Treasury Sec. Janet Yellen Discusses Economic Impact of Overturning Roe

[Fantine]

I post this not because I don't believe that some laws should be enacted even if they hurt the economy.

The economy isn't a good reason to avoid doing the right thing (about climate, for example).

I post it because the party that applauds the law/ruling negatively impacting the economy should NOT try to blame President Biden for the negative impact. If they "own" the ruling, they "own" the negative impact.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen: Abortion improves women's outcomes (freep.com)

research performed over the years about the economic impact of access to abortion clearly shows that limiting reproductive rights increased women's odds of living in poverty or need for public assistance.

Not that that means that the party "owning" the negative economic impact necessarily has any attention of meeting the "need."

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Not that that means that the party "owning" the negative economic impact necessarily has any attention of meeting the "need."

The need of offering sacrifices to Moloch?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I imagine there would be an economic impact. Business owners need those women working rather than being mothers. Interesting to see the left defend big business and it's interests here.

 

[Fantine]

???

The need for higher numbers of impoverished women and children to receive public assistance.

I'd say that falls somewhere in between "mitzvah" and "sacred responsibility."

 

[civilwarbuff]

Other conservatives on the platform lay into Yellen for her comments. WMAL radio host Larry O’Connor tweeted, "Nothing better than a multi-millionaire old white woman lecturing a black man about how his mother was a loser because she let him be born."

"@SecYellen is a eugenicist just like Margaret Sanger," tweeted Media Research Center VP of Free Speech America and Business Dan Gainor.

Tim Scott delivers ‘stunning rebuke’ of Janet Yellen over Black abortion comments: ‘I am thankful to be here’

 

[Fantine]

I think that you are wrong.

She is not saying who should or should not be born. She is pointing out that there will be an economic impact that our country should be prepared for. For example, with subsidized daycare support, the new mother could complete her education or build a career.

 

[BobRyan]

I post this not because I don't believe that some laws should be enacted even if they hurt the economy.

The economy isn't a good reason to avoid doing the right thing (about climate, for example).

I post it because the party that applauds the law/ruling negatively impacting the economy should NOT try to blame President Biden for the negative impact. If they "own" the ruling, they "own" the negative impact.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen: Abortion improves women's outcomes (freep.com)

Not that that means that the party "owning" the negative economic impact necessarily has any attention of meeting the "need."

As we saw in the news feeds - the same party wanting to protect the life of the baby was also involved in social projects to help women with small children and aid in adoptions.

Killing babies is not the great economy booster some have imagined it to be.

One reason Germany invited the baby-prolific Muslim groups into its boarders was that its own population is in reproductive decline. Statistics show that the higher the average level of education is for women - the more population growth trends to zero. That leaves them in a world of hurt with less people working to support retirees.

 

[Fantine]

You are proposing women are too educated?

 

[NxNW]

Republicans were telling us in 2020 that people should be willing to die to support the economy, which makes one wonder if they are truly interested in preserving life.

Texas Lt. Governor: Old People Should Volunteer to Die to Save the Economy

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/politics/trey-hollingsworth-coronavirus/index.html

 

[Pommer]

As we saw in the news feeds - the same party wanting to protect the life of the baby was also involved in social projects to help women with small children and aid in adoptions.

But not government involvement?
Just “social projects” funded through free-will offerings?

Women are having a right taken from them with no guarantee of “reparations” in the form of early childhood development programs or any notion that social welfare programs from the governments will increase.

Just a “you can’t do that anymore” and a sneer.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Republicans were telling us in 2020 that people should be willing to die to support the economy, which makes one wonder if they are truly interested in preserving life.

Texas Lt. Governor: Old People Should Volunteer to Die to Save the Economy

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/politics/trey-hollingsworth-coronavirus/index.html

neither one of your links work......

 

[Ana the Ist]

I post this not because I don't believe that some laws should be enacted even if they hurt the economy.

The economy isn't a good reason to avoid doing the right thing (about climate, for example).

I post it because the party that applauds the law/ruling negatively impacting the economy should NOT try to blame President Biden for the negative impact. If they "own" the ruling, they "own" the negative impact.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen: Abortion improves women's outcomes (freep.com)

Not that that means that the party "owning" the negative economic impact necessarily has any attention of meeting the "need."

I wish it were that simple....if you go back decades earlier, nobody got divorced....well almost nobody.

It's hard to discuss, but it seems likely that there have been consequences to female empowerment and work rights that no one really considered.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But not government involvement?
Just “social projects” funded through free-will offerings?

The Christian Libertarian ethos.

Women are having a right taken from them

Well, I don't know if it's a right.

with no guarantee of “reparations”

For what? A choice they made?

I'm pretty sure women have sexual agency.

in the form of early childhood development programs or any notion that social welfare programs from the governments will increase.

Yeah....I guess they should take the choice to have children more seriously now.

Just a “you can’t do that anymore” and a sneer.

I promise not to sneer.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are proposing women are too educated?

Well there's certain economic realities to certain choices.

The short version is that it's hard to be both a mother and career woman. While you might imagine that the husband would likewise slide into the child raising housekeeping role while mom climbs the career ladder, it doesn't really happen. Women tend to not marry "down"....because reasons. As education and income rises for women...so do divorce rates and lack of children. Abortion and it's access certainly isn't responsible for all this, but it's a factor.