VOTE IMMINENT. Congress is expected to take action on President Obama's healthcare reform bill this Sunday.
– REUTERS/Jim Young
WASHINGTON — Democratic members of Congress who support the health-care bill moving toward a final vote as soon as March 21 said abortion-funding restrictions would add to the bill’s costs because more children would be born, according to the leading pro-life Democrat in Congress.
Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., told the Register days before the final vote was expected that several fellow Democratic members of Congress have approached him to criticize an amendment he has advocated, which would bar federal taxpayer funding of elective abortions on the grounds that it would increase the overall cost of the health-care overhaul bill.
The increased cost would stem from a lower number of abortions expected with Stupak’s amendment and a commensurate increase in the number of people needing health-care coverage.
“I found that was a sad commentary if we’re going to start putting a value on the cost of that life,” Stupak said.
Stupak raised concerns with the Democratic leadership that abortion should not be considered as a cost saver. Senior Democrats said the costs of all provisions of the health-care bill had to be considered.
“A number” of fellow Democrats requested the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide a cost estimate for Stupak’s abortion funding-ban language. The CBO estimated, according to Stupak, the abortion-funding ban would cost up to $500 million over 10 years due to the higher number of births and increased number of people using the health-care resources expected to stem from it.
“It costs more to have a child than to have it aborted, if you will,” Stupak said. “And I thought that was a pretty sick way of looking at it.”
The estimate was not publicly released by the CBO.
Stupak’s abortion-funding ban amendment was included in an earlier version of the health-care legislation but is not in the version that the House is expected to vote on this weekend. Stupak and up to 12 other pro-life Democrats who supported the earlier bill have vowed to oppose the final health-care measure, which could be a critical bloc of votes when added to unified Republican opposition to the bill.
‘Resource, Not Liability’
Stupak would not name the other Democrats who raised the abortion cost-saving issue to him and calls to the offices of senior Democrats and the leaders of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus were not returned.
Although no Democrat in Congress has publicly opposed the abortion-funding ban based on the increased cost of more births, some pro-life advocates see previous comments by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as related. During the 2009 debate over the federal stimulus bill, she argued in interviews with several media outlets that contraception funding should be included because it would “reduce cost” for state and federal health-care programs.
Even supporters of the health-care bill were shocked that anyone would use the argument that more abortions would save the government money.
“Oh, good Lord. We’re trying to save lives and keep people alive,” said Stephanie Niedringhaus, a spokeswoman for Network, an umbrella lobbying group for women’s religious orders that endorsed the final health-care bill.
John Brehany, executive director of the Catholic Medical Association, found the view of abortion as a cost saver was “grossly offensive” and urged pro-choice members of Congress to remember people are a “resource” not just a “liability” because each person has the potential to bring benefits for society as a whole.
Otherwise, “you get people who say the government should provide abortion funding so poor women will have fewer children and require less Medicaid funding down the line,” Brehany said.
Other pro-life advocates were not surprised when told about Stupak’s conversations with other members of Congress.
“It’s not surprising because certainly part of the premise of abortion is that there are children that ought not be born,” said Brian Burch, president of CatholicVoteAction.org, a 500,000-member Catholic lay advocacy group. “For whatever reason, they are seen as burdens, and one of those reasons certainly is financial.”
Rich Daly writes from Washington D.C.
Jimmy Akin: Don't Be Deceived! Evil Obama Policy Now Even MORE Evil!
Steven D. Greydanus: UPDATE #2: Democrats double down on contraception
Comments
Post a Comment
Well, if you look at it this way - in 20 years there will be MORE payers IN the system….having babies is a “pay-it-forward” cost-savings measure.
Also-
think how much it will cost to treat ANY illness….geeesh, this IS a Health CARE bill, ISN’T it? Helloooooo, ANY health care is going to COST money.
Heck, if we all quit using health care, THINK of the savings!!!
Not sure what the choir loft’s point is above. Do you want more babies and no health care? The point of the article is that the Democrat leadership are telling Bart Stupak that the abortion clause will be a cost savings which is why we as Catholics don’t agree with it. Democrat Leadership = want low income people to be able to have abortions (thanks NARAL). Catholic = no abortions please. The point is this bill is bad for unborn children and they are only one of the many people that this bill is bad for.
The joke of it all is that the Democrats say that Health Care won’t be rationed. And, here they are attempting to ration Health Care based on COST. They are rationing it per group of people – in this case, the unborn. Where does it end using reasoning like theirs – euthanasia for those with chronic diseases, mandatory testing on the pre-born so babies with ‘health’ conditions can be aborted, etc.,
The choice is NOT between more babies and NO health care. That is insane - after all, what is a society that DOESN’T reproduce.
That last response is exactly what the Democratic leadership has in mind—elderly patients, premature babies, babies born with genetic problems…they just want to “take care of”, mafia style as it were, early “problems” before they have to pay more for them. What doesn’t enter into their utilitarian calculus is that a Down syndrome baby is still a baby—a son or daughter, a brother or sister, to be loved just like anyone else (and in some way even more). If a sick child is a problem for their twisted calculus, personhood is effectively irrelevant: their is little difference between a sick baby and old chicken that needs to be thrown away. It’s sad, a little sick—but also true.
The cost-benefit attempt to weaken Stupak and company’s position (and support)is just about the shallowest thing I’ve seen, well, ever. Because having more abortions paid for will result in less expenses for the government plan, it is thus justified. So why don’t we euthanize every elderly person, every preme, and every cancer/terminal sickness patient? That’s one less problem to be “taken care of” for them. Just recall 60 years ago to a country under a man with the initials of AH. Sound familiar? The leadership wouldn’t like the analogy, but it is exactly the same logic or philosophy underneath. The people that don’t want to learn from history play ignorant, so that their consciences don’t get unbearied while they repeat the same errors.
Hello! Are they so blind that they do not see the present consequences of abortion and contraception? Social Security is running out of money because of the millions of tax payers that were murdered after conception. If we kill the children now less people will have to pay more money! If there are more people paying in then each individual has to pay less to meet the need. When will this insanity of lies ever end? People were more green before this contraceptive/abortive mentality took over because they had to be! More people eliminates wastefulness. It encourages reuse, recycle, and reduction of waste. This isn’t liked by big business because people will have less money to waste on buying stuff they really don’t need. Also it will bring an end to this throw away mentality that has taken over. What about all these billion dollar hospitals and drug companies and insurance companies using those profits to set up clinics and funds to help those that can’t afford it? That would be the moral thing to do instead of paying their CEO’s millions of dollars in bonuses. I know of the head of a certain hospital conglomerate that has his own personal body guard. If you run a hospital and need a body guard what are you doing wrong with your life?
The is no mystery as to who said that killing babies will lower future costs. Mrs. Pelosi said it loud and clear on the George Stephanopoulos program. To his surprised question “do you really believe that?”, she firmly replied “Yes”.
But is this very much different from Justice Ginsberg’s “Many of us thought that Roe v. Wade would go further to solving the problem of undesirable populations.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.