(VIDEO) Phyllis Schlafly: Obama “Subsidizing” Illegitimate Babies to Increase Voter Base


In the public eye, anti-choice activists talk about how they want all pregnant women, even the unmarried, to turn away from abortion and raise their children, offering them open arms and the promise of financial support.

However, it’s behind the scenes that you learn what they really think of unwed mothers, as leading anti-feminist, pro-”family values” icon Phyllis Schlafly shows us when she spoke at a recent Michigan fundraiser.

Via Michigan Liberal:

“One of the things Obama’s been doing is deliberately trying to increase the percentage of our population that is dependent on government…For example, do you know what was the second biggest demographic group that voted for Obama? Obviously the blacks were the biggest demographic, yall know what was the second biggest?  Unmarried women.  70% of unmarried women voted for Obama.  And this is because when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother Government to be your provider.  And they know that. They’ve admitted it.  And they have all kinds of bills to continue to subsidize illegitimacy, which is now nationwide, running at 41%.  1.7 million babies were born in our country illegitimately last year. The Obama administration wants to continue to subsidize this group because they know they are Democratic votes.  Republicans never could have given the amount of money they are going to get. And as Ronald Reagan said, if you subsidize something you are going to get more of it, and if you tax it you’re going to get less of it.  [Applause]

Remember, these are the people who fight against birth control, and say that there should be no access to abortion. Oddly enough, it doesn’t look like they want people to have babies, either.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Robin Marty on Twitter: @robinmarty

To schedule an interview with Robin Marty please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • saltyc

    I wondereind about this hypocrisy too. I remember the one time when I was accidentallly pregnant, watching George Bush 1 give an adress where he said women shouldn’t be having babies out of wedlock. He also didn’t want me to have an abortion. I wondered if he preferred that I explode. Either way, my state was obviously very B-A-D according to my President.

     

    Then I realized, when the guy who got me pregnant told me if he were me, he would “do the selfish thing” and have an abortion.

    Then it clicked: They (the establishment, anti-choice, fornicating moralists) want women to go ahead and have abortions, and just be really ashamed and guilty and most of all keep it to themselves. That’s make everything so much easier for everyone else.

  • edgery

    No birth control; Check. No abortion; Check. No children born out of religious-sanctioned union; Check. Wait! Does this mean there will also be no fathers/brothers/uncles raping girls? No date or stranger rapes? No hormone-driven taught-abstinence-only teenagers? No condoms forgotten or broken? No rhythm-method-only sex? [list continues ad infinitum] No humans acting humanly?

    These are who we are supposed to make common ground with? Not bloody likely.

  • joan2

    While Saltyc is right about this: “They want women to go ahead and have abortions, and just be really ashamed and guilty and most of all keep it to themselves.”

    I would add that what the conservative hypocrites (especially the men) want is for women to abstain from sex before marriage, and then only have sex only for procreation purposes. That is, unless said women are having pre- or extra-marital sex with them…in that case, they expect these “naughty” women to continue to put out, unless they get caught or pregnant. Then the conservative man can castigate the woman who “led him into temptation,” while his long-suffering wife stands by his side. See: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/abstinence-supporting_gop_state_lawmaker_admits_to.php

    • beenthere72

      Just described ‘contributor’ Kevin Rahe to a ‘T’

  • sunset

    “Unmarried women.  70% of unmarried women voted for Obama.  And this is because when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother Government to be your provider.”

    Are they still expecting women to get married at 17?  Because if not they are seriously missing a category of unmarried women.

  • catseye71352

    Schlafly has always been crazier than a $#!thouse rat.

    • colleen

      Schlafly has always been crazier than a $#!thouse rat.

      Precisely. Although I must say that my first thought listening to this rant is that she sounds more incoherant than usual. Her speech is slurred. I do appreciate her honesty though. Social conservatives usually pretend to be at least somewhat concerned about post birth children despite the fact that the politicians they vote for and the policies they espouse assure that fewer children or parents will have a dceent life.

  • liberaldem

    Ms. Schlafly is even nuttier than ever. Perhaps, however, she’s just slipped and is revealing her true self. 

  • crowepps

    Having children makes you poor.

  • cycles

    Ha ha. Good point. That one slipped right by me the first time I heard it. 70% of divorced women with children, or 70% of unwed mothers would at least make contextual sense in Schlafly’s rant. Hell, Schlafly herself is one of the dreaded “unmarried women with children” by virtue of her dead husband and 4 kids.

     

    But wait, “70% of unmarried women” makes sense if you just place yourself in a utopian Republic of Gilead frame of mind. Recent widows, nuns, and the affianced are the only ones who have legitimate reasons to be unmarried. All other unpaired adult females (sluts!) who wish to maintain their reputations should report to the nearest Husband Catching Station.  

  • crowepps

    One does wonder just what the objective difference is between a ‘widow’ and an ‘unmarried mother’ since neither one has a man in the house, and the first is considered to continue to be covered by her FORMER married status but is actually at present an ‘unmarried mother’ as well.

  • dlgoss777

    Where do I begin:

    “70% of unmarried women voted for Obama.”

    “The Obama administration wants to continue to subsidize this group because they know they are Democratic votes.”

    I didn’t realize ‘unmarried woman’ = Democratic vote.

    Why waste energy debating with the uneducated.  By the way, I am unmarried and a democrat.  Too bad I kill your solid stereotype by having a Master’s Degree, a PMI Certification and two businesses.  Maybe I’ll go apply for welfare tomorrow to fix this for you.

     

     

  • crowepps

    Did a little quick googling and came up with assorted articles over the past decade or so years, a few every couple years, almost all of which say something like ‘why do many single women skip the election’ or ‘what will it take to get single women to vote?’

     

    Weird how Obama/Democrats would focus on subsidizing and enlarging a group that has a history of staying home.