FOX Asks: If Government Won't Pay For Abortions, Won't We Have More 'Low-income Babies?'

[kpete]

What's Going on Here?
David Kurtz | December 7, 2009, 2:11PM

An odd exchange on Fox News a short time ago. I know. That never happens, right? But this one has me really confused. Genuinely.

The host was Alisyn Camerota, and she was doing a panel on health care reform where Bob Beckel was playing the liberal going up against Kate Obenshain of the conservative Young America's Foundation.

The discussion turned to abortion restrictions in the health care reform bill, and of course Obenshain is opposed to any federal funds going to abortions, even indirectly via insurance policies subsidized by federal dollars.

At which point Camerota asks her, "If there is no federal money used to subsidize abortions for low-income women, doesn't that mean there will be more low-income babies, and do any of these amendments talk about the health care for them then?"

more:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/fox-news-anchor-if-government-wont-pay-for-abortions-wont-we-have-more-low-income-babies.php
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/whats_going_on_here.php#more?ref=fpblg

[Better Today]

1. If that's what it takes for the RWers to get on board... so be it.

[cutlassmama]

4. Took them long enough to figure it out too!

[JuniperLea]

2. Yes! And if they have health care, they can get birth control pills too!

Which are far cheaper than abortions.

I'm shocked and delighted to see good questions being asked on Faux Gnus!

[cliffordu]

3. When will the takeover be complete so we won't have to put up with them???

Render all of them into biofuel, or something....

[ItNerd4life]

5. Logic! Such a strange concept. Glad Alisyn asked the question

it was a great way to phrase it.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. YES! YES! More low-income babies..and they will outnumber you...and there will be a

revolution...and all the rich people will be thrown out of their mansions and the poor people will take over.

Yeah..THAT'S the ticket....!!!

[RB TexLa]

7. You can't be against government spending and justify not paying for abortions, to not is just

wasteful.

If the child is born think how much money is wasted in health care over it's life.

[leftstreet]

8. LOL This is just rich with Class confusiony-ness

:rofl:

[MiniMe]

9. Well damn, put those babies to work so they can earn their keep

How can babies be low-income? They can be born to low income mothers, but last time I checked there are child labor laws that would make it very difficult for a baby to have an income.

[CTyankee]

25. BUT, when they get older they don't aspire to college so they can clean my toilets

and do my landscaping at very low cost, so I'm happy.

We do need to have a working class you know...to work on our estates...

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. Aren't all babies born without an income????

What she really needs to worry about is the number of anti-abortion families in the USA..ie: Catholic and Latino.
Sorry to break it to you, Alyisyn ..You are a minority on so many levels.

[paulsby]

11. actually, there was a study a little while back

that was VERY controversial (needless to say) but actually claimed that the increased abortions since roe v. wade actually had a "positive" effect on criminal behavior, welfare recipients, etc.

[Quantess]

14. Interesting.

But, how is "positive" to be interpreted? An increase or a decrease on criminal behavior, welfare, etc.?

[paulsby]

20. i'm not sure of the methodology used

but the study claimed that if less abortions had taken place, we would have more individuals who were a greater cost to society on average, either through welfare, etc. or crime, etc. i could probably find it in google.

[Quantess]

22. Thanks, I just wanted clarification whether there was more or less projected crime.

The findings do seem very plausible.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

32. It's in the book FREAKONOMICS.

They studied the crime rates starting 18 years after abortion was legalized in California and New YOrk. The crime rates decreased in California and NY sooner than they did in the rest of the country, because California and NY legalized abortion a few years before Roe v. Wade.

[MineralMan]

12. Yup. If you want to get the wingers on the pro-choice side,

just remind them that banning government payment for abortions leads to more poor (wingers read "brown") babies being born into the "welfare society."

The "Oh, Noes!" will begin to sound.

[notadmblnd]

13. the nutbags are only concerned with life up until the point it is born

after that their attitude is fuck em.

[gratuitous]

15. Solution: More wars

Ship 'em off to Iran, Korea, a few places in Africa, Pakistan. Where else? Venezuela, I suppose. And Canada's been lookin' kinda cross-eyed at us lately Maybe it's time they were taught a little lesson benevolent American occupation.

[Shandris]

16. I'd be careful about using that argument...

...as I've heard their answer to it. 'Well perhaps we can subsidize the poor in exchange for 4 years of service at 18 for the child we took care of'.

Thats even scarier than fighting to keep proper abortion funding. :scared:

[harun]

28. Did they really say that?

[DireStrike]

31. wowie.

One-track mind with these guys. Give them half a chance and its on with the slavery.

[JonQ]

17. I've always thought it would be a net gain

for the country to pay for birth control/abortions for anyone no questions asked.

Just the cost of one fewer child born to a parent who doesn't want it (and the likelhood they will end up in jail, on welfare or just underperforming) will make up for quite a few free condoms.

[kestrel91316]

18. To answer your question, YES, we will. Poor people will work for

less pay and in worse conditions, out of desperation. And they have a higher rate of inarceration, which of course fuels the prison-industrial complex at the expense of the middle class, making them poor in the process.

So, you see, it works out very well for the "haves".

[and-justice-for-all]

19. Well no shit...

not to mention the number of deaths of women if abortion was to become illegal.

[Marr]

21. Odd, isn't it? If the "baby" is in the womb of a black woman or a poor woman...

abortion becomes more acceptable.

[unabelladonna]

23. once born

the nutcases don't give a damn, their only concern is for the fetus.

[JI7]

24. it's all about being for life until you have to pay for it

[LeftyMom]

26. I wasn't aware that babies HAD income. I should have made LK get a job as soon as he stood up. nt

[NMMNG]

27. I saw something like that on another board

Someone asking re: a child born with disabilities, "who is paying for her care, the mother or the taxpayers?". The RW is amazingly schizophrenic. They scream about abortion and preach the "Pro-life" meme, yet whine incessantly if their taxes are raised a penny to sustain that life (health care, shelter, food, etc). "Pro-life" means more than making sure a fertilized egg cell becomes a born infant, you know.

[Whisp]

29. Low income babies = babies not being paid enough

fuck capitalism!!
those poor things barely out of the womb and are make to work!

[Nikki Stone1]

30. Confusing a woman's choice and mass eugenics is a RW anti-choice tactic.

Shame on you for posting it, kpete. Thought you were better than that.

[Kitty Herder]

33. Agreed.