Jinx!

I don't have any substantive objections to that sort of funding, but its relationship to stimulating the economy is a bit tenuous, isn't it? It's not pork in the sense that it is legitimate spending, but in the connotation pork can have as "unrelated to the purpose of the bill" it would seem to qualify...

Dude. This is not stimulus. I'm as progressive as the next guy, but 200M could be better spent as tax cuts or some kind of job creation measure however makework it may seem.

I agree with the R's on this. Sorry.

k1
ryanculver.blogspot.com

I think it would be to the benefit of the Democrats to have this debate outside the context of an economic stimulus bill. It's too easy to mock this on the grounds of irrelevancy.

I'll note that Ezra never even addresses that issue: what does it have to do with economic stimulus?

Sorry, not Ezra, but Harold

Agreed, this tiny portion of the Stimulus package (.025%) is way too easy to demagogue. Better for Obama to pull it and end the discussion, and bring the new rules up in the upcoming budget or a standalone bill.

BTW, much worse is the Republicans coming out in opposition to the bill before Obama even arrives on Capital Hill. I think this will make them look more obstructionist and less bipartisan than anything. Now, Obama must hit the airwaves to make this point clear. The American people need to learn how this is going down, and he has by far the most credibility to let people know.

These are good comments. You guys/women are right that this is not obviously and only a provision for economic stimulus. If the Dems push hard for this in anoher forum, I suppose I would be fine with not doing it here.

But one caveat: A heck of a lot of this $825 billion covers important substantive items that are also useful to stimulate the economy. Your comments bring a certain charmingly innocent connotation that stimulus expenditures should jolt the economy without somehow serving another important, maybe even controversial, goal. HIT, energy, and Medicaid subsidies are all big-dollar stimulus items that fit a broader agenda. That is how it should be.

It’s completely unnecessary to include this controversial provision in the stimulus bill, especially because it is deeply offensive to a big percentage of the 65 million American Catholics. At the very least, the contraception issue needs to be debated separately as some here have suggested, and the party needs to do a lot of soul searching about whether it wants to offend such a large constituency. Obama is wise to want to pull contraception out of the stimulus. He’s thinking about all his constituents, even his Catholic ones. Obama may be relatively inexperienced, but he knows far more about politics and ethics too than the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.

Anonymous, and those Catholics just had the option of voting on this. They lost. We won.

I'm sick of fighting for victory and then treated like a red headed stepchild after my vote helped get people elected.

Which is worse for Democracy, people who either failed to prioritizing an issue our outright losing on that issue not getting what they want, or people who voted for the majority position not getting what they want?

it is deeply offensive to a big percentage of the 65 million American Catholics

Uh, no. Polls consistently show over 90% of American Catholics reporting that they use (and support the use) of artificial contraception. So, it might be 'deeply offensive' to six million Catholics and Jim Bob Duggar. Big fucking deal.

Obama is wise to want to pull contraception out of the stimulus.

Of course, pulling out is no contraceptive. Bwahaha. Stupid Anonytroll.

Thanks for the link, Harold.

Of course BC is a stimulus. Let me explain: The stimulus is all about spending money to create jobs. From the perspective of the stimulus, it doesn't matter what we hire people to do as long as we get (or keep) them working ASAP.

Everyone recognizes that hiring construction workers to build a road is a stimulus. Hiring nurses to provide family planning services achieves the same purpose.

The birth control expansion is part of a $57 billion plan to boost federal contributions to Medicaid, joint state-federal insurance for the poor.

There are two ways to spend more money on Medicaid: i) Increase the amount of money the feds pay to the states; ii) Add new programs and attach enough federal funds to pay for them.

The birth control option is an example of option (ii). Ideally we're going to spend our stimulus money on something that will generate long-term benefits for the economy. It turns out that expanding family planning access to low-income women will prevent a lot of unplanned pregnancies, which in turn, will save the states and the feds a buttload of money for years to come. So, if you're expanding Medicaid, this is one smart way to do it.

Most of the commenters here are honest enough to acknowledge that BC really should not be in a 'stimulus package'. It's simply payoff pork to the Democrats' supporters.

The truth that many libs cannot bear to say is that businesses creat jobs and, in particular, small businesses. This hated group is the golden goose.

Create businesses....create jobs.

Lindsay's point about the nurses is good. And even if we're just buying condoms, money to the Trojan man is no less a stimulus than money to any other guy.

Shorter Viajero: where is my increased slumlord payment?

Beyerstein! Thank you!
The need for birth control doesn't change when the economy goes sour, however, one's ability to afford it does. Extra funds for contraception saves money in the long run insofar as contraception is less expensive than neo-natal care, childbirth, or abortion. And it is part of the overall funding of Medicaid to the states, who are out of funds and cutting back services (and jobs) to cope.

So which thread is correct -- this one that says there's $200 million in the stimulus bill for family planning, or Nicholas's previous post that said there isn't any money in the stimulus bill for family planning, just a waiver for spending other money?

heh.

So every poor dick living on the financial edge,doing jobs hates ,who's girlfriend left him and took his kid to a foreign country.....PLEASE STAND UP!

Anonymous -I'm not sure why Obama & the Democrats should pay all that much attention to a small percentage of deeply, radically conservative Catholics - wildly at odds not just with most other Americans, but with the vast majority of American Catholics, especially given that (I suspect) most of them do and will steadfastly oppose him, his party, and everything the two stand for, and that of the 127 of 'em who voted Democratic in '08, one only did so because he has poor vision and belongs to a schismatic group that opposes the use of artificial lenses as an affront to God (and also, we all know where toying around with glass lenses leads one . . . I mean, being President of all the Americans is a noble goal, but there are all sorts of wildly out-there little groups with odd bugs up their rears, and if any actual merit's lacking . . . well, outright mockery would be really inappropriate (for major elected officials), and it's always nice to try to be inclusive, but when important grown-up things are at stake, I think patient ignoring is perfectly fine.

But, as I meant to say before I got carried away with the sound of my own typing, given that the small hardcore conservative Catholic minority opposes Obama and the Democratic Party. first and foremost on the basis of one particular issue, they might want to consider this: while they may believe that funding for family planning is unspeakably horrible for reasons I won't go into (since they make my jaw muscles go into painful spasms), the result of not doing so will mean more unwanted pregnancies, which will mean more abortions.

Now, this is distressing for me because I think that a) women are human beings who should have the option to choose when (and if) they have kids, and b) born children are also human beings, who as much as possible should have decent lives, and c) the GOP's hateful little hissy fit may mean that more women will have expensive & unpleasant medical procedures (nobody has an abortion for fun, y'know), or give birth to kids they didn't want and maybe can't afford (many of them will already have families they're struggling to care for). But for them, first and foremost it's distressing because it's killing baybees!111!!. So they may want to ask themselves, as they simmer oh-so-delightfully in their outraged offensiveness, whether it's a good enough reason to cause, by their beliefs, more baybees to be killed?

Everyone's still seated, Jimjero.

Now, go and shout at some shadows, you sad, angry old stalker.