Stories
Chelsea Clinton Thanks Abortion for Adding Trillions to the US Economy
Next Post

Press {{ keys }} + D to make this page bookmarked.

Close

Chelsea Clinton Thanks Abortion for Adding Trillions to the US Economy

737
flickr.com/Gage Skidmore

WASHINGTON, D.C. – August 15, 2018

Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling which legalized abortion nationwide, has been great for the economy, says Chelsea Clinton.

She believes that the number of women entering the workforce has exploded since the early 1970s. It’s still unclear who conducted such research or if it's her own calculations, but she explained this weekend that these women are responsible for adding about $3.5 trillion to the U.S. economy.

"Whether you fundamentally care about reproductive rights and access right, because these are not the same thing, if you care about social justice or economic justice, agency – you have to care about this,” Clinton said Saturday at a “Rise Up for Roe” event.

"It is not a disconnected fact … that American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy. Right? The net, new entrance of women – that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973," she noted

"So, I think, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think that you can connect to this issue,” Clinton continued.

She added, "Of course, I would hope that they would care about our equal rights and dignity to make our own choices – but, if that is not sufficiently persuasive, hopefully, come some of these other arguments that you’ve expressed so beautifully, will be."

Without a doubt, a brilliant speech, very thoughtful and evidence-based. I still dare to make a few comments, especially since her family was directly related to making a profit from the monetization of these ideas.

First. Who has calculated how many women entered the labor force from 1973 to 2009 and how much money they've added? Most importantly, to whom? Maybe Clinton meant her family and related elite groups? Then it is difficult to disagree. They know how to count their money. But as to the earnings of other citizens of the United States they always did not care.

Second. In the past, families usually needed only one bread winner to sustain them, and gov't had no way to tax the labor of housewives. Getting more women into the commercial workforce changed all that, and now two bread winners are typically necessary to make ends meet for couples and families.

Third. Clinton is a manager. She has never been interested in people. She's interested in money. For her women (not from her family) are not people, they are a work force. But she is a bad manager, or better said, she is a liberal manager. She doesn’t think in advance. All that is important for her is to receive a profit here and now. She does not think about abortion killing children, who could potentially have become a much larger workforce and brought much more money into the economy than their maimed mothers. But Clinton is not interested. Why should she think about future generations when they can always be replaced by cheap labor at the expense of immigrants?

And last but the not least. I believe it wasn't about the money. I believe it was about the people and their choice and personal autonomy. But as I said before, liberals never care about people. They care about their money. Personal profit is the real game for them. At this approach Clinton is being honest, at least. So she lifted her speech from Joseph Goebbels speech about how death camps are good for the economy and supply good jobs for Germans.

Author: USA Really