Stanek weekend Q: Response to charge that pro-life laws cost money to defend?
Were pro-abortion groups not to sue to block almost every pro-life law passed in the land, there would be no legal expense in defending them.
But pro-abortion groups have brazenly turned their own taxpayer squanderage into an attack against pro-life legislation….
The obvious response is, “So stop suing.”
(Furthermore, since when did abortion groups become tightwads over spending taxpayer money?)
But pro-abortion journo Robin Marty calls such a comeback “ridiculous,” even while admitting this pro-abortion tactic that supposedly once worked no longer does:
Introducing unconstitutional abortion restrictions is becoming a regular occurrence for anti-abortion legislatures. Once upon a time, those bills could be stopped by pointing out exactly how much money would be wasted on the never ending legal challenges that the state would be forced to foot the bill for. Now, instead, abortion opponents are blaming abortion rights advocates for wasting taxpayer money because they don’t just let the bills go into effect.
What is your response to charges that passing pro-life legislation will hurt the government pocketbook?
[Graphic via Planned Parenthood]
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.
Maybe pro-lifers should do a kickstarter to raise legal funds when pushing legislation.
I think this is a legit concern – I know when I asked why not push for a complete ban (instead of a 20 week), Navi (among other things) cited the legal fees cost associated with going after something that will most likely be ruled unconstitutional.
My only response (other than the one contained in the post) is that it is probably a better use of money than most things the government spends money on. Also, if the government is really short on cash they can save money by defunding Planned Parenthood.
Of course, I should add that one of the states on the map is Texas which I believe already has defunded Planned Parenthood. So my second suggestion only applies where applicable.
JDC – I actually don’t think that’s accurate – State of Texas isn’t allocating LESS money for services, they are just saying that it can’t be spent at planned parenthood. For instance, cancer screenings are being targeted by the Texas politicians – but the bill wouldn’t decrease funding over all – so no savings. There would be short term savings if a woman who has normally received cancer screenings from planned parenthood decided to forego screenings all together (because the state wouldn’t have to reimburse the provider) – so the savings are only there if people stop getting legit medical services – and the costs for the state increase if people skip preventative care and then have higher costs down the road.
Also, come to think of it, I think that the money taken from Planned Parenthood is generally given to other agencies to perform the same health services. So, I guess it probably doesn’t save money overall. Still, my first point remains valid.
Same argument could be made about HHS Mandate (and much of ObamaCare), death penalty, prisons, due process legal system. Just send the legislature home after they pass a budget — why pass any new laws?
News Flash!
The governing process costs money.
Passing a law costs money.
Passing a law that actually impacts culture costs even more money.
If money were the issue we could save a lot more by giving up doing anything…not just shutting down the government…quit every human endeavor because it’s just to much work and not worth the trouble.
Except the legalization of marijuana. That’s worth any expense.
The response really is – if it saves lives, isn’t it worth it? The other response would be – if the government was paying to defend women’s choices, would the people be complaining? Of course not.
Simple reality is that taxpayers are okay with the government spending money if they support the cause – so pro-choice folks will think it is a government waste, while pro-lifers support it.
Give me a break. This works both ways.
Last year, the state of Massachusetts settled with the lawyers who successfully fought that state’s anti-1st-Amendment “buffer zone.” Massachusetts taxpayers have to pay $1.2 million under the terms of that settlement – in addition to what they paid the Attorney General’s staff for defending the asinine law in the first place. (The state has since enacted new legislation in line with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on their earlier law.)
In case it wasn’t clear, I hadn’t read Ex’s 11:24 comment when I made my 11:26 comment. My bad.
The answer to this is a big so what? As others have mentioned, it takes money to govern. And some laws will go through the courts. Robin Marty only disagrees with the expenditure because she is pro-abortion.
This goes both ways, since I believe that government funding of Planned Parenthood is an utter waste of money. Those funds would be better spent for Community Health Centers that would provide comprehensive medical care which includes OB/GYN.
BTW, did anyone actually read the linked article? It was funny in a way. The author actually questions if gender specific abortions are taking place. To be fair, she does specify in the state of Texas. Live Action has video documentation. She really should check those out. I’m not sure if clinics in Texas were among those filmed, but I think we can generalize and be very sure that this does occur.
The abortion groups are spending just as much money to bring suit. I believe that is their real rub, for when they lose the other lawyers collect.
For the most part, democracy works. Through our legislative representatives, people get the laws that we want. (It is very rare for something like the ACA to get rammed through, against our will.)
Laws that regulate social behavior typically face legal challenges from the minority opposition. People accept this as frustrating cost of democracy.
Courts sometimes frustrate the will of the people. This bothers us more than the cost of defending ourselves in court.
Considering our entitlement shortfalls and the fact that an aging society is going to hit our wallets really hard (and it already is), it’s a great investment in the future.
In Kansas, the pro-aborts constantly complain that our Attorney General has spent over one million dollars to defend pro-life laws. What the pro-aborts fail to mention, however, is that they have lost every lawsuit that has been decided thus far. Of course, the pro-aborts never accept responsibility for their part in forcing the AG to spend money defending laws which were carefully crafted to withstand court challenges.
State of Texas isn’t allocating LESS money for services, they are just saying that it can’t be spent at planned parenthood.
Texas chose to forgo federal funding several years ago, because federal law bars funding of programs that discriminate against Medicaid recipients by arbitrarily constraining their ability to choose their medical providers. So there is less money overall.
so no savings. There would be short term savings if a woman who has normally received cancer screenings from planned parenthood decided to forego screenings all together (because the state wouldn’t have to reimburse the provider)
Claims dropped substantially in the six months after Texas cut out Planned Parenthood because there were not enough for-profit providers willing to provide the services that PP was providing. (http://www.texastribune.org/2013/12/13/claims-drop-under-state-run-womens-health-program/) The state then decided to put more money into the program. I haven’t seen updated statistics on patient claims since then–not sure if they’re out.
But pro-abortion groups have brazenly turned their own taxpayer squanderage into an attack against pro-life legislation
Speaking of squandering, the testimony of four pro-life “experts” in Texas got thrown out because they lied in court. Unfortunately, the state tried to cover it up rather than demanding the taxpayers’ money back.