https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/janet-yellens-grotesque-rationalization-of-abortion/
The Treasury secretary’s comments to the Senate demonstrate progressives’ failure to understand that human beings are assets, not liabilities.
This is paywalled, so here's another story:
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Tuesday warned of the potentially damaging effects that curtailing abortion access could have on the country’s economy, as tensions mount nationwide over a recently leaked draft Supreme Court opinion repealing Roe v. Wade.
“I believe that eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades,” Yellen said in testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
Yellen credited the landmark 1973 decision and consequential increased access to reproductive health care and abortion as instrumental to increased labor force participation nationwide over the years.
“It enabled many women to finish school that increased their earning potential. It allowed women to plan and balance their families and careers,” she argued. “And research also shows that it had a favorable impact on the well-being and earnings of children.”
“There are many research studies that have been done over the years looking at the economic impacts of access or lack thereof to abortion, and it makes clear that denying women access to abortion increases their odds of living in poverty or need for public assistance,” she continued.
Her comments come days after White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein also argued that the potential rollback of Roe would deal a blow to the economy, particularly for people in Republican-led states that are expected to take swift action to limit abortion in the event Roe is overturned.
Biden to speak with infant formula manufacturers amid shortageSiemens leaving Russia over Ukraine invasion
“Financially, it’s like losing a job. It’s like being evicted, it’s like losing health insurance, it’s like going to the hospital in terms of its impact on their finances,” Bernstein said on CNN last week, while adding the possible repeal would likely hurt lower income people the hardest.
“If you are a wealthy person in a place without access, you can probably get yourself to a place where you can access an abortion,” he said. “All of these costs will fall most severely on those who are unable to access abortion should Roe come down.”
Economists have also warned of the effects limiting abortion access would have on poor working women, as expected state measures to significantly limit or ban abortion would make it tougher for those with fewer resources to travel farther for access
metmike: I'm pro life and biased.
Why don't we really stimulate the economy and legalize euthanasia. The real drag on the economy are the unproductive, sick elderly that gobbled up almost 1 trillion dollars of government money last year.
Or we could just be like China was and limit families to only 1 child and give the rest of the unwanted children up for adoption OR ABORT THEM..........speaking of which
Next page, please.
https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/reasons-for-adoption-instead-of-abortion
If you’re debating whether abortion or adoption is right for your unplanned pregnancy, you can get free support now by calling 1-800-ADOPTION.
metmike: While adoption is not for everyone, based on the debate and absence of it being mentioned, you would think that it's not for ANYONE.
I have a sister that adopted under much different circumstances
Previous discussions on this:
the dems may have blown their chance - pro choice
18 responses |
Started by bear - May 6, 2022, 6 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84128/
Alito's draft to overturn Roe v. Wade
28 responses |
Started by metmike - May 2, 2022, 10:52 p.m.
I watched the video. The congressman that asked her read from notes. That's expected. ALthough why the Treasury secretary would be involved in an abortion discussion stretches credibility.
But what really caught my attention was that it's quite obvious Yellen was reading from notes for much of her response. She kept looking down. I'm assuming she's not shy.
Could this be scripted?
Yes, that one really damaged her credibility for me too, Tim. At least to view her as a neutral apolitical source.
She must feel pretty strongly about it to risk damaging her credibility in the eyes of everybody that disagrees with her and even some who agree with her and were pleasantly shocked to find this person trying to exert an influence outside of her usual realm.
For the rest of her life, she’ll be thought of as the pro abortion treasury secretary.
i understand what her points are totally……disagree very much that human beings are valued as things based on whether they cost the economy or contribute to the economy.
Thats the exact same type of mentality that justified slavery!
But she said it and has to own it now As part of her legacy.
surprised? Really: surprised by another crazy dem {wit} who cannot venture an inch from the party line. Surprised? How about Schumer and company instilling near riots right outside Supreme Court Justice homes, not to mention his incitement and down right threats to the judges. Where is the outrage, all the talk of insurrection, this seems to be insurrection.
mcfarm,
The Insurrection on January 6th and the reaction of the dems here are completely independent situations/events.
It would be best for your party to not even try to bring up the attempted false equivalency of the Insurrection compared to this or compared to the Summer 2020 riots.
When somebody does this, it hurts their case.
Focus on the facts related to THIS situation and make the points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Yes, it is curious that the SecTres would be involved in a political discussion, particularly abortion..
BUT...
My main point. Yellen appeared to be reading much of her response from a script, indicating that this entire exchange was preplanned and scripted.
Watch Yellen in this video.
Tom Elliott on Twitter: "Yellen: Reducing abortions "would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades" https://t.co/OLfzZvbM2T" / Twitter
terrible analogy imho to compare Floyd mess to representstives of the people trying to pressure the supremes with violence if they dare behave in any way other than the left's
i don’t watch her normal presentations And have nothing to compare it too.being scripted is pretty typical for many leaders like Biden.
trump even used a teleprompter for his better speeches….written by somebody else.
maybe she just wanted to get it right and there was nothing nefarious. Using a script can mean more than nefarious.
mcfarm,
your point is exactly what I was saying.
don’t compare unrelated events/situations to each other.
when they are independent of each other, we should treat them that way Based on each set of circumstances.
maybe the reactions are similar by the same group to something similar which can be discussed But the insurrection and abortion are like apples and watermelons.
Scholarly studies show that black women are far likelier to terminate their pregnancies than whites.
THE EFFECTS OF ABORTION
ON THE BLACK COMMUNITY
The Abortion ConsumerDis-proportionally, the leading consumer of the abortionists’ services is the African-Americanfemale. According to the 2011 Abortion Surveillance Report issued by the Center for DiseaseControl, black women make up 14 percent of the childbearing population, yet obtained 36.2percent of reported abortions. Black women have the highest abortion ratio in the country, with474 abortions per 1,000 live births. Percentages at these levels illustrate that more than 19 millionblack babies have been aborted since 1973.ivAccording to the Departments of Public Health of every state that reports abortion by ethnicity;black women disproportionately lead in the numbers. For example, in Mississippi, 79 percent ofabortions are obtained by black women; in Washington, D.C., more than 60 percent; in Georgia,59.4 percent; in Alabama, 58.4 percent. In state after state, similar numbers are found, with blackwomen aborting at two, three or more times their presence in the population. At every incomelevel, black women have higher abortion rates than Whites or Hispanics, except for women below
the poverty line, where Hispanic women have slightly higher rates than black women.v
The prevalence of abortion facilitieswithin minority communities serves as a
major contributor to the rate in whichblack women obtain abortions.
Accordingly, black women are 5 timesmore likely to have an abortion than whitewomen. A recent study released byProtection.
metmike: Ironically, they claim to have a position that is for women's rights but in reality, they are FOR taking the right to live away from millions of minority babies.
In addition, we can assume that some 20% of those killed babies would have been GAY. So they are discriminating against blacks and gays.
If we took a survey and asked 1,000 people, who's mother was going to get an abortion but changed her mind and didn't kill them, are they glad to have their life or would they prefer to have been killed i the womb.......... what do you think the answer would be?
Also, children that are adopted. Would they rather have been aborted instead of given up for adoption?
When pro abortion activists speak of a woman’s right to choose, they aren’t referring to a woman choosing whether she lives or the baby lives.
The choice is between whether the baby gets to live or she gets to have more convenience in her life.
You would think that the humanity in people would cherish human life enough to see how one sided and easy the ethical choice is.
i don’t watch her normal presentations And have nothing to compare it too.being scripted is pretty typical for many leaders like Biden.
But here's the thing. I f she had a scripted answer to the question, that means the question was known by her before the meeting ever took place. Why would the SecTres and congress people be colaborating on a scripted exchange?
Thanks Tim!
In today's age, scripts are used all the time, especially by people like this. It doesn't mean there's a corroboration with somebody else.
For example, this presentation by her was also scripted, including the introduction to her talk. Then she sits down for questions and her answers are clearly not scripted. Since this is her field of expertise, she answers from her head.
Transcript: US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on the next steps for Russia sanctions and ‘friend-shoring’ supply chains
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
However, I actually looked at the video of the event where she shocked everybody by discussing this topic to see the exchange you pointed out.
I completely agree with you now.
There were numerous questions, some not scripted, some scripted. Her answers were never scripted because they were usually related to her field of expertise..........except for this one.
She read from notes, to answer much of this question which tells us that she came prepared to answer that question which she knew was coming from, the democrat, Bob Menendez for NJ.
Shortly after that, democrat, Sen Scott did a follow up question on the previous response about this that was obviously NOT scripted and her answer was clearly NOT scripted.
We might think..........."well, she's not an expert on abortion, so she needed the notes"
But this is what supports your assertion. That she discussed this topic was sort of a shocker to most people and she only discussed it because one of the democrats asked the question and she obviously anticipated the shocker question with a well prepared, written/scripted answer in front of her.
Despite that, I think that it tells us, at least as much about the process that we don't realize goes on before hand rather than something necessarily nefarious.
I was on TV for 11 years and see the inside.
As an example. I was contacted by a group/show "Ladies with an another view" to talk about global warming just over a year ago.
https://m.facebook.com/LadiesOfAnotherView/posts/
Them, not being experts wanted to ask me the right questions to get to the most important points. So before the show, they asked me to send them some good questions that I wanted them to ask.
There is nothing nefarious about that, even though it meant that some of their questions, were in fact scripted and I was the one that picked them!
It helps the show to focus on what's important(based on the person being interviewed) and it helps both sides to be prepared and not stumble around with.........let's say a really dumb surprise question and even more importantly, the person being interviewed looking dumber because if they can't answer the dumb question.
I'm betting anything this goes on between Congress and the Secretary.
She probably knows beforehand who is asking the questions and they have already provided her with those questions, so that she can be prepared for them and not look really dumb.
I will guess that in this case, she didn't tell them what the good questions would be, but instead, they tipped her off(for this particular setting) on what the questions would be.
So there's a scripted element to this that most people are not aware of.
I think that she might have been ticked off(behind the scenes) if Menendez had hit her out of left field with a question like this but she clearly came prepared to answer it and you recognized the scripted element to it.
Another example I just thought of.
I've been on Relevant Radio to be interviewed about hurricanes and climate change over a dozen times the last decade.
They will contact me by email to see if I'm available to discuss a hurricane thats threatening some place in the US or to talk about climate change.
I always jump at the chance. The interview is within the next 3 hours or so. If its a hurricane, I spend those 3 hours becoming an expert on that hurricane.
If its something else, I become an expert on specific details related to that topic but am already an atmospheric climate scientist and can handle questions by the wonderful host, Drew Marianni that have anything to do with that field and basic science.
In those 3 hours, while I'm tuning myself into the latest details about the topic, I will email what I'm finding to their producer Thomas, who will rely them to Drew.
This is not really a script but its just sharing relevant information from the expert to help him understand whats going on and let him ask whatever questions that he wants. If it's related to the info that I sent him then obviously, I'm prepared.
But one of the toughest jobs, when you are interviewing people from different fields like Drew does is knowing enough to be able to ask the best questions to maximize the learning for his listeners.
He can't possibly be an expert on everything, even though he's extraordinarily bright. Preparing for the interview can take time.
I have never suggested that he stick to a script or limit his questions and the NON scripted format has been obvious a few times. Sometimes they will open the phones to ask me questions. That obviously is never scripted.
Drew will often end the conversation with the craziest questions, I guess to try to stump me. Like, are all the reported mass bird deaths a sign of the magnetic poles flipping. That really was one of them.
Holy Cow! I have a basic understanding of the magnetic field and how it interacts with many elements in our world but would have needed at least an hour to research the incidents to give an intelligent answer..........but here I am, the expert on the spot being asked a science question related to my field of expertise.
A good question too that others reading the stories were like asking themselves.......which he asks this sort of thing.
So I try to give a basic explanation of how the magnetic field works, including that we are due for a flipping of the north and south poles but due, could mean in the next 100,000 years and that the magnetic field is used by migrating creatures like birds, butterflys and other creatures that can see it and use it to navigate.
How that relates to his current event of reports on the increase in mass bird deaths? Danged if I know.
OK, you see this as plausable and above board.
Hey Janet, I'm goin to ask a question about how abortion will affect the economy. Here's a script that will tell you how to answer. We're needing to make the case that resrticting abortions will negatively impact the economy.
OK, thanks Tim, I'm glad that you put it that way so I can better explain it.
There are always preparations behind the scenes at events like this to make sure things go smoothly.
I gave you some specifics that relate exactly to this in my field of expertise, being interviewed on tv and radio.
1. It's totally acceptable for the interviewee to help the interviewers with good questions before hand so the listeners get a complete and comprehensive discussion. The interviewers will never know as much as the interviewee, so this is a good thing. It's not TELLING them or limiting them on what to ask but helping them to conduct a better interview. I really doubt that's what happened here as Congress is extremely informed and is very capable of asking all the thought provoking questions needed, especially since there are a massive number in Congress.
2. It's totally acceptable and is much appreciated by the interviewee( I know from being that person so many times) if the interviewers give them a heads up on specific questions, so they can be prepared to answer to the best of their ability. This happens all the time in every realm of the communications business. It's much better for the viewer/listener too because they can get a much more complete answer to the question, is the interviewee is allowed to think about it and prepare vs being on the spot. This seems to be a clear case, to me of this interviewer, told her this was going to be one of this questions. Especially important here because it was an unexpected question. Later on, when she elabored, it was clear that she didn't need the script but obviously, there were points she wanted to make and not forget, when Menendez tips her off that he was going to ask this.
3. Your contention is that Menendez wrote the question and wrote the answer for her to respond. The republicans and those working behind the scenes, that completely understand this process, would have clearly known this and it would be an absolute ethical violation, which those republicans would have immediately all squawked about to anybody wanting to listen.
#1and #2 are totally acceptable in the business but viewers/listeners don't know about it.
But you think that it's #3 based on believing the worst and something that would have done much more damage to her and the democrat asking the question's credibility and not fully understanding acceptable #1 and #2.
Tim, keep in mind that I strongly oppose abortion and her opinion but am defending the dynamics of how this was handled.
There's no doubt, this happens all the time........known questions to the interviewee. Probably many thousands of times each year in all sort of venues.
To the viewer, it appears to be a question that just came up in the interview because thats all they get to see.
I have no doubt that this sort of thing dominates talk shows, politics and other fields.
Again, I am in the broadcasting business and just gave you some personal examples of how it works.
Nobody would EVER tell me what my answers should be.
On the climate change tv interview, they dang well knew my position and thats why I was on. Relevent Radio has me on for similar reasons and also because I'm a Catholic atmospheric scientist that thinks we have a fake climate crisis.............so they already know where I'm going to be coming from but never sure what my specific answers will be.
Most of the time, we don't talk climate on the radio show (just hurricanes/weather and science) and never talk religion.
Same with Menendez and Yellen. They knew each others position and communicated what his question would be and she answered, not what he told her to say but what SHE BELIEVES.
OK. You see nothing wrong with the SecTes parrotting the party narative/agenda in a prescripted fashion.
Duly noted.
Tim,
You just imposed a position on me that I don't have.
All I did was explain how the dynamics work between players in television and radio where there's an interviewee and interviewers........completely independent of my scientific position that disagrees with Yellen and the democratic party on this issue.
If the question was on climate change or on how to bake cakes, using only vegan ingredients, I would have told you the exact same thing.
Whether those topics are in the realm of expertise of Yellen are a completely different issue and I thought that my posts above, made is crystal clear how absurd that it was for an expert on economics to be using her time to impose HER opinion on something based on ethics.
Which I will repeat again, so please don't imply that I thought this was ok.
We don't count human beings, like China did, when they limited each family to 1 child, like they are economic units and not human beings. Or............at least we shouldn't.
I actually know a couple that couldn't have children that adopted 5 children from China. 4 of them played chess for me, the last one still does and is in 6th grade right now and only has 1 arm......because people in China, considered him a burden.
This couple has an extremely high income.
The Chinese mentality is NOT what we should encourage in the US but unwanted children in the US can also be given up for adoption.
Instead of pushing to eliminate the unborn baby, push harder for assistance to adoption facilites.
The cost of adoption here is the US makes it much more viable for wealthy families.
Interestingly, the democrats are always squawking about rich people having more opportunities and this is exactly what they should be griping about the most on this topic.
The privilege to raise another human being, discriminates against poor people, especially when it comes to adopting a child, by imposing a $70,000 cost to it.(in some cases)
https://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/average-adoption-cost\
Generally, for families adopting a baby through a private agency, the average cost of adoption in the U.S. is somewhere around $70,000. While costs may vary on an individual basis, families typically spend in this range on the adoption process.
Their answer?
Kill the baby. End of problem.
Wrong answer because a baby dies and and the parents miss an opportunity and as even Yellen suggests, it's because of a wealth disparity favoring the rich.
They didn't want the child?
So let somebody that does want the child, adopt him or her............that doesn't have to be rich to afford it.
Tim,
If you're still with me, again, if the US expert on the economy is using her voice to place an economic value on human beings(like China) and people applaud this.........then it's shows their inability to put things into the HUMAN perspective with political extremism as the excuse.
Tim,
And we aren't the only ones that noticed that it was clearly scripted(and I appreciate your astute observation and bringing that up here because I would not have watched the video, if not for that and learned some things in the process).
She went on to argue that “abortion helped lead to increased labor force participation. It enabled many women to finish school, that increased their earning potential.”
In his question, Menendez cited analysis from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research to set up Yellen’s answer. The moment was clearly scripted, and not just a spontaneous exchange. Either way, it’s a bad look.
More precisely, it’s bad ethics and bad economics.
On the ethical side: It ignores the life and inherent value of the unborn child. Federal law (the Unborn Victims of Violence Act) and dozens of state laws recognize unborn children as human beings. But abortion advocates presume unborn children only deserve protections if their lives were planned and desired.
But even if we reduce the matter to economics, Yellen’s analysis focuses on a tiny speck of a much larger picture. Her claim lacks what Henry Hazlitt called the “art of economics” in his classic “Economics in One Lesson.” “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy,” he wrote. “It consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”
In the case at hand, Yellen fixated on the short-term labor force participation of mothers. Yes, having a child can easily lead to hundreds fewer hours spent in the formal labor force. But is the value of the time parents spend raising children of no value? Are children’s future contributions to society over many decades of life worth nothing?
It’s almost painful to spell this out since people are more than economic actors. But abortion activists may try to make Yellen’s claim a talking point. So, it needs to be answered.
Our economy is essentially the total of all the goods and services that the people in it produce. More producing people means more economic output—at least over the medium-to-long run. More abortions, however, means fewer people and so, ultimately, less output.
It’s bizarre that Yellen would say that limiting abortions would “have very damaging effects” on the economy. She can only say this by restricting the time horizon in question. She knows better. Her statement is counter to then Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen’s assertion in 2017 that slow labor force growth was contributing to slow economic growth. Moreover, in our heavily indebted nation, every economic model shows lower birth rates harming America’s fiscal health and sustainability.
Since Roe v. Wade, an estimated 63 million babies have been aborted in the U.S. Over 35 million of them would now be old enough to participate in the labor force. We can’t assume a one-for-one increase in the population and labor force. Still, there would surely be more people alive and working today if it weren’t for Roe v. Wade.
Some abortion advocates have argued that children who are aborted would likely have faced greater adversity than those who are not. As a result, such people, as adults, would be of lower value to society, or even a net drag on it.
But the beauty of the American dream is that our fate is not sealed at birth. Millions of people who started life in a hard spot still grew up to do great things. Sadly, tens of millions of babies have had their fates sealed before they had the chance to pursue that dream.
When viewing this topic from a biological and ethical position, it's extremely one sided.
Twisting it into a women's rights and short term economic issue allows the pro abortion side to see with tunnel vision and convince themselves that ethics and biology don't really matter.
I'm totally leaving religion and God out of the discussion because rock solid principles about biology and ethics don't depend on having a God.
I'm not disrespecting people of faith but using God, means that not believing in God would justify abortions being ok.
Principles of biology and ethics are rooted in universal laws that apply to all humanity that's independent of having a God.
You just imposed a position on me that I don't have.
Pardon me, but the scenario I stated, is just a variation of what I have been saying from the begining. The one you've been saying is perfectly OK. I apologize if I misunderstood.
You see nothing wrong with the SecTes parrotting the party narative/agenda in a prescripted fashion.
But I hope you'll understand why statement from you like the below may have left me confused.
In today's age, scripts are used all the time, especially by people like this. It doesn't mean there's a corroboration with somebody else.
For example, this presentation by her was also scripted, including the introduction to her talk. Then she sits down for questions and her answers are clearly not scripted. Since this is her field of expertise, she answers from her head.
Thanks Tim!
