been done already.

    If you are a republican, you will disagree with the Obama plan. If you are a democrat, you are for it. (with few exceptions). However, if the republicans are against the plan, then come up with viable, new ideas. Going back to the same old republican mantra of tax cut upon tax cut, then they need to step aside and let the plan have a go. Let time decide if a new approach is working.

    Bottom line: republican or democrat, constructive debate is needed, not partisan sniping looking ahead to the next election. Being elected to a bankrupt country is not worth it.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  474. Tim

    People who are unemployed and don't have insurance still have sex, Jack. One might guess that they do so even more since its free. An unplanned for and sometimes unwanted child ends up costing us a heck of a lot more in tax dollars than contraceptives do.
    Tim in Texas

    January 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  475. Bobby in Illinois

    One other comment: What is the alternative?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  476. Tommy

    The only stimulus needed is to send every household $75,000, those who earn under $100,000. Think of the tickle down effect,debts,mortgage, buying new cars...etc...etc. Do the arithmatic,it would cost the governmet a lot less than any other plan.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  477. andin

    No i don't think she owes an apology. We are not clear what she meant, but if we are assuming she meant it would decrease the number of teenage births and decrease tax dollars spent on health care for unemployed teenage parents, decrease in housing costs, not to mention foster care and pre-natal care....what is so wrong with that. No one is suggesting forcing birth control on anyone, just making it more available and educating more on the subject. A decrease in these things will help in more that just financial ways. Perhaps if young un-wed parents did not have children they would have a greater opportunity have an education and future.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  478. Lynn, Columbia, Mo..

    With the recent surge in teenage pregnancies, I think it's a pretty good idea. Let the children finish high school first so that they can get a job to suport their babies. I wonder what Sarah Palin thought of Pelosi's comments.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  479. Craig Powell

    Jack, If taking a proactive approach to sex education, including birth control, reduces unwanted pregnancies and STD's among our teenagers then it may well help the economy by reducing those reliant on social services and our over burdened health care system. Even if that is not true it is still the right thing to do. Our goal should be no unwanted pregnancies resulting in abortions. But this is an area where just saying no is not enough.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  480. j/NJ

    Is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi right when she says adding birth control to the stimulus package will help the economy?

    Not sure how Pelosi envisions the advantage, hopefully the federal govt is not involved but that is hard to imagine since government is involved in everything...not only is there no such thing as privacy in American society, fewer and fewer seem to care...

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  481. trina

    Contraception will definitely help the economy.
    It decreases the number of unwanted pregnancies; abortions; children born to mothers without prenatal care; low birth weight children; premature children; drug-addicted babies; chronically ill children; abandoned children; children in foster care; abused children; and murdered children.
    All of these things cost taxpayers money.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  482. heather

    my daughter who recently turned 19 and wasn't eligible for our insurance anymore was unable to receive birth contol from family planning because she owed back copays. one month later she thought she was pregnant. not believing in abortion she decided to apply for assistance from family services. this would have been a lot more expensive for the economy than her $280 in outstanding copays. thank god it was a false alarm.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  483. jennifer krell

    Now, I usually do not agree with Pelosi, but she has a good point this time. Yes Jack, Birth control! It is a terrible epidemic in this country of very young, unwed, uneducated, immigrant, junkie women (choose one or all) having baby after baby, with no plan of how they are going to support them at all. They expect the government to support them! – The taxpayer! thats BS! They actually have babies so that the government will support them! The problem goes on and on with welfare, WIC, then medicaid, etc. I say every preganancy that is prevented by birth control is a good thing for the country and for the world! We are not talking about young, responsible couples that want to have a family. I'm glad Pelosi is taking a hard line on this. let's crack down on all the other leeches too!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  484. Freddie Poughkeepsie Ny

    Jack adding birth control would do nothing to stop pregnacy. If people keep loosing there jobs with nothing but time on there hands what else is there left to do no what i mean. If Ms. Polosi is not careful she may be responsible for the next baby boom. Only this time Americans wont have the means to support them.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  485. Mike Feldmeier Palos Heights, Illinois

    The Speaker cares less about stimulating the economy than about advancing an ultra-left wing agenda that upholds the right of choice over the right to life.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  486. mike

    jack with people not working what do you think they are going to do with all that free time lets have babies with no heath care and a bankrupt goverment.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  487. Drewild


    Its just politics being bundled into a more immediate seriuos issue at hand. Democratic principles by way of economic peril. I can think of hell of a lot of other ways to save money! Not to say this wont!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  488. Evilroy

    First of all isn't "birth control" and "stimulus package" an oxymoron?
    Then again, it might be a good idea. After all, when they give out trillions of dollars to the big corporations, you just know the taxpayer is going to get screwed in the end, distributing condoms to those high living CEO's along with the money might prevent us from getting a social disease.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  489. gus from nj

    jack, who does this woman think she is. does she really think that birth control in the stimulus package will help the economy? She must be living in another universe to think that because in this world, the state giving me a pack of condoms won't save the economy. Wake up Nancy, i know your party won the election but don't go towards the road of socialism. if you do, your party will most likely lose majority in Congress in the next election

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  490. D. Greco

    I don't pay attention to the innefectual house leader anymore. I can't say I am disappointed in her. The fact is Ms. Pelosi should be the poster child for federally funded elections. She is just another benefactor of a wealthy family or spouse who basically bought her a political career. America better wake up and start putting a premium on talent rather than the wealthy class who have repeatedly demonstrated their inability to govern.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  491. randy johnsonr

    Let's use contraception on the birth of partisanship! The Republicans are "surprised" that an unheard of 30% of Obama's stimulus comes in tax cuts, and a week later, 30% isn't enough! Should GOP ideas be 50% of the plan? 75%? These people are being consulted, and their ideas included. Add McCain's litany of recent preferences for the package—and you gotta ask—who won this election? And with a far greater margin than Bush in either of his "victories."

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  492. Mikey

    Darn shame her parents didn't know this. Just think how much they could have helped the economy if she never showed up.

    It is so hard to believe that a person in such an important position can be so out of touch. We thought the Village Idiot went back to Texas. He left his cousin in DC.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  493. Doug Monk

    Yes, Pelosi is on the right track. There are enormous costs associated with caring for poor adolescent single parents with unwanted pregnancies and then more costs still providing services to care for their children. Immediately, they draw heavily on services in Urgent Care, then mental health services, and ultimately justice services. When the parents and children get older the research shows they are a greater burden on society. Contraception covered by federal monies can save the future of adolescents poorly equipped to care for and raise future children of America.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  494. Nick

    First of all, the comparison to Mao is not only historically inaccurate, it's also a disgusting example of media hyperbole. And drawing such distinctions is unfair to any individual who has ever sought out the assistance of Planned Parenthood or similar organizations. Admittedly, however, this particular set aside seems more like a social welfare program than a tool for stimulating the economy. Given the outrageous teen pregnancy rates in this country, I would argue that it sounds like a great idea, but on its own merits and not under the guise of a tool for financial recovery.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  495. Katie

    You are never happy! It is so easy to sit back and always be the critic. If poor folks can't afford family planning they are criticized for having large famiies living off the taxpayers. When Nancy Palosi makes it possible for low income couples to afford to make responsible family planning decisions – you smear her efforts with communist name calling. I had hoped we were all going to try to encourage a more respectful manner.
    Shame on you!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  496. Shelley J. Simpson

    It's very easy to impregnate someone whether or not one has a job. It is NOT so easy to feed the resulting baby when one does not have a job.

    Likening Nancy Pelosi to Chairman Mao was a cheap & irresponsible "running-off at the mouth". And you're supposed to be one of the smart ones. Idiot!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  497. Renee Walker

    I agree, it goes back to the ounce of prevention and a pound of cure philosophy. Birthcontrol along with HIV Education could negate the need to support unwanted pregnancies among teenagers and unprepared women. We the tax payers would be footing the bill for years to come. Right now the entire country is in need of government assistance. We are in a recession and these times call for responsible actions on the part of government and all citizens.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  498. Katherine, La Crosse, WI

    Of course funded contraception will boost the economy. It costs much less for government to fund birth control than it does medical costs associated with pregnancy. Many states already have family planning waivers in place based on this principle. Since most women use some form of contraceptive at some point in their lives, it also makes sense to help women pay for contraception to allow them to spend up to $50 a month elsewhere.

    I didn't like your tone much, Jack. How is giving people the proper tools to have children on their own timeclock anything like a one-child law? There is no coersion here – just the government funded option for people to control the timing and spacing of their children.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  499. Art Roberts

    Sure can"t hurt.


    January 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  500. Carolyn

    Jack I agree with there being funding for birth control. If more women knew there was a choice for birth control especially young teenage girls then it would prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Your not going to scare them into not having sex they will anyway, but if there was less unwanted pregnancy's then thats less welfare recipients, there for less money going out in medicade costs. So indeed yes it can help the economy in a sense. Its the females choice then to take the contraceptive making a difference in her life instead of making a life changing choice like having the child or getting an abortion.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  501. Robbin Jones

    Get real Jack, at least if people have contraception they won't have an additional mouth to feed when they lose their jobs. Will that help, some people, yes. And how and who can it hurt, unless the fat cats were counting on those poor babies to be their future serfs and servants.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  502. Sherry

    Yes birth control & sterilization for women (who want it) who have had 2 kids and are under the age of 30 may be a place to start. We need to do something to stop the number of people who are applying for services (medicaid, food stamps, welfare), Florida is at the breaking point. We cant feed them but the State Congress (REPUBLICAN Controlled) wont allow us to stop them from breeding. We need help. I think we need to stop services for those who wont stop having children after 2 kids.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  503. latreca atlanta ga

    yes. It wil help becouse it will increase demand. If you increase demand it will increase productivity. If you increase productivity you will need people to make the product. If you increase the product someone will have to make it and that means new jobs. dah

    January 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  504. Dan From Minnesota

    Jack – I almost fell off the couch on Sunday when she attempted to defend this rediculas item in the package with a straight face. On the other hand, this is another shining example of Pelose's and Reed's mindless retoric in defending anything proposed by their majorities in the houses. She changed the subject rather quickly – didn't she??? Nice try Nancy,...I hope her voters actually follow up on her statement,...you know,.."keep her honest",..as they say at CNN,..maybe you guys should!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  505. Casey in California

    Jack, a pile of money is spent each year when state and municipal governments bear the costs of children that are born as a result of unplanned pregnancies, and much of this could be prevented by an educational system that actually teaches proper usage of birth control. For anyone decrying this policy move as absurd I would ask if their high school had anyone who dropped out because of an unplanned pregnancy. Even among my 20-something friends today almost everyone can relate at least one story like that from their teen years. Each one of these unplanned pregnancies that does not happen reduces the burden on the welfare state and frees up these young people's time to either work full time or further their education rather than stay at home raising children in unsuitable homes.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  506. Abbi

    Birth control is the choice of the woman or the couple, and allowing funding from the bail out package makes the choices better especially if the choice happens to be not wanting a child. Allowing more choices, funding, and regulation does not push the issue of birth control in a negative way if anything it allows more safe alternatives. If anything, I think that rights were much more limited during the last administration by pushing the issue of birth control in a negative manner and limiting safe alternatives.

    It comes down to a personal choice and people should not feel threatened because they are now being allowed more choices that are regulated and funded. It is much less expensive to provide contraception than fund birth and care. As with other medical philosophies prevention is cheaper and more affective than having to fix something after the fact.

    Furthermore with today's technology if the choice happens to not be children there are so many options that a few more could not hurt.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  507. Annette Cox

    Yes, it will help the economy, but only if women actually take the pill so that they won't keep having children who have absent fathers and whose mothers are dependent on the federal government for support. Not surprisingly, we don't hear much from politicians (or from the media, for that matter) about the enormous cost to taxpayers to pay for welfare benefits to an ever-increasing number of irresponsible people.

    Annette Cox
    Charleston, SC

    January 26, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  508. karen traxler

    Dear Mr. Cafferty:
    Sex takes place regardless of the economy, and helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies reduces abortions, which is a terrific goal, and which should make pro-life groups happy, and saves future expenses like health care for both the mother and baby, future education, food stamps, WIC, welfare, ect...so yes, I agree with Speaker Pelosi: a few million now will save hundreds of millions later AND reduce the need for abortions.

    I am pro choice, NOT por-abortion...I would much rather see a reduction in abortions by helping to prevent unwanted pregancies.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  509. Kristin from Danville, CA


    Someday I hope the discussion of "family planning" won't be confused with abortion. Education and planning are good things.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  510. Jerry

    By all means! Family planning tools must be encouraged & be available for people who understand that making more babies they cannot support is a prudent decision. Of course it will help the economy – taxpayers will not be expected to provide even more services to mothers & children who are already struggling & can't count on the help of unemployed and/or deadbeat dads to help out. Or grandparents on social security who can barely pay for their medications let alone support the children of their children. Now is not the time for a baby boom!
    Colorado Springs CO

    January 26, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  511. Barb Hendee from Oregon

    Easier access to contraception will help the economy greatly . . . but not within the next fews months. This is long term.

    Fewer babies born to sixteen-year-old girls who can't possibly afford to raise them will keep our welfare roles shorter.

    Fewer children will grow up in a welfare environment.

    Without an unwanted pregnancy, many young women whose lives would be altered radically by a baby they can't afford . . . might then attend college and go onto career . . . instead of ending up on welfare.

    Fewer babies born to people who are "not ready" will absolutely help the economy.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  512. Marge Tisor

    I see I disagree with most of your respondents. I am a Catholic so therefore I do not want to support any kind of birth control here in the United States let alone other countries. People should take control of their desires and not have an innocent fetus, yes baby pay for their lack of control. Also I feel that Ms. Pelosi is shunning her nose at her Catholic faith and I am appalled.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  513. Candyce Kannengieser

    Nancy Pelosi is exactly right and she's no Chairman Mao. Not only would greater access to contraception reduce childcare, education and healthcare fees for states, it will also protect the lives, families and jobs of the women who desperately need to be working-and not at home. The illustrious Sarah Palin had the luxury of childcare, health insurance and a social network that helped her have her six kids and work. Not everyone has those kinds of benefits.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  514. Melanie Sandusky, Ohio


    I don't think there is any way for someone who has never been poor to understand the poor. For example, if you have enough money to buy a bottle of dish soap, that one bottle then also has to be your detergent for clothes, what you mop the floor with, and your shampoo.
    Does anyone actually think a young or not so young couple who are in love, are not going to have sex?
    Try walking a mile in others shoes before you say what they should or shouldn't have available to them for free or reduced price.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  515. irene

    Does anyone remember all of the talk of the population explosion back in the 70's? Our world is over-populated, our country is over- populated ; having one of our elected officials dealing in some way with what is an obvious problem that impacts our financial bottom line shows a refreshing pragmatism. Of course, the religious right and the uber-conservatives will take anything she says and turn it into something nefarious. What is wrong with making birth control available for those who desire it? Nobody is talking about limiting how many children people can have – there will still be those who pump out babies without thinking about the world they are leaving to them.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  516. Jeff

    And does Madam Speaker think the world is flat also?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  517. Sharon from Tampa, Fl

    NO! and even though I am behind President Obama most of the time & no I didn't drink the kool aid. I question some of the things in this package myself. So I hope he's questioned well on this because he had better get it right. NO do over on this!!

    Sharon from Tampa

    January 26, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  518. Bobbi

    Birth control will help the economy? Yeh, right. Cut off the welfare and stop making it profitable to have baby after baby – THAT will help the economy. And, get our jobs back from overseas by taxing the imported goods coming in to our country at 75-80% – THAT too will help the economy.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  519. Roy - Chicago IL

    So, Jack, anyone that professes a desire for birth control is Chairman Mao to you? The issue may sound funny to you, but families who have way too many kids, more than they can afford...cause the taxpayer at large to start putting up money to support all those kids. So..to put it simple for you, Jack, less kids, less public support to raise those kids, less strain on natural resources.
    So, if people keep babies to a reasonable number that they can afford, like credit cards (I see nothing about stopping births here, Jack!)......her plan may work. Also, her plan also has other provisions, you have narrowly focused on one facet of a diamond.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  520. Susan

    Somone shoot me now, please. This is our "no pork" President? Or is it just his party. Blagojevich is starting to look sane next to these people. They do not care what we say, what we think, what we want and their only answer is "we won the election". Well...thats true and your hubris will assure that doesn't happen again.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  521. Chris

    Absolutely! I live in Oklahoma, the heart of the bible belt, yet we have one of the highest rates of unwed mothers in the country...And also one of the highest rates of abused women and children, with the majority on some form of welfare. Since the gals don't know how to say no, we'd better at least provide them with some protection, because the "dads" and any financial support usually disappear after their 15 minutes of fun.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  522. Linda

    Yes, birth control will reduce the birth rate and should therefore be provided. Did you know that many insurance companies pay for Viagra for men (which has the potential for increasing propagation) but do not pay for birth control pills for women? How did our society get so screwed up (excuse the pun) on our priorities?

    Linda in Orlando

    January 26, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  523. Single working Mom in central FL

    Of course it will help the economy. Family Planning helps PREVENT countless unplanned teenage pregnancies. Teenage moms who would most likely end up on welfare, costing taxpayers billions on food stamp, medicaid and welfare programs.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  524. Dan McHugh


    I don't like to make things personal, but in this case......Pelosi has lost her ability make any sane decision. This contraception logic has no purpose in this economic debatel. Truly she is insane on many issues of late. I can't believe what comes out of her mouth. I will support all of the party members to put someone else in her position as Speaker of the House.

    Government has enough problems with trying to get the economy back on track, let alone get it stopped from this downward slide. Family planning certainly is a great cause, but save it for another time to be attached to a "medical issue" when the economy begins an upward growth pattern.

    That's my take. I don't live in California, but I sure hope she doesn't get re-elected.


    January 26, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  525. Twyla

    Duh!!! By decreasing the number of "accidental" pregnancies, this bill will have significant long term effects on the economy. Unplanned/unwanted pregnancies places immense stress on families and their finances. This could potentiallu lead to substantial decreases in teen pregnancy (increasing the chances of our children obtaining an education and skills needed to succes in this new knowledge economy), children enrolled in federally funded programs (decreasing stress on the budget). If people would stop being so ideological and instead be practical, maybe they can see the benefits and we can begin to improve our nation one step at a time.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  526. Emily

    Of course access to contraceptives will help our economy!!! Half of all pregnancies are unintended- better access to contraceptives would greatly reduce the number of children born to unprepared parents (and teens!). Without better access to contraceptives, our welfare system will continue to be a drain on our nation's economy. Completely accessible contraceptives is the single most important key to securing our nation's economy and strengthening the American Family.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  527. Nancy Miller

    Think that statement is crazy she also said this week in a interview that her job as "Speaker of rhe house was as hard or harder than being President of the United States" the women is delusinal.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  528. Mary Tucker

    Using my tax money for murder to kill blacks or whites, rich or poor is not the answer. "In God We Trust" means we need to rely in Him/Her. "Thy Shalt Not Kill" means everyone, including our children and grandchildren.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  529. Craig from Texas

    Condoms arent that expensive

    January 26, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  530. Larry G

    This is another prime example of the "Nanny Government" mentality that exists today. The role of the government is to provide basic infrastructre and uphold the rule of law provided by our Constitution.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  531. Vince Fronczek

    Change was the trumpeted sound of the Obama campaign...so why then does Speaker Pelosi believe that her "more of the same" mentality of spending our money isn't a part of the change the President mentioned? It seems to me that contraception and fiscal recovery are two different things. But, then again, if the inclusion of spending for contraception will help to reduce the number of people who think like the Speaker does in times like these...then I guess I could be for it.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  532. Rachael in AK

    So you are trying to get a rise out of anti-choice people? This is suppose to be news correct? Why don't you do some research and find out what she means instead of comparing her to a repressive dictator. I assume this means you are anti-choice? No more abstinence only education which only increases teen pregnancy. We need couples who want to have kids to have kids and keep our kids free to finish their education before they being a family. America is full of smart educated people, now that Bush is out of office we can try to keep it that way.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  533. John Cosgrave

    ABSOLUTELY! Her comments were extremely educated and the world needs more leadership like this. Over-population is the #1 source of almost all of the world's problems today. You name it, too many people has caused it ... global warming, air polution, water polution, deforestation, food shortages, resource depletion, over-crowded cities, territorial wars and so much more. And thanks to the Obama administration we are also now starting to reverse the misguided Bush policy of withholding international aid to women in needy countries who need birth control assistance. This is so long overdue, it is almost too late.

    John C.
    Bend, OR

    January 26, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  534. Robert

    Much of the economy's problems have to do with foolishness, greed, and not living within your means. The planet cannot support an infinite number of people living on it. Whether you like it or not there are finite resources, although, over time, we do get better at making the most out of the resources we have.

    I think maybe the idea behind birth control is it might have the result of having fewer babies born into families that are not ready for them and because of this those families will have an easier time. Perhaps the parents will be able to finish college instead of taking jobs at Walmart.

    If you accept this premise then the federal government may save considerable money that would have otherwise gone to helping the new family. The government and the economy would also benefit from the higher incomes a college education would yield them. Perhaps then some of those couples will decide to have children when they can better afford to do so, and in doing so they will have also given a better life to that child.

    Some will argue that teaching abstinence will cure everything, but I've yet to see a study that shows that to be true. I for one much prefer to plan for the future with those plans based on solid science, rather than relying on prayer alone.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  535. Susan Coughlin

    Bravo, Nancy! Full information on all forms of birth control, including abstinence, should be provided . But it must be accompanied by
    education in family planning, so that these high school youngsters no longer have to quit school, go on welfare, have the state finance pre and post natal care. They must realize that in this world, you have the responsibility of being able to afford a child before having one.

    Dayton OH

    January 26, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  536. David Sanderson

    Pelosi is absolutely right! But she dared to tell the truth and state the obvious, which will probably lead to the demise of the proposed program. Let's see, what is she supporting? Birth control will control births, saving the States an untold amount of money that they would otherwise have to pay in the support and care of children who were unplanned and/or unwanted. Shame on her!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  537. Greg in Illinos

    Jack, too many are focusing on just the short term. This plan has 3 time frames: Short term, intermediate and long term. This birth control segment is intermediate to long term, but all three phases need to be started as soon as possible for long term stability. It's just plain stupid to to restore unsustainable over consumption without considering things like population health and worthwhile job creation. With 300 million, plus, people to take care of you have to worry about more than just Goldman Sachs and Wal-Mart.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  538. Krishna Koliwad

    Only thing I can say is Nancy Pelosi has lost her mind. That spending plan should be dropped from the stimulous bill ASAP. I am sure Pres. Obama will drop it. She does not comprehend the gravity of the crisis and frivolous spending like this simply pose unneeded disruption and provide Republicans fodder for ridiculing the bill.

    LCF, CA

    January 26, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  539. DSA, Carlsbad, CA

    There may be some truth to her statement looking long term. However, we don't have time for this foolishness right now! Enough taxpayers money has already been wasted with no "short term" gain.
    Then money spent now needs to have an immediate effect. We don't need to pay for birth control or new sod in the capital mall. I think it's time for Pelosi to go and take Harry Reid with her.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  540. jim

    a simple yes, i agree with nancy pelosi

    January 26, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  541. Laura - Montana

    This doesn't have anything to do with pro-life or -choice. It's educating our young adults on how to properly care for themselves and plan for a big part of their future.

    You can tell your children that they need to remain celebate until they're married all you want, but there is no guarantee they wil be unless you are with them every hour of the day, which any good parent should realize is impossible. By taking away the knowledge of what COULD happen you are taking the risk that your children will unknowningly put themselves into a situation of having an unplanned child because they thought that the "birds and the bees" were just about birds and bees and nothing more.

    A good "sex ed" class doesn't "push" pro-life or-choice views. It pushes what I call PRO-RESPONSIBILITY and enables young adults to plan for their children.

    So, why does this matter to the economy? Well, before my son was born my husband and I were debt free. Now, 17 months later, we've whittled that debt down to under $1000. I'll admit my husband and I were not ready financially for a baby in a way that we could live without debt, but that was something we considered beforehand and decided we could manage by finding a less expensive (but still comfortable) apartment and cutting out the extras. As of yet we have not needed financial assistance (other than borrowing $40 from a frien until our next payday so we could get some groceries) and we don't plan to.

    Pelosi is -NOT- saying to stop having babies, nor is she trying to make a statement. She's trying to help our next generation make educated decisions before they jump into something that could harm them financially. By doing that we reduce the need for fianancial assistance such as food stamps, low income housing, etc., so those monies can be put toward other areas of our struggling economy.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  542. Cecilia /IN

    I believe that Pelosi is really not worry about who or who is not on birth control . It is about how much her and her party can control people. My question which will it save us $700 Billion or $850 Billion?
    When this doesn't work do we all just say we are sorry?
    That is how it works in Washington isn't it?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  543. rachel spaulding

    The speaker is absolutely right! I have worked in the public school system and I have spent the majority of my adult life as a graduate student/part-time restaurant sever. Too many young women get pregnant out of ignorance and lack of access to educational resources. Many of these women do not know how to avoid and/or solve an unwanted pregnancy. If women had access to free and/or reduced price contraception much human suffering and inefficacy in government spending will be eliminated. Many of these children become financial burdens of the state, whether they are categorized as neglected or abused, or whether they end up at the bottom of social worker's list or at the bottom of a trash bin. I think it is hypocritical of the US government to presume that the majority of these girls value life in the same way as the mainstream right-wing judeo-christian cohort when most government programs are designed to break down the family system by offering more financial support to those individuals that chose to remain single and reproduce.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  544. Larry D.


    Obama said this stimulus had no pork barrel spending which is true, birth control is important, pelosi is right, Our country is growing in alarming numbers overpopulated. We need to take action and congress must allow this stimulus to pass regardless of what is attached to it, otherwise ourt economy goes downhill & more job cuts & lose and we will see the great depression. We need to follow obama's lead, he will change this country for the better.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  545. sara

    I am a Pharmacist, and let me tell you, handing out birth control doesn't do any good when most of the people who should be taking it don't have decent compliance. If she's going to skip one pill a week and refill one week late, we are wasting our money. You can't force people to take a pill. If they want to reproduce, they will.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  546. Sharon McDonald

    I voted for Obama, but I want no pork, no earmarks. I want the Dems, especially in The HOUSE to get it. Nancy doesn't seem to get it.
    Maybe she should be voted out of office next time around.
    Maybe then she will get it!

    Oh, I believe in birth control and family planning, but I don't see how this helps the economy.

    My idea is more children, more money for Social Security.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  547. Brandon

    The best thing for the Dems and Pres. Obama to do is keep Pelosi's mouth shut! Every time she opens her mouth she shows her ignorance.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  548. Emily Carpenter

    No way..Should only be used to create jobs or keep jobs. No money in this package shoud be f or these purposes. There should b e no pork. This is what upsets us.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  549. Sharon

    I have never submitted an opinion, but this has me shaking my head in disbelief! With all the difficulties in the country, this is her solution? I personally do not want my tax dollars spent in this manner.

    Why doesn't she address the thousands of women who come across the boarders illegally, have their children, and we pay for those children indefinitely? She doesn't want to address this problem, but wants to alter family choices in this country. No wonder our state of California is in such horrid shape with representatives like Ms. Pelosi.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  550. John Booth

    Makes sense to me! The gov't is sick of paying for chickens, so they'll make sure there's never an egg!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  551. Brennan

    Chairman Mao? Are you insane? Contraception is humane and just. Helping people who can't afford children prevent pregnancy is nothing but good.
    I can't understand how people are more concerned with low priority issues like global warming when over population is a much more serious threat to our sustainability. Are you just bad at math? A finite amount of resources and infrastructure is being divided by an increasingly large number of people.
    As a responsible society we need to control population growth. Seriously comparing Pelosi to Mao is unconscionable. I wonder what kind of sick miseducation you could have that would make you doubt the necessity and righteousness of birth control.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  552. Greg, Ontario

    We both know the companies that make birth control products probably donated big time to her last election Jack. She's old school and they only know how to work one way. Nothing has really changed...yet.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  553. Tony - Kentucky

    Hell no! this will not help the economy, but if groups like citigroup can use some of the bailout money to purchase a 45 million dollar jet and some of the others use some of it to remodel their bathrooms for millions then i guess the whole damn country has went to hell in a hand bag...... I've just about given up on goverment.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  554. DaVon

    Absolutely, less mothers possiblity seeking government assistant is less strain on the economy. It's preventing the problem before it happens.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  555. Jenine Daniels

    Don't you GET IT?? If people use birth control there will be fewer children born to unready and unwilling parents, using state funds such as welfare, health care and all sorts of programs funded by state and federal money. Some of these are after school programs, free lunch programs and possibly even another generation on the welfare roles. There would be fewer abortions needed and fewer problems that could be faced by the women who would be needing them. And wouldn't it be great if all children were born into a family that really wanted them and would love and care for them in a way that would make them become good stewards for the next generations...????

    January 26, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  556. Matt from Kansas City

    Contraception doesn't just mean birth control. It includes fighting the spread of STD's along with unwanted pregnancies. You'll know the government is trying to regulate population size when the tax deduction for dependants gets cut.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  557. Steve

    Jack. Pelosi is an idiot. This is rediculus, we have had sex education for 30 years or more. I can remember sitting through this as a kid in the early 70's. Didn't help me! Lets stay focused, reducing taxes for everyone including the wealthy and corporations is what is going to get the cash flowing again. Pelosi, keep your eye on the ball!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  558. Sharon Boyer

    I totally agree with Speaker Pelosi. We don't have unlimited resources on earth to breed like flies. We have had generations of young women getting pregnant to get their own place,foodstamps and medical care. I have seen it for 4 decades. They breed more girls that just do the same. How about rewarding them for not having more children! Reward them with free education to become more than baby machines breeding poverty!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  559. Ann from S.C.

    Much as I hate to agree with anything Nancy Pelosi says I think that providing access to family planning will help families already burdened finanacially, and for whom another child would add to the finanacial strain. I don't see it as imposing contraception, but rather making it available to those who need it. Don't we have enough hungry children who need health care?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  560. alice


    January 26, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  561. Elena

    Absolutely! People have to stop being so hypocritical when it comes to topics like this and realize the reality: The number of teenage pregnancies, single mothers and families without sufficient funds to have children in this country is through the roof. The government providing birth control would not only help the economy but it would also educate people on how to be responsible. Sounds better than spending government money on programs like "abstinence education" . After all i think it is 2009 not 1909!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  562. Agnes from Scottsdale, AZ

    Jack: There have been so many unplanned pregnancies whereby the parents turn to public services to basically raise their children. This is not a moral issue, it's a fundamentally an economic one. With the help of prudent family planning, there will likely be greataer accountability among men and women vs. turning to government to provide basic family services.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  563. Chris

    I don't know if she is right, it all depends how people react to it. As a college student magoring in business accounting and living in a county with high birth rate, things do add up very quickly. And I don't mean that in any bad way. I've seen lots of people (especially in CA, Pelosi's State) go on public assistance because the have kids and they can't afford to take care of them and it takes a HUGE toll on state budgets. I think her approach is well intended, but I think most people will take it the wrong way. Thae fact of that matter is: there are consquences for every action we make, that includes having kids. One consequence being the lange cost associated with raising a family, and another is: how are we gonna feed, clothe all these new people with the limited resource the earth has. Unfortinitly, a large amount of people don't weigh any conequence when concieving, so, what Speaker Pelosi has is trying to do is become more and more nessicary.

    You can't just have kids and expect things the magicaly be ok just because family life is viewed a positive. How many more taxpayers are going to be paying for the care of the next generation? in some cases that include payment well into the next generation's adulthood.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  564. Jan Deer River, MN

    Jack, I understood Nancy Pelosie's remark about birth control costs to mean that the stimulus package would take over costs tha t the states are now bearing, saving them money. The right to have councelling and birth control is linked closely to women's rights. It is the right to chose when she becomes pregnant. That does NOT mean that President Obama is in favor of killing babies. It's just the opposite. If a woman has access to birth control, hopefully she won't have an unwanted pregnancy, leaving abortion out of the picture completely. We feel abortion should be used only to save the mother's life, not her life style. Jan McClure Deer River MN

    January 26, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  565. Rose, Chicago

    States are suffering serious budget shortfalls as working families lose jobs. Health care programs that include family planning education and services are being cut as a result. Federal assistance is appropriate.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  566. pete in ny

    i wonder how many of the people approving of Nancy's statement picture a brown face when they consider who will be getting "counselling" under this program but they won't admit it.

    Let's face it, middle and upper class women have plenty of access to birth control info and y definition they're not on welfare!!!!!. Minorities are over represented in the poor . This is racism under wraps.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  567. Ross Foyee

    with all the Enzyte and Extenze commercials on TV nowadays, Pelosi has her job cut out for her!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  568. Vince, Watervliet, NY

    Change was the trumpeted sound of the Obama campaign…so why then does Speaker Pelosi believe that her “more of the same” mentality of spending our money isn’t a part of the change the President mentioned? It seems to me that contraception and fiscal recovery are two different things. But, then again, if the inclusion of spending for contraception will help to reduce the number of people who think like the Speaker does in times like these…then I guess I could be for it

    January 26, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  569. Nemer (Lansing, MI)

    It is possible especially in the case of unplanned pregnancies for young parents. Healthcare and other costs of those pregnancies can get really high. I agree with her idea, but she could have explained it better.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  570. Eric-Texas

    We are now at nearly 7 Billion people. Not only could birth control helpthe economy, but the planet as well. The Earth can only support so many people. If we don't act responsibly and keep reproucing like Rabbits on Viagra, Hunger and Famine will only get worse then. And in the end, it is future generations that pay the price.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  571. Mike Bruinsma

    Hi Jack,
    I don't know if adding birth control will immediately stimulate the economy but one issue that seems to be overlooked as a whole on this planet is that of overpopulation. The Earth has way more people to support than it can handle. If the people of the United States as well as those of every nation continue to turn a blind eye to this question then we all risk setting ourselves up for more of the same issues that we face today worldwide. In light of this I believe we should support every opportunity to solve this impending problem and push for a sustainable human population for this planet.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  572. ann

    Get real, how stupid. Stop the pie in the sky ideas. We need to get people back to work and food on the table.Let individuals take responsibility for their own birth control. Not the taxpayer.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  573. geno

    birth control is a socio- ideological-economic issue. Ideologically, federal government spending in this area reverses the right wings efforts to foist their "BELIEFS" off on the rest of the body politic. Economically (long term) if fewer teenage pregnancies occur, the economic benefits are obvious. Socially, for the good mother earth, we need to reverse the world population growth. If not, then we are beyond the fail safe point.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  574. Danielle Orr

    Stay calm.. Let's hope that the birth control program will branch into schools. As a registered nurse, I have had to deal for years with the subject "birth control" "pro choice" etc.... I think that this is an excellent idea. Working in a hospital I have seen too many young girls giving birth to unwanted babies, ignorant of what birth control is. Now with this new program many will be able to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies. To go as far as comparing Nancy P. with chairman Mao, give me a break. We have needed this for a very long time and now that it is here, let's not knock it off until you see it in action. I love you Jack but sometimes you really go too far. As for Nancy Pelosy I agree with her, why should she appologized ? Not everything needs to be worded in a manner that can please all of us and all the time, so long as the program work, you need to stop sweating the small stuff.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
  575. geneticegghead

    I find it offensive to liken Pelosi'd remarks to those of Chairman Mau, without commenting on the intentions of either of these two historic figures. Whatever your views on the sanctity and omnipotence of the human being as a creature living within our Universe, the Earth's human population, approximately 6 billion today, is predicted to reach 9 billion within fifty years. While dull witted economists might gloat in the potential "growth" in our economy associated with this increase in population, it is time for humanity to realize there must be a limit to this population growth, and the sooner the better. How this comes about is a sensitive issue for many people and has to be given careful thought. Nevertheless, this is becoming a necessary transition in the values and habits of human life. The Cafferty response is outrageously trivial and frankly stupid in light of the importance of the issue. This is further indication to me that all of life is a battle between the need for certainty and "faith" and the forces of creative change. Obama (and Pelosi) have finally opened the window to creative change a crack.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
  576. Sheri, Austin Texas

    Speaker Pelosi is right.

    Regardless if it helps us in the short term or long, birth control and education are necessary. I also think it would be a good idea to some how or another force our public school system to focus more on education on how to manage money... K-12.

    As a whole and for decades, parents across our nation have been doing a very poor job at preparing their children for adult life by not teaching their children about self-respect, responsibility and accountability. It is no secret that children learn by example. Generation after generation for many years, children have watched their parents screw up over and over when it comes to mangaing money and family planning.

    Bottom line, as a whole, our country has become irresponsible in so many areas of life that we are being sucked into a black hole...

    Our country needs an overhaul... when it comes to managing finances and family planning.

    Unless we all make sacrifices, learn from our past and play an active role in changing our future, our children & grandchildren will continue to live their lives in the vicious circle that we have lived in for years.

    If we don't embrace change and try something new, we have no one but to blame but ourselves.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  577. gregw5723

    The USDA estimates the average cost of raising a child to age 18 is around $200,000. Many people can't come close to affording this. Thus, much of this burden falls to society at large. If providing birth control to those who otherwise wouldn't have it could reduce this societal burden, then resources would be made available for more productive use.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  578. Jim Barlow

    Birth control offered to those that have out-of-wedlock babies to get a free apartment, ADC checks, food stamps, and more will only stimulate the sex drive.
    What this country must have to ever recover is the jobs that pay money and taxes back in this country. I have been in manufacturing all my working career and have watched many a purchasing agent brag about how cheap he out-sourced a job off shore. I repeatidly invisioned and later watched as the laughing fools looked for jobs.
    Jobs pay taxes, taxes pay the government. The Government is broke and the manufacturing is gone. Where will the money come from? It doesn't work to take it out of one pocket and put it in the other. The first pocket is empty and the second pocket is running out.
    Jim Barlow, Tulsa, Ok.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  579. Roger Boyer

    Jack.....Not only is Pelosi's idea of spending millions on condoms wrong, but it is stupid!! Makes you wonder where the Pork might be in this. Does she own stock in a condom company, or maybe one is located in her state????She is pushing this stimulous package too fast, with too much PORK in it. Same ole, Same ole.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  580. Keith Stevens


    I must admit I was shocked when I first heard the claims that millions of dollars from the stimulus package would be going to contraception, but I now see that the link between the two is remote. House Speaker Pelosi is right in defending the earmark for contraceptives. The states provide valuable services to its citizens, and right now, the states need money. Don’t the “financial conservative” republicans understand that providing preventative services for those who need them is by far the most efficient way to spend money in this instance, as well as in all other aspects of healthcare?

    Keith Stevens
    Augusta, GA

    January 26, 2009 at 5:37 pm |
  581. Linda Perry

    Family Planning is appropriate in the stimulus package as 80% of teenage mothers end up on welfare. In addition the lack of support for clinics affect the poor and ripple down to ability to gain employment, and build a secure foundation for life. It astonishes me how Republicans want to end choice, don't encourage family planning, but once a child is here object to insurance for children, family support, etc, and finally it is OK to maintain the death penalty.

    It the lower and middle classes are given a hand up, they can participate in the greater promise of America–this is a stimulus squared!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:37 pm |
  582. Ryan

    Only if it keeps people like Nancy and other undesirables from having kids.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:37 pm |
  583. Tanya, Atlanta

    Is she for real?! What on earth would make her even colaborate such ridiculousness in her mind, and then verbalize it. Senility has definitley set in and she should be barred from ever making another suggestion. What kind of contraception is she talking about?I hope not hormonal! Education may be ok but not on my bill maybe a birth control channel or sommething but not on the tax payers dime or penny or whatever we have left, or lack there of.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:37 pm |
  584. Glenn (La Costa, CA)


    It is clear that the proposed move by Pelosi will make the job market more competitive in 18-22 years...Less sharped minded young people to compete with me as a greeter at Wall Mart.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
  585. Ann

    I'm a 36 year old Virgin female who upon going to my local health department for an annual exam becuase I do not have health insurance was told I could not recieve the exam due to the fact that I was not sexually active. So yes, I do believe that what Pelosi said will indeed help the government save money because I know i'm not reciveing any help so if this is standard practice then limiting how many people have children will save the government from having to spend money supporting them while they are pregnant.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
  586. Jeanne Schevets

    Yes, yes, yes! Money needs to be marked for birth control or family planning options. There are WAY too many people uninsured & unprepared for the incredible task of parenthood.There needs to be more open discussion about delaying children until the time is appropriate. The majority of this money earmarked for "family health' needs to be in the form of education programs like making conscious choices, birth control options ( including abstinence), STD's, effective parenting, & early education. Ultimately this could result in taking some of the financial burden off of the gov't in the form of extra children.
    Wasn't it a long time ago when "preventative" medicine was touted as the way to manage health care? How about personal accountability? What happened?
    ...very complex!! Jeanne in Emmaus

    January 26, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
  587. Nicole

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 90% of the world's problems today are due to too many people on the planet. Back in the 60s when I was in grade school I remember ominous commercials on TV about the coming population explosion. Well, it's here. So maybe it's time that contraception becomes part of the solution.

    Unfortunately, mischevious media pundits will take the opportunity to jump up and down about it on the surface, instead of giving it the serious thought that it deserves.


    January 26, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
  588. Greg

    The stimulus bill was not to have any earmarks and clearly contraception is an earmark. How will contraception stimulate the economy? Pelosi is clearly incompetent and to have her as Speaker of the House is a national embarrassment.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  589. Jerald from Montana

    She's right. Babies don't work. They expect to be fed and they can't tell you who their father is.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  590. maxine

    I commend Speaker Pelosi.

    140 ticks a minute. That's the number of people added to the world every minute, that is, births exceeding deaths. That amounts to about 200,000 people a day, with the world population headed toward 9 billion by 2050. There are alread billions impoverished people on this planet ...water, food, oil....not enough to go around. The haves will have it and the have nots will not.

    It is the number one issue ...on this planet earth! Our country should set an example.
    maxine in Portage, Michigan

    January 26, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  591. Tim from Hot Springs, AR

    It could save money as far as reduceing unwanted and unsupported births and the costs related to them, which in turn could result in additional money being appropriated to stimulus-related projects. But the notion that it would directly boost the economy is ridiculous.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  592. Purnell K3 IL.

    Of course not, it's the same old argument form them that women need more control over their bodies, and so they can push for more illegal aliens who want to cross our borders for work, while Americans are losing their jobs, healthcare to them and their homes!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  593. Sue, Columbus Oh

    I think this funding is very important. I lost my job, and my health benefits in September. I am recently married, but could not afford a child at this time. Because I lost health benefits, I could no longer afford my birth control method of choice, the patch. I had to switch to the pill. Now, even that expense is becoming prohibitive.

    Funding for contraception would help young families and avoid a surge in unwanted pregnancies coming from women who were attempting to cut short term costs by eliminating birth control. People are cutting pills in half, agonizing over whether they can afford to take a sick child to the hospital, it makes sense that they would be pushed to stop taking contraceptives.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  594. Luis Mejia

    Off course she's right, that's as obvious and cruel as asking your dad if you can buy him life insurance... But it would probably work.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:41 pm |
  595. Sherley Kimble

    President Barack Obama has been our president for 6 days now and it is really bothering me that many of your reporters refer to him as Obama or Mr Obama. I think it is disrespectful and as a loyal CNN follower I would like it to stop..he won he was inaugurated and now is due the proper respect to be addressed as President Obama. Let's get it right!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:41 pm |
  596. TED, Little Rock AR

    Unplanned pregnancies create a huge expense for both individuals and government. "Children's health and education including contraception" (as stated) could start reducing that toll on the economy. There are too many who hide their heads in the sand and say it couldn't happen to my kid. These are usually the ones who are against sex education being included with health education in schools. It is very good to teach abstinence but if it is the only thing taught the result is young girls with unplanned pregnancies!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:41 pm |
  597. Peter MacLean

    When it comes to Democrats, 'family planning' is just code for abortion services. It's ironic that with our first black President, Nancy Pelosi along with other democrats are ensuring hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money for it's continued attack on the minorty unborn. Over 80% of all Planned parenthood clinics are in minority communities. With only 13% of the US population being African American it is more than just a statistical anomaly that they have 35% of all abortions.

    As a side note, if this continues where are the future taxpayers going to come from who in the end have this bill to pay?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:42 pm |
  598. Gigi

    If we would worry about putting people back to work instead of worrying about birth control there would be less babies born.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
  599. Madeline

    Why is your question an anti-stimulus Republican talking point? Why are you even listening to, or giving any airtime to the same people who got us into this mess? This is nothing more than a distraction, that frankly, is is one of those childish things our President referenced last week. It's beneath you, Jack.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
  600. Tiffany

    Speaker Pelosi, are you saying that the women in this country do not have the moral sense and/or are not responisible enough to handle their own reproductive issues, thus we need goverment to intervene and provide funding for birth control?
    As a woman, I believe that it is MY responsibility to be in control of my reproductive rights, and I do not have the audacity to expect that my neighbours should also pitch in to help foot the bill. I just dont understand what has happened to individual responsibility in this country.
    In regards to this issue "helping the economy", some people may be fooled, but I know Eugenics when I see it, even if it is cloaked as an angel here to save the poor and minority women of America.

    Tiffany in California.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
  601. Rick

    All this will do is insure that the Republicans make up ground in the 2010 elections. Good grief, someone needs to get a hold of Pelosi and Reid, a stimulus package is great but all of the pork will be the downfall of the Democrats, I know the Republicans did it before but there was supposed to be a change in Washington. I'm afraid if things like this are in the bill, the people will remember it come next election!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
  602. Jan Deer River, MN

    Jack, I believe Nancy Pelosie is right, the federal gov't should take the cost of providing counceling and birth control off the states. Your side comment "It sounds like Chairman Mao" is exactly right too. How awful to have the gov't telling women if they can or can't have babies! That is a decision for the woman, her doctor and ,hopefully, her family. The gov't doesn't belong in it. Our gov't makes such a mess of anything it tries to do, can you imagine the quagmire of prosecuting doctors and families? Free access to birth control is part of women's rights. You are rattling a big cage. Jan McClure Deer River MN

    January 26, 2009 at 5:44 pm |
  603. nick

    You know, we coastal people make fun of southerners and mid-westeners.Howerver, the voters in Calif. and Nevada, both need a high school refresher course,since they elected Pelosi and Reid. These are two do nothing Republicans at heart except for PORK for their States and special interests.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
  604. sharon F. Cogdill

    I pray Pelosi will quits bobbing her head about this one and takes it off the table til Healthcare gets its turn after jobs have been created and people are getting paid again.

    Please, please Democrats, get along!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
  605. Susie

    HELL NO. I thought there wasn't going to be any pork or earmarks in this bailout, per Obama. What do they call this.

    Why should the American taxpayers have to pay for such stupid spending by our "lawmakers"???????

    January 26, 2009 at 5:46 pm |
  606. Purnell K3 IL.

    The Automakers and Oil companies need to stop complaining, they are not telling the truth that they would need to make cars for every standard; they only need to meet the highest standard, since all of the States regulations would have an open top to their new standards. They have held the country back before Preston Tucker brought out his car, and now they are doing the same thing they did then, which it to stop progress. They have cost us dearly by holding us back, and now is the time for them to pay up on the time that we as a country have given them over the last sixty years! They have held the country hostage for far too long! Remember Texaco an oil company bought out the battery patent that would have aided in the development of electric cars!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:46 pm |
  607. Roger Boyer

    Jack.....Spending millions on condoms would not help the population problem in the US nearly as much as enforcing our immigration laws. That is one reason our Founding Fathers enforced the immigration laws. The laws set quotas for immigrants. Today those laws are not being followed and we are being flooded with immigrants and paying Billions in social services for them!!!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:46 pm |
  608. Dorothy from Lonoke, AR

    Does she plan to have the National Guard hold guns to people's heads forcing them to use birth control? Why not just have everybody in the lower tax brackets spayed and neutered? Of course, without the lower middle class out there, folks like her might have to haul their own trash to the dump and mop the floors of their offices themselves.
    Wouldn't it make more sense to get more jobs going for folks out there, get the prices of things like health care, housing, and other necessities lowered to something realistic, and let the people worry about their own reproduction?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:46 pm |
  609. Carole Mellin

    I'd rather pay for a few birth control pills than a lifetime of welfare.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:47 pm |
  610. Jacquelyn

    I think it's a wonderful idea. I don't know what I would do without it. And if people can't afford contraceptives, who says that they could afford a child?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
  611. Pete

    How quick people forget. Remember even CNN did a story about a teenage girl in a Texas town who was ostracized for educating her fellow students abouy birth control, Her reason; her town had more then double the National average of teenage pregencies and teenage VD cases. Kids and medical treatment of VD cost money; not to mention the impact these events will have on teenagers for the rest of there lives.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
  612. nancy in manteo, nc

    lets see, people are unemployed, their cable has been shut off and they've turned the heat down to save money. what else are they gonna do???? give them whatever it takes so they don't have any more babies.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
  613. Sharon, Chicago, IL

    Wake up! The biggest problem in the world is overpopulation with humans. Anything that can reduce that is a step in the right direction–we do not need more unwanted human beings here or anywhere else.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
  614. Robin

    Hellooo?!! Many insurance policies cover (that cover Viagra)
    DO NOT cover family planning services, ie. birth control pills.

    Many, many families and individuals need to pay for birth
    control as part of their monthly expenses. Not to mention
    millions of uninsured people who can least afford to deal
    with unplanned pregnancies.

    Only a man could fail to see this.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
  615. Rick

    Jack, unwanted pregnancies are just one of the reasons for perpetual poverty. I think it's a good idea.

    New Mexico

    January 26, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
  616. Purnell K3 IL.

    It's funny that the Democrats spend so much time and money on finding way to decrease our population through killing babies; rather then empowering Americans to reach their full potential, who many cures and developments have been lost in the crusade to kill our children!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
  617. david the ack ackerman

    too many kids and too many parents that can't afford them birth control sounds good to me

    January 26, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  618. Dave

    Handing out birth control and education the public on its use is not only a way to stimulate the economy a little as it will employ some people, but more importantly will hopefully cut down on unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of STD's. Is it as productive a use for stimulus as say building a road, no, but its definitely money well spent.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  619. John Zerillo

    Unwanted children put a heavy burden on welfare and eventually the criminal justice system. There is a long term positive economic effect when you can limit those unwanted births that the parent(s) in poverty are ill prepared to raise properly.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  620. Cassandra Massey

    Mr. Cafferty,
    I want to know why none of the news shows are asking Congress why the executives of the banks who are back asking for more can't come to Washington and explain where the money they have already received has and is going and be made to present a plan for money given to them in the future just like the automobile executives had to do. Trust me most Americans are not going to believe they can't produce this information. I think we can handle the truth.
    Cassandra Massey
    Jonesboro, Arkansas

    January 26, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  621. annie florida

    is she going to teach her children birth control? She has a lot of grandchildren.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  622. Archie

    As bad as I hate to admit it, birth control is probably much less expensive than taking care of a child from birth through the age of eighteen. Boy, do I hate to admit that.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  623. ron

    jack, are we out of our mind,we are on the verge of financial meltdown,
    is this the best she can come up with.if i spend more then i make,max out my credit cards,on the verge of bankruptcy,what financial adviser would tell me to spend my way out of debt.yet thats what everyone is saying we should do as a country,a 5 year old can figure out this will never work,no matter what we try nothing will work,there is nothing but hardships ahead like we havent seen,even the great depression will look like a time of plenty when this is all over,so hang on for the ride folks.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:51 pm |
  624. Annette Logan

    Yes, Nancy Pelosi iis absolutely right. Helping people pay for birth control will help the economy. and the people. No one is forcing anyone to use it, but it gives a chance to plan for babies. Babies are expensive and unwanted babies are even more expensive.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:51 pm |
  625. Amanda

    TEEN PREGNANCY WENT UP IN 2008! the government covers viagra why wouldn't they cover forms of contreception?? As a young girl in high school i see it in my halls girls unaware of how/when or they could get contreceptives! WE need to stop abstience only education and inform people on contreceptives and make it more affordable!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:51 pm |
  626. Jordan

    Helping people postpone pregnancy until they are secure enough to raise a child, economically and otherwise, benefits children, families and the community. There is simply no benefit to bringing a child into the world unless we can provide them the support and resources they need to thrive.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:52 pm |
  627. Daniel, Ann Arbor, MI

    It's upsetting that republicans would use this as a political issue. Healthcare is an essential component of the social security that ensures American productivity. Sadly, many conservative politicians find it acceptable to criticize initiatives that promote reproductive health for women.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:52 pm |
  628. John Brackbill

    What else would one expect? She's going to push the Liberal Agenda any way she can.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:52 pm |
  629. bob

    Given that overpopulation is at the root of most all our problems, how could anyone oppose government funding for contraception?

    January 26, 2009 at 5:52 pm |
  630. Taylar

    I'd rather pay for birth control than new jets and million dollar office make-overs!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
  631. Judi Raymond

    What ever it takes to get birth control to the masses is o.k. by me. It means fewer abortions, fewer unwanted children and less money spent on welfare. It is one of he best way to spend our tax dollars.


    January 26, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
  632. Richard Lind

    She is in her own mind. I'm a democrat and support the new administration, but I don't believe this will provide the kind of stimulus we need for our economy. Put the money in the hands of consumers now and let them either spend it, save it and pay down their debts. It would be sort of like a bail out for the consumer, which if done in the beginning, would already have us either on the right path to recovery or at the very least make us feel good.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
  633. George Ferdinand

    My economy has always been more stimulated when I have been employed, which has nothing to do with birth control.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
  634. Helen Saul

    Both the funding of birth control and the funding of the military to send our young people off to be killed might help the economy by reducing the number of young people to consume our tax dollars to special programs
    as well as general services such as public education. I find the reasoning crass beyond belief and support both.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
  635. Candi

    My tax dollars pay for abstinence only education and that's less effective in the prevention of teenage births than education classes that teach about safe sex using proper contraceptives.

    When nations educate their people, birth rates among teenagers and the low income go down. This creates less of a drain on some social services.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
  636. Big Tony in the ATL

    Sounds like Pelosi wants to stop the underprivleged from making babies, because it would create a greater strain on state assisted social services. Sounds like Chairman Mao for real or her stock portifolio is heavily into pharmacuticals. You know Jack, contraception and sex education have been around for a long, long time and neither has slowed the birth rate. Aids, and all the other STD,s could not quell the flow. Pelosi's line of thinking could lead to to the same Barbirism that Mao imposed on his people. Life will find a way !

    January 26, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
  637. Susan Nial

    I have no problem with tax money being used to pay for birth control. Are you rea? We pay for viagra! Women should have the same rights as men. No one is suggesting that anyone be forced to take birth control. Women must be able to space their children to reflect what they can or want to do whether it is economics or for other reasons.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
  638. Sarah

    Sociological and anthropological studies in other countries show that increased access to birth control decreases poverty by giving women the tools to control their own fertility. It's a disgrace that birth control is not currently available through Medicaid. No one is trying to force women to take birth control, but it should definitely be an available option for those who want it. Even generic birth control is currently out of reach for many women at a minimum of $40 a month without insurance. Un- or underemployed women should not have to deal with the increased anxiety of an unwanted pregnancy in these economic times.

    St. Louis, Missouri

    January 26, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  639. Ray Dean Worley

    Jack, Thier crazy. I do not want my tax dollars going for Birth Control which is just a better word for Abortion!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  640. Bill

    Absolutely!! When you consider pre natal care, hospital care for mother and child, unemployed mother, then social services for possibly the rest of the kid's life, It is an incredible savings. Wake up America!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:55 pm |
  641. julie

    This makes common sense.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:55 pm |
  642. Pat Caldwell

    I find this absolutely deployable!! One nutty idea per one nutty representative. When will the Democrats recognize these socialist proposals??????????
    Thanks, Jack.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:55 pm |
  643. Susan Haught

    Yes, I see it everyday. If we would only try to educate some of these people maybe there would be less people on welfare. I really think some of these woman just think that it's ok to have one child after another. They need to know more about what it cost to raise a child.As a government we spend alot of money on girls who have children they can not possibly afford. It's just like everything we all need preventive medicine. People need to get off their high horse and help those who need help. Look where this country is and what the republicans have done to this country. Get rid of the GOP and I bet ya there would be less problems.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:55 pm |
  644. Kelly Darrah

    Yes, yes, yes!

    January 26, 2009 at 5:56 pm |
  645. Alicia from Maine

    Jack, how many elderly men are getting their ED pills subsidized? Providing women with the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies is absolutely as important an issue as anything we're facing. I wish you tracked these comments by gender – I wonder how many men said "hell no!" and how many women wrote "hell yah!" Tell us, if you can.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:56 pm |
  646. Frost

    least the birth control is going to the people and not buying more jets for the big banks or auto

    No more bail outs

    they all have abused the tax payer

    January 26, 2009 at 5:57 pm |
  647. Mary Ann Mancini

    also remember condoms also prevent hiv spread – so money will be saved there too when we don't have to provide life long drug therapies..

    January 26, 2009 at 5:57 pm |
  648. TC Helberg

    Has anyone actually read the stimulus package? Where do I get a copy to read? How can I (as an american citizen) actually decided how good or bad this thing is until I actually read it? My congressman doesn't even have a compy.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
  649. Jane - WI

    We are preached to by liberals all the time that the government "needs to stay out of our bedrooms". Why wouldn't that apply to Ms. Pelosi and her goofy idea to spend taxpayer dollars on contraceptives. There is a real cheap method of contraception -– don't have sex unless you are willing to accept the consequences of that action. Or, provide your own birth control. Same goes for abortion. The taxpayer should not be paying for abortions here or in foreign countries. If we are to stay out of people's bedrooms, then we need to stay out of them in all aspects.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
  650. Mark

    It will help the economy as much as the members of Congress, the Senate and all other elected official taking a 20% wage reduction and paying for a portion of their insurance benefits.

    Add then they may also know what it is like for so many other citizens they are supposed to be representing.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
  651. Barbara and Ken

    Nancy Pelosi is and idiot and so is the person who commented that we need to make sure poor people use it. This stimulus package is going to ruin this country. Put your money in your mattress folks. It's going to be the only safe place. Capitol Hill hasn' a clue.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
  652. Jan Harris

    Yes...it never ceases to amaze me when there is any discussion of family planning, education, or contraception for women, there is an uproar over who and how the programs will be funded, but no objection or limitation on funding when the issue turns to male enhancements and "Viagra."

    January 26, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
  653. Purnell K3 IL.

    Is it me or are women shooting themselves in the foot through birth control, since they are the main benefactor of social security benefits. By having more Americans making babies there will be more people paying into social security, which aids women greatly.

    January 26, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
  654. Frost

    Lets have Jet control first..

    money going to the people.. not bail outs

    January 26, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
  655. Jose

    Its funny how the same people that are telling Pelosi and the Government to butt off American private lives are the same people who vote to take away rights from gay people. Talk about being a hypocrite.

    Jose in Florida

    January 26, 2009 at 6:00 pm |
  656. Denise A.

    I am a nurse. When a patient is "coding", we perform CPR. We don't worry about his bunions, his gallbladder, or his carpal tunnel syndrome, not that any of those things aren't important. Our #1 goal is to save the patient. Our country is in need of CPR. Let's focus on getting the good old US of A breathing on her own again, and not spend our time or resources on something like birth control or re-sodding the mall in Washington (not that those things aren't important). Oh, and by the way, what happened to government transparency? Seems like Ms. Pelosi has her own hidden agenda.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:00 pm |
  657. Addie Lee

    What part of the economy is the contraceptives supposed to stimulate? Maybe the decrease in unwanted pregnancy will translate into future jobs with less folks to man them? I don't disagree with increased funding in contraceptives, but I heartily disagree that it is a part of this stimulus plan! Wasn't this the president who said he would go thru spending and rule out earmarks?
    I was under the impression we needed job creation and relief for those with mortgages in foreclosure. Not sure what jobs will be created with contraceptives, except maybe government jobs in handing them out? Wouldn't this fall more into health care reform, or maybe Ms. Pelosi doesn't think she can fund this pet project any other way?

    January 26, 2009 at 6:01 pm |
  658. Martha Kansas City

    As the woman said, birth control would be great for low or mddle income families. When I was young and starting out it was hard to find money for birth control, housing,food and etc. It doesn't seem like a lot that will help young mothers plan their families.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:01 pm |
  659. Raphael

    This is beyond ridiculous. The way to save the economy is to let the bad banks fail instead of bailouts. I highly doubt that the economy is in trouble because Jane Doe is pregnant and has 17 kids in Middle of nowhere Minnesota.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:01 pm |
  660. Alexandra

    you know...people need to decide...do you want to protest the abortion of an unwanted pregnancy or do you want to protest the amount of money spent for welfare...I mean seriously people...think on a global level. Not only would contraceptives decrease the birth rate but it would also decrease the spread of HIV and other sexual transmitted diseases. All of these factors would save millions in regards to health care and welfare. Think a bit broader then what a book tells you to do.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:02 pm |
  661. Nora Fischer

    To all those that are talking socialism here, I am from a socialist country and know what it feels like. Education and free birthcontrol have nothing to do with socialism but with commom sence. No one will be forced to take it but it will be available for those who need it and might not be able to afford it, free will, get it? It will just make it easier for young women to make good decisions. I can detect neither racism nor socialism in Pelosi's proposal. This planet is getting smaller...

    January 26, 2009 at 6:02 pm |
  662. Maria, Caifornia

    Geez, so this is what happens when politicians strip the language and just speak directly. They can't seen to win either way. As someone who grew up in a mostly Latino neighborhood and has seen impovershed families with 3, 4 even five kids I will tell you this is not something to so easily dismiss. It's all about responsibility, folks. Get a clue.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
  663. steve

    we can see that the democrates are going to put all of their wants on
    the stimulas wish list . proving they have no intenecenes of sloving this ecomonic nighmare.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
  664. Patti, Marietta, GA

    Not only does this make sense for unplanned pregnancy, it also helps in keeping the HIV virus (hopefully) from being spread. Obviously, abstinence does not work in the schools so I say YES, it makes sense.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
  665. Amy

    She has a point as far as the legislation is concerned. However, highlighting it and the way she put it leaves a bitter taste, because now the Republicans just got some so-called "evidence" that all Democrats are "socialist" and gives the impression of forced birth control. She should apologize...for making the Democrats look bad and giving the Republicans a soapbox reason to stop this bill.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:04 pm |
  666. Ghost

    If she wants to continue to add pork, she might as well add legalizing marriage for all. Once you're married, there is no need for birth control as physical contact is now out the window. That will definitely help control the population and will inturn reduce some of the cost on the shoulders of social service angencies.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:04 pm |
  667. Dot

    Well–eventually. Especially when one considers what it costs to raise a child and if that child is being raised with large outlays government subsistence, i.e. medicaid, food stamps, etc. But the greater good comes with preventing unwanted pregnancies comes about as often unplanned for and unwanted children are abused. But my question is will the birth control come with education on how to use it, why it should be used, and also how to prevent STDs? Handing out pills isn't good enough.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
  668. Kate

    I think what she is doing is admirable. She is stepping up for women everywhere...especially college-age women who are already struggling with the current financial crunch as it is. The reality is that these women are having to deal with the rising cost of birth control on top of all other expenses, sometimes foregoing important necessities such as food, rent, utilities, etc. All controversy aside, Nancy Pelosi is doing what is necessary to represent this group...and although it might not affect the economy to a great extent, it would take some of the personal and financial pressure off young women who are affected.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:06 pm |
  669. kendra hough

    americans are naive regaarding the oncoming problems of rampant population growth. ig growth is not controlled by people it will be by other means...like plague,widespread antibiotic resistant illnesses,lack of food,water and other essentials. I for one would like grandchildren of today to have a chance at tomorrow....birth control is only one aid to the problem of overpopulation.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:07 pm |
  670. kaz

    If you got rid of Pelosi and Reid there would be less bipartisanship.
    They try and ram everything down the Republicans throats. Naturally they push back harder then they normally would. if they had there (Republicans ) ideas heard.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:08 pm |
  671. Earl

    Drug company lobby folks hard at work on this one. Some folks about to get even richer. If they get the pill and still have a kid, no federal or state support in my opinion.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:08 pm |
  672. Rita Foster

    We need to look at the way poverty statistics are arrived at. Rather than looking at the size of a family – i.e. mom, dad, and five kids; or mom, no dad, five kids ; why not look at the number of wage-earning age adults in the family alone? Then it would be irrelevant as to how many kids mom and dad have; or mom has. Poverty should be based on what mom and dad; or mom alone earn s and nothing more. If mom and dad earn, say $40,000 a year, that defines their economic status regardless the number of offspring; and if mom alone earns that much, then it defines her income status, regardless of the number of offspring. Yes things can happen to change a family's economic status but shouldn't that be taken into consideration when determining the size of one's family?

    January 26, 2009 at 6:08 pm |
  673. David

    I find it amazing that the people who claim that the government should "stay out of people's lives" are often the same people who supported Bush in passing the Patriot Act, are the same people who are anti-choice when it comes to abortion, are the same people who are so adamant against gay marriage (and homosexuality in general). No one is forcing contraception onto the American people, but making it more generally available is nothing but a good idea.
    As an aside to HD from Phoenix... amazing that you would say "someone needs to put a muzzle on that woman." For some reason, I never hear that phrase in reference to a man. You may have valid frustrations, but using sexist rhetoric is not the most productive way to express them.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:09 pm |
  674. Tami

    What a joke! Birth control a part of the stimulus package??? If Obama wants to help the economy, he shouldnt have given all that money to the banks and companies who have not interest in helping those of us who need it. She must own stock in a birth control company! The fix it package is a joke any way!

    January 26, 2009 at 6:09 pm |
  675. Jan

    Birth Control pills, honestly Pelosi where is your senses?? I am so disgusted this would ever be a consideration in the stimulus package.

    The money is to be used to jump start economy and get people back working....... NO PORK SPENDING Pelosi and Congress!!!!!!!!!!

    Things are already wrose!

    January 26, 2009 at 6:09 pm |
  676. K. McBride, MD

    I think earmarking money for family planning, while maybe not exactly stimulative, makes good financial sense. I'm an OB/Gyn in a very economically depressed Detroit suburb, and I know firsthand the good birth control options for people with certain health problems can be expensive at the outset, so women go without, and "take their chances". Then these same women become pregnant, and taking care of their complicated pregnancies cost the taxpayer TENS of thousands of dollars. And that's with the hospitals and doctors' offices LOSING money on these patients. Makes the $100 per year it would have cost for decent, appropriate contraception seem like a pretty good deal.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:09 pm |
  677. Nancy

    It may not be what a lot of people want to admit but Pelosi is right in a way..people should stop having children who can't afford them then expect their state welfare to pay for them. I used to work as a manager in a grocery store and would see mothers come in with 3 or 4 children,pay for her food with food stamps then drive off in a BMW..whats wrong with this picture?

    January 26, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  678. Janet Gallagher

    Pelosi is right. Men can get their Viagra paid for, but women from all classes of our society get left pregnant with two choices, an abortion or children they cannot afford to raise alone either economically or emotionally. As a woman I cannot imagine what it must be like to be in this situation. It is shocking to me that Medicare and most insurance will cover Viagra, but not birth control. (Yes, most women on Medicare don't need it, but what Medicare so does, private insurance tend to do.) I adopted a girl, and although for medical reasons she cannot have children insurance will not cover the birth control pills her gynecologist wants her to have for hormone control. CRAZY!

    January 26, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  679. Rev. Joseph Corsbie

    Its time for America to stand up and just say NO!!! to the Fundamentalists and the Republicans who have been pushing a political agenda by using false doctrine to stop needed change .
    Condoms help stop the spread of STDs and help prevent unwanted pregnancy . PRO-CHOICE IS GOD's CHOICE !

    January 26, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  680. Andy Sullivan - St. Charles IL

    Nancy Pelosi is out to lunch. She is leading the pork-barrel way to thwart President Obama's economic stimulus plan – a member of his own party. Birth control has nothing to do with an economic stimulus plan and is a waste of money at this time. Birth control spending now gives us no bang for our buck in resurrecting the economy, though it may promote more "bang." of a different kind. Pelosi is certainly a leader in showing Republicans and others interested in opposing the stimulus plan how to weigh it down with nonsensical "pork" so that it's timing and focus are off target for us all.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  681. Phil from Myrtle Beach


    Biparitanship ended at 12:01am on January 21. If we are looking for answers to all of America's problems from inside the Beltway, this country is doomed. Let's all get ready for 12/21/12 – according to some, that's the supposed date the world will end...almost seems like a better option at this point.

    Myrtle Beach, SC

    January 26, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  682. Erin in Healdsburg CA

    In the long term I think she is right on. In the short term, probably not.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  683. Mavis

    Buying American made food and products will help the economy! Small organic food companies need your support.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  684. Pelosi says birth control will help the economy. Is she right?

    Yes! House Speaker Pelosi is a realist. Women know that a bunch
    of men in suits and ties don't have clue what it feels like to have an unwanted pregnancy. Are these guys that vote against birth control, (including abortion) going to support these children that will be born? NO, of course they won't! In this day and age, there is no reason why ANY woman should be pregnant unless she wants to be. Kudos to Mrs. Pelosi!

    January 26, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  685. Stephanie in Tampa

    If Ms. Pelosi would have been more straight to the people and said – we will fix the economy by beginning to stop rewarding the "wrong" behavior! If someone has a child they cannot support and need public assistance we the people will help, however anymore after that...no more assistance. Now if that means they need free birth control to manage their family planning, so be it but the rewards for bad decisioning has to stop! How many times are I am my three children buying discounted food and cutting coupons however 9 times out of 10 the person before me in line and after me in line are dividing up their WIC checks and swiping their monthly food stamp debit card brought to them by "we the people"! Believe me, there is more in their buggy than mine. So... if free birth control is what is needed to stop the pay outs we as tax payers are providing, so be it.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  686. C.S

    Jack, in intent there is bipartisanship but in practice I doubt there would be. Republicans would bury it in order to score a point to resurrect there buried influence in governance.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  687. John

    How is it that the general populus knows that this newest stimulus package is a joke but the Washington scene is tripping over each other to pass it? I suspect if will not be long after passage that we begin to find out that big amounts of this plan never get down to the worker bees but winds up in the fatcats pockets. I'll just bet that all the likely benefiting companies are just drooling over the big bang contracts that will be forthcoming. The eagerness to be 'quick' will undermine any serious bidding processes and the executives will be counting this money in their procket in short order.

    Does it take a rocket scientest to see that if the aid is forced in from the top only a minimal effect is seen at the bottom. I liked Manzullo's idea of a tax credit for all new autos purchased (hopefully American designed and built) The only way to get people buying again is to get money (or reduced debt) in the hands of the public and to reduce prices of goods and services rooted in the USA. This will happen soon as wages must come down to compete in the WORLD. Elsewise we will quickly be headed for a devalued dollar. Not the best solution.

    Write your senators and representative and tell them to get real.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  688. Sharon Zingery

    This is apparently a plan that assists families explore their options and make their own choices and that may assist families, who cannot support more children, avoid unwanted pregnancies. This is not about preventing the poor from having children. Our middle class is losing employment and health care and cannot afford more children at this time. Without access to education and choice on birth control, more will be unemployed and on welfare than we have now. This is not like China where the government does limit the number of children because of overcrowding ... this facilitates the freedom of choice.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  689. Mike out West

    Wow, now there is an open ended question.

    Isn't this like closing the barn doors after the horses get out? I mean, the Dem's are already in power, now fourty to sixty years ago it might have prevented some of the people/problems we have now.


    January 26, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  690. Bill

    Only Pelosi could come up with such a dumb statement.

    Ok, I admit, Harry Reid could have whispered it into her ear.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  691. Sherry Gardner

    How many people are on the welfare rolls right now in each State?There are poeple out there that live off welfare by producing more unwanted children that end up abused or dead. Get real America. Yes- give those pills out like they are candy so our $$ will quit supporting these lazy leeches of malfunction in our society and make everyone accountable!

    January 26, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  692. June Katherine

    As we listen to talk shows, radio, and news reporters, please respect and call him either Mr. President Obama or President Obama. He is our president ha ha get over it. We was hoping President Obama would have give Senator McCain the boot with Bush. Being a copassionate President Obama chose to keep him his staff; he should have let the door hit him where it hurts.

    P.S. Gene Missouri and Wolfe Bliss should give him the respect as President Obama and too many people are calling him Obama. Bush is not the president and stop calling him President Bush, but Wush!

    January 26, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  693. Carol

    As a Public Health Nurse in Georgia, I do agree that family planning
    services directly impact the economy... directly from my pocketbook!!
    Due to cuts in the state budget, many Georgia Public Health Nurses have been furloughed for one day a month ....or for me that amounts to approximately $3500 per year. The Georgia Family Planning budget was cut by $500,000 in 2008. Other programs like Breast Cancer/mammogram services, STD's, Child Health/Adult health and Immunizations have all been impacted. IF THE NEWS MEDIA WANTS TO GET THE REAL STORY about all these public health services... DON'T TALK TO POLITICIANS... talk to the people who provide the services and the clients who benefit from the programs. Thanks for listening...
    Peace, Carol

    January 26, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  694. AndyZ Lynn, MA

    Has anyone checked to see if Pelosi is an escapee from an asylum?

    January 26, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  695. Ron Powell

    NON-partisanship, Jack, the term should be non-partisanship. If we can continue to refer to any of the congressional interaction as Bi-partisan, then we will continue to see face-offs and stand-offs along party lines....To say nothing of the intra party infighiting , jockeying and manuevering that will continue to go on. As long as they believe that there is some political advantage to be gained by appearing to be more than a 'rubber stamp', these folks will coninue to behave as if the sun rises and falls on their ability to hold things up while they bicker and debate us all into the poor house........

    January 26, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  696. Margaret Finnigan

    If Nancy is trying to save the government money try this-
    Turn off the governments money spigot paying for Viagra ,

    January 26, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  697. rosemarie Cobb

    Educate, educate, educate and yes birth control with the use of condoms will help with expensive treatment after the fact, like STD's AIDS and unwanted births and abortions. People need to get out of the dark ages and realize we are not condoning pre marital sex but are certain that unless we get young people to get married at 12 or 13 as they did in the 1800 we are going to have sexually active people that need education on the emotional and physical consequences of sex before marriage.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  698. Jabrey Howell

    Nancy Palosi says that education, birth control and contraception needs to be part of the latest economic stimulus package that is working its' way through congress. In my opinion we are going to need all of population growth possible in the future in hopes of having more taxpayers to pay off the debt the legislators are creating for current and future taxpayers. So, it's really like killing two birds with one stone. Save money now by leaving out the sex ed and birth control and increase tax revenues in the future. Simple Math!

    January 26, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  699. Jerry

    Anybody who has sought employment and have gone through a physical or drugscreening, has already been part of a socialized system of health care. Because in the end, who do you think REALLY paid for the tests.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  700. Jabrey Howell, OK

    Nancy Palosi says that education, birth control and contraception needs to be part of the latest economic stimulus package that is working its’ way through congress. In my opinion we are going to need all of population growth possible in the future in hopes of having more taxpayers to pay off the debt the legislators are creating for current and future taxpayers. So, it’s really like killing two birds with one stone. Save money now by leaving out the sex ed and birth control and increase tax revenues in the future. Simple Math!

    January 26, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  701. Caroline

    Nancy, and to the general public, where is God in this picture? The whole world is in the state it is today because we have totally ignored and excluded Him.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  702. Mariaelena Raymond

    Let's see...forced birth control, abortion, circumcision of little girls, castration of little boys, vasectomies for men, hysterectomies for women, spay or neuter for children, dogs and cats. Who's going to be the genital police for the Congress? I see another Commission coming! Pelosi is a nut-case.


    January 26, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  703. Ann

    Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that America's greatest asset is it's people. He obviously doesn't really believe that if he's already trying to allocate money to prevent more Americans from being born. His real position is more along the lines of, "you are a valued American if you can manage to survive the womb". The fact that most abortions are performed on low-income minority women, and that this same group will also be the "beneficiary" (not counting all the pork for pharmaceuticals) of the birth control measure is blatant racism and classism and it's an embarassment to this country. It also assumes that this "class" of people will never benefit society and that if poor people have more babies, it will only cost the government more money later. Even if we assume that these children will not benefit society (which is a horrible assumption – this country was built on anyone's chance to succeed based on merit, not our parents ability to provide for us!!), I would much rather spend government dollars to provide for these valuable citizens than on many things on which Washington is spending millions.

    January 26, 2009 at 6:34 pm |