I don’t understand Nancy Pelosi. How does reducing childbirth help reduce “costs” and stimulate our economy? If we are at a moment in history where baby boomers are on the cusp of retirment and there are fewer people being born, who will take care of the elderly? Who will the government tax for its Social Security benefits? One might say that fewer people consume less resources, but it is also true that fewer people produce less goods and services. The government gets its resources from taxing the goods and services people produce. It does nothing to produce those goods and services. Therefore, it should encourage childbirth, not reduce it.
High birth rates are a good thing if those born grow up to be productive members of society. Could Pelosi mean that we need less people born so that the government will not be saddled by excessive welfare demands? Are the people she is taking about, the people that would receive state-funded contraceptives, producing offspring that are a burden to society? If so, we are at square one in eugenic thinking. See Daniel Kelves facinating book for more details.