Like Button

Saturday, April 16, 2011

The Less Expensive Option

The recent debates (and, oh, they're not over, really) in Congress over the budget had the funding of abortion as a key component. For some reason, only the Republicans were ideologues. The Democrats' demand for the funding abortions was not ideological. For some reason, only the Republicans were obstructionist. The Democrats' requirement to fund Planned Parenthood or shut down the government was not obstructionist. For some reason, only the Republicans failed to compromise. The Democrats were happy to compromise as long as the Republicans did whatever they demanded. At least, that's what I saw. But, hey, I'm not privy to all the goings on in Washington, so who am I to say, right?

In reviewing the lies shouted from the floor of Congress (e.g., "Republicans are waging a war against women"), I wondered about the current level of federal funding for abortions in the U.S. In my research, I came across the thoughts of our beloved ACLU. It was an article on the Hyde Amendment, the one that excludes abortion funding from comprehensive health care provided for low-income Americans through Medicaid. They recommended eliminating this rule. Well, you can review the thoughts there for yourself, but I came across this thoroughly astounding statement in their commentary.
Will it cost taxpayers money to fund abortions?

No. Because the costs associated with childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care greatly exceed the costs of abortion, public funding for abortion neither costs the taxpayer money nor drains resources from other services.
Now, without delving into the truth of their claim that it wouldn't cost the taxpayer money, did you get the underlying argument? We should allow federal funding of abortions because killing the baby is much cheaper than "childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care." Kill the baby; save some dough. I don't know ... sounds like a winning slogan for "women's health" to me.

Now, you Republicans, be honest. You Tea Party folks, check yourself. You want to decrease the deficit and cut health care costs and save America money. Why not choose the less expensive option? Kill those babies before they're born. Hey, there are other gains here. The environmentalists will be happy because less humans means less drain on our already strained environmental resources. Eliminating larger numbers of children will surely decrease the amount of childhood obesity. The cost of education will go down because the numbers of kids needing education will decrease. Oh, yeah, lots of benefits.

Is anyone really listening? Are they still going to stand on the argument that killing babies is a matter of "women's health issues"? While they accuse the "right wing" of trying to prevent women from getting the health care they need, who is defending the children's right ... to breathe? I'm pretty sure about the ACLU, but has our government completely lost its mind, too? America needs an adjustment, and it's not going to come from Congress or the White House or even the voters. And it won't likely be pretty.

4 comments:

Marshall Art said...

Cutting costs is always about making choices and arranging priorities, but this is beyond ridiculous.

Another blog suggests cutting the war on drugs, using pot as an example, as a counter to conservative suggestions for cost reductions. Yeah, we spend on a lot on that "war". But now the "do no harm" philosophy is in conflict. Personally, I don't think weed should be outlawed, even if partaking is not something a Christian should do. But many think it is harmful enough to remain illegal and cite studies to back up the notion.

Another similar argument refers to education expenditures for criminals locked up being cheaper than not providing that, in terms of repeat offenses later on. Yeah, it's cheaper perhaps on society, but is it the right thing to do considering how many people do NOT break the law and work hard to provide for their own higher educations. Personally, I find the extra dough spent to lock up repeat offenders less offensive than giving them a SECOND education the rest of us must provide for ourselves. It increases the debt to society they already owe.

Sometimes the right thing to do is more expensive. That's about par for the course of life. I believe it is also referred to as "the narrow path".

Stan said...

I still cannot even begin to fathom killing babies because it's the cheaper thing to do.

David said...

I got to listen to the President's address on his plan for the budget, and he was incensed with the budget suggested by the Republicans because it called for too much change...Wait. Too much change? Wasn't that his platform for running? Change? He basically said in his speech that he wants America exactly as it is, at a cheaper price. And that is the problem. We want all the niceties we receive, but they cost money. And those most expensive things need to be cut or slashed. But we (as a whole) are unwilling to make the necessary changes. So change is necessary, but we won't see change under the President who promised change.

Marshall Art said...

It's cheaper still to abstain from sex, but that's just crazy talk. That means I want to outlaw sex, that I want to rule people's lives and tell them what to do. I'm so ashamed of myself for caring about the lives of the most innocent and defenseless that I would even suggest such a thing!