Having gone over the Congressional Budget Office’s review of the congressional bill for repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, the Washington Post came to a startling conclusion: The federal government ceasing its funding of the nation’s leading provider of abortions would result in more babies actually being born. Thanks Captain Obvious.
The Posted noted that, “Planned Parenthood provides reproductive and other services, including abortion, to 2.5 million men and women nationally. Its health centers provided more than 300,000 abortions and nearly 3 million contraception services in 2015, according to its latest annual report,…”
The “Budget Reconciliation Recommendations of the House Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce, March 9, 2017” is, as are all bills these days, a monster. Contained somewhere within its labyrinth of pages is the following:
To the extent that there would be reductions in access to care under the legislation, they would affect services that help women avert pregnancies. …
The government would incur some costs for Medicaid beneficiaries currently served by affected entities because the costs of about 45 percent of all births are paid for by the Medicaid program. CBO estimates that the additional births stemming from the reduced access under the legislation would add to federal spending for Medicaid. In addition, some of those children would themselves qualify for Medicaid and possibly for other federal programs. By CBO’s estimates, in the one-year period in which federal funds for Planned Parenthood would be prohibited under the legislation, the number of births in the Medicaid program would increase by several thousand, increasing direct spending for Medicaid by $21 million in 2017 and by $77 million over the 2017-2026 period. Overall, with those costs netted against the savings estimated above, implementing the provision would reduce direct spending by $156 million over the 2017-2026 period, CBO estimates.
The wonder of pregnancy and miracle of child birth reduced to something to “avert” is rather calloused wording. A ship “averts” an iceberg. And the passage, “additional births stemming from … reduced access,” continues to reduce the production of human life to cold statistical analysis rather than human lives but the net/net of the report is that babies with their ten little toes and rosey cheeks, according to the CBO analysis, would stand a much better chance of drawing their first breath of air if Planned Parenthood were defunded.The Post article continued, “The budget analysis “reaffirms what we already know: the provision to ‘defund’ Planned Parenthood would have disastrous consequences and result in women losing access to care, especially services that help women prevent unintended pregnancies,” Dana Singiser, Planned Parenthood’s vice president for public policy and governmental relations, said in a statement.
Isn’t that way we passed Obamacare (on a straight party-line vote) in the first place, to provide everyone with healthcare? So why the need to fund both it AND Planned Parenthood?Reaffirming the fact that not everybody views a baby actually being born as a good thing, the Post wraps its coverage with this, “Anti-abortion advocates zeroed in on the expectation that more babies would be born, which struck them as reason to celebrate.”
[Note: This article was written by Derrick Wilburn]