Congressional Budget Office: late-term abortions save money
[A]ccording to CBO [Congressional Budget Office], to the degree that government runs and pays for the health-care system — as it does through Medicaid — aborting late-term babies is a cost-saving measure for government. Letting late-term babies live, according to this reasoning, is an increased cost for government.
The CBO did not estimate how much wealth and job-creating power U.S. society has lost and will lose in the future because 11,000 late-term unborn babies per year are killed by abortionists and not allowed to live out their lives.
~ Terence P. Jeffrey summarizing the Congressional Budget Office’s report that abortions after twenty weeks gestation saves the government money, CNS News, July 8
Incredulous, Guy Benson of Townhall quasi-interviews a representative of CBO to understand why they even went there.
[HT: Matille]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This is just… Gross. It would also save money in healthcare and addiction service costs if we just killed all drug addicts and alcoholics, but that doesn’t justify it. Or how about people abused as children? It’s well known that we are more likely to have more mental and physical healthcare costs well into adulthood, as well as more burden on social services and the criminal “justice” system. Kill ’em all before we cost precious society and government any money!
Disgusting, is there another group of humans besides fetuses where it’s considered acceptable to sit down and figure out if it is better to just let people kill them?
Kill citizens/taxpayers before they need food/benefits – this is where it goes. Government that is self-consuming.
It’s eugenics – pure and simple.
Using their logic, wouldn’t killing off senior citizens be an even greater cost-saving measure?
What’s sad isn’t that the CBO is required to estimate the 10-year cost, which would probably reduce the deficit in the short-term. Of course we know people are the source of wealth and abortion hurts us financially in the long-term. What’s sad is how much of American society and government operate on a 10-year plan. Sure, pregnancy will set you back some money and time, but as a person you’ll be richer financially and spiritually in the end. The reason our country is so stagnant and we face so many problems is our constant focus on instant gratification in all things; we are living on the point, not on the line that extends into the future. We aren’t constrained like the CBO is, we choose this unwise path freely.
The prolife movement needs to investigate the financial “savings” to the government when it permits legal abortion. This line of argument needs to be pursued relentlessly. It is a HUGE weak spot in the pro-abortion position. It really does unveil the truth about abortion and the government’s support of it. As someone, Francis Bacon, pointed out the government or state is really just collection or representation of the people – the State’s actions, moral compass reflect the actions and moral compass of the individuals. We all know that one of the primary reasons women have abortion is in no small part due to financial insecurity do it makes sense that government’s reason for supporting abortion is also for monetary reasons. It is horrifying, perhaps too horrifying, but I think it is true – and prolifers need to alert the masses to this reality.
continued….
I really don’t know why prolifers have not raised this “savings” issue before. It seems that prolifers are afraid of raising this issue, but I can’t see a downside to exploring this issue. This could be one more powerful argument against abortion. It will educate the public about the Machiavellian nature of abortion politics and possibly allow the public to think of an alternative way of supporting these babies and their mothers in need. It almost seems that our Christian duty demands that prolifers look into this issue.
“It’s eugenics – pure and simple.”
Well said Chris Arsenault. Sounds like something Goering or Goebbels would have said — look at the economic benefit to society if we killed ”consumers” like Jews or Gypsies or the mentally disabled and spread their wealth among true Germans and the German government.
And as Jack said, we would have government savings if we killed off drug addicts, too; but we don’t justify that for any economic reasons.
And, as we all know, those Dems are terribly concerned about saving money…