Writing for the Washington Post, Catherine Rampell argues that greater funding to provide contraceptives to poor women will actually save the government money both by decreasing the number of pregnancies and children they will eventually have to provide funding for through government programs and by allowing women to delay childbearing until they are emotionally and financially ready to parent.

Which makes…complete sense.

She hits on some of the same issues Sanger tags in "The Children's Era."

[G]iving low-income women more control over their own fertility also promotes economic security, educational attainment, income mobility and more stable environments for American children. (Source)

It's been about a century, but some things don't change:

Children brought into the world before their parents were financially or emotionally ready for them are likewise disadvantaged before they're even born, no matter how loved they are. (Source)

Rampell's main concern, like Sanger's, is giving women control over when they become mothers. However, she doesn't presume to make the choice for them, as Sanger could be interpreted to do.

[I]mproving access to birth control doesn't mean giving government control over poor women's fertility; it just means giving poor women the exact same (voluntary) options that are already available to their more privileged sisters: more choice over whether, when and with whom they decide to have a baby. (Source)

For Sanger and Rampell, it all comes down to choice.