Posted on 11/15/2014 1:17:38 PM PST by Sons of Union Vets
NEW YORK – The Obamacare architect at the center of controversy for his frank admissions that passing the president’s signature legislation required lying to the American people published a paper during the Clinton administration observing that legalizing abortion saved the government $14 billion in assistance to economically disadvantaged mothers, including African Americans, and lowered crime.
MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber argued in his paper that without the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, “marginal children” would have been born to many poor mothers. He said statistics show these children would have been 70 percent more likely to live in a single-parent family, 40 percent more likely to live in poverty, 50 percent more likely to receive welfare and 35 percent more likely to die as an infant.
Economist Steven D. Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubner in their bestselling 2005 book, “Freakonomics,” relied on Gruber’s work to argue that legalizing abortion was responsible for an approximately 50 percent reduction of crime in major urban centers in the early 1990s
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/obamacare-guru-boasted-abortion-lowered-crime/#AL5DAQLIWdZGtTR4.99
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Oh, Gruber, your ignorant little Clymer.
“We killed those babies, so we didn’t have to pay their mommas. And later we avoided having to ARREST and IMPRISON them..”
Putting morality aside for just a moment, can anyone argue successfully that your interpretation isn't true?
Well, let's just round up poor people and euthanize them!
I've been saying for years that I don't foresee a Holocaust in America. But if it comes, it will be wildly popular.
Bump
How many would have to be murdered to pay off 18 trillion
Are you able to answer my question?
It’s OK if you can’t.
->> Putting morality aside for just a moment, can anyone argue successfully that your interpretation isn’t true?
No, I don’t think that way. Either you believe we are all from God’s image or you don’t. The people advocated and fought to see these polices in main street America; are exactly like some are saying here, Nazis.
Next on their minds, Christians, yes, because we see it now.
But not for the thirty million Democrats flushed down the toilet since Roe V. Wade in 1973, the Democrat party wouldn’t need thirty million illegal aliens to replace them.
How right you are!
Woah, what a nasty post - and perversely dishonest, too. How would YOU know what "a lot of FReepers secretly believe"? It's not their beliefs - its YOUR personal stinking slander fantasy. Crawl back to DU, scuzball.
Another goody from Professor Goober....
I’ve always said it’s a testimonial to the character of conservatives that we fight to protect the lives of future Democrat voters.
Check post 22. That is “the same twisted logic” I described. People don’t know basic free-market economics and fall prey to tyrannical ideas.
Post 22 seems self-evident to me - it's a direct interpretation of the article.
Gruber-gate continues as another video emerges.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-and-friends/ _______________________________________________________
Obamacare covers abortion in terms of certain forms of chemical contraception that are also abortifacients. This was what the Hobby Lobby uproar was all about. Don't you love being portrayed as a "racist" for refusing to go along with murdering preborn African American - or any other babies regardless of their race, gender or ethnicity???
We need your help to keep the lights on.
FR is funded solely by contributions made by
liberty loving people who enjoy and use it.
Every donation counts no matter how big or small.
If you can donate $5, $10, $20, $100 or more,
it would be greatly appreciated.
I appreciate your candor.
However, being able to consider the question theoretically doesn’t make someone a Nazi.
People consider all sorts of questions theoretically everyday, and although you may deny it, I’m sure you do to.
I meant to ping you to post #37.
->>However, being able to consider the question theoretically doesn’t make someone a Nazi.
Oh, I agree. I was not saying that to you. I was referring to eliminate a group of people reminds me of how the Nazis just thought it was okay to destroy a specific group. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
I’ve been thinking.
How does my question, back up in post 22, which was this:
==
“We killed those babies, so we didn’t have to pay their mommas. And later we avoided having to ARREST and IMPRISON them..”
Putting morality aside for just a moment, can anyone argue successfully that your interpretation isn’t true?
==
How does my question differ from this theoretical question:
“if all those babies hadn’t been aborted, there may have been an Albert Einstein born”
or this one:
“If all those babies hadn’t been aborted, the Democrats would not have lost the election, they aborted all their voters”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.