Abortion as economic stimulus

[Anonymous]

Pelosi on ABC This Week justified the inclusion of expanded federal funding for abortions as part of an economic stimulus plan on the grounds that reducing the number of children being born would help stimulate the economy. Is she intentionally giving red meat to social conservatives?

[jsteele]

That's not even close to what Pelosi said. Here is the exchange:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Story?id=6725512&page=2

The funding is not for abortions, but for contraception. Arguably, making contraception more widely available would reduce abortions.

The funding simply allows states to get reimbursed by Medicaid. It helps with their budget problems.

[Anonymous]

Actually I believe funding is for BOTH contraception and abortion; organizations such as Planned Parenthood perform abortions and provide contraceptives.

This is an attempt IMHO to add to the stimulus bill funding for medical procedures (abortion) that many are morally opposed to; cleaver parliamentary move for sure as anyone who opposed the stimulus because of the abortion funding will be painted as opposing the stimulus by their political opponents. I can admire the strategy here, but lets not be so naive to think this is not abortion funding.

[Anonymous]

Opps, meant clever, not cleaver - Freudian slip maybe?

[Anonymous]

From today's USA Today

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/01/61938342/1

headlined Money, morality entangled in economic debate

It is hard to argue that this belongs in an economic stimulus package frankly. Put the funding bill for contraception/abortion to the vote alone - a fine and democratic legislative activity. But don't insult our intelligence that this is anything about stimulus.

[Anonymous]

But of ALL the states' services (WIC programs, roads, etc.), is contraception/abortion really THAT great of a budget bleeder that it must be an issue? Maybe more like the "last-word" in response to the March for Life last week?

And of all the "crisis" going on in the world (the economy, jobs, Middle East, troop withdrawl...as promised(?) come to mind) is this really a priority? It seems like it is causing more of a divide and ruining the bipartisan spirit (if there ever was one to begin with).

Why not address environmental issues - not such a dividing issue. Surely, we can all agree planting trees is acceptable (and would create jobs... )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From today's USA Today

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/01/61938342/1

headlined Money, morality entangled in economic debate

It is hard to argue that this belongs in an economic stimulus package frankly. Put the funding bill for contraception/abortion to the vote alone - a fine and democratic legislative activity. But don't insult our intelligence that this is anything about stimulus.

It's definitely a gray area.

I don't think anyone can argue against educating people, but under the umbrella of health education comes abortion. Now, if Obama follows through on The Prevention First Act and focuses his energy on family planning and comprehensive sex ed, hopefully, abortions will decline. In terms of economic stimulus, creating a comprehensive sex ed program - if that includes schools (???) - would definitely add more jobs to the work force.

------

"The Prevention First Act, already endorsed by Obama, would increase federal funding for family planning, promote comprehensive sex education, and expand women's access to contraceptives."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZusTsgGSVWCtkhzuygoz7SSifhAD95RPQ180

--------
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObamaUK/idUSTRE50M3PQ20090123

Planned Parenthood, a health care provider and advocacy group for abortion rights, welcomed the move.

"With the stroke of a pen, President Obama has lifted the stranglehold on women's health across the globe," Cecile Richards, the group's president, said in a statement.

"No longer will health care providers be forced to choose between receiving family planning funding and restricting the health care services they provide to women.

[jsteele]

Wow, lots of misinformation. First, the OP claimed that Pelosi justified abortion as an economic stimulus. The OP was factually wrong. Given the blatancy of the error, any further posts by OP should be read with a sizable grain of salt.

Here is the text that is in question:

State Option to Cover Family Planning Services. Under current law, the Secretary has the authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to grant waivers to states to allow them to cover family planning services and supplies to low-income women who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid. The bill would give states the option to provide such coverage without obtaining a waiver. States could continue to use the existing waiver authority if they preferred.

Since 1993, the Hyde Amendment has restricted Medicaid funded abortions to cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment. Some states also cover "medically necessary" abortions. No Medicaid funds can be used for abortion as a form of family planning. Hence, fears that this clause have anything at all to do with abortion are misplaced.

A big chunk of the stimulus bill is devoted to healthcare. Women's reproductive heath is an important aspect of healthcare. There should be nothing controversial about providing birth control pills and family planning guidance to poor women. The Republicans jumped on this particular issue because it was low hanging fruit that could be used to support their efforts to oppose the bill. Republicans have stated clearly that they fear a successful stimulus bill would benefit Democrats politically. Therefore, Republicans are putting their partisan interests ahead of the national interest. It looks like they have managed to trick abortion opponents into coming along for the ride.

Edit to clarify: the quote above is from the stimulus bill's summary, not the bill itself:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090122/billsummary.pdf

[Anonymous]

Maryland's Medicaid program has historically covered abortions. It uses state-only funds -- meaning no federal match. If the feds decided to cover it, it would free up a little bit of state money for other purposes. That's not a direct economic stimulus, but you could argue it frees up some state funds for other purposes, like not laying off workers.

However, didn't I just hear on WTOP that the federal money has been scrapped for abortions/contraceptives?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Maryland's Medicaid program has historically covered abortions. It uses state-only funds -- meaning no federal match. If the feds decided to cover it, it would free up a little bit of state money for other purposes. That's not a direct economic stimulus, but you could argue it frees up some state funds for other purposes, like not laying off workers.

This is all true but ignores the fact that the proposal contained in the stimulus bill was not about abortion, but "family planning services". Maryland's program simply expands abortion coverage to include "medically necessary" abortions. It is not blanket coverage and does not cover abortions for women who simply don't want to be pregnant (admittedly, it would not be that difficult for such a woman to come up with a "medical necessity").

Anonymous wrote:
However, didn't I just hear on WTOP that the federal money has been scrapped for abortions/contraceptives?

Obviously, not being scrapped for abortions since that was never proposed.

As far as contraceptives are concerned, more than likely. Nobody can cave in faster than House Democrats (with the possible exception of Senate Democrats).

More background on this topic: States can already request a waiver for expanded family planning services. Maryland has such a waiver, as do 26 other states. The language in the stimulus bill would have made it no longer necessary to obtain such a waiver, which can take years to receive.

This pages summarizes Maryland's coverage:

http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/profileind.jsp?cat=10&sub=109&rgn=22

Note, the waiver was obtained to allow women to extend coverage which would otherwise run out five years postpartum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually I believe funding is for BOTH contraception and abortion; organizations such as Planned Parenthood perform abortions and provide contraceptives.

This is an attempt IMHO to add to the stimulus bill funding for medical procedures (abortion) that many are morally opposed to; cleaver parliamentary move for sure as anyone who opposed the stimulus because of the abortion funding will be painted as opposing the stimulus by their political opponents. I can admire the strategy here, but lets not be so naive to think this is not abortion funding.

Planned Parenthood has received Federal money all through the Bush years. This is nothing new.

[Anonymous]

Oh good god who the hell gives a shit?

The crazy right wing zealots had eight years to spend lots of tax dollars trying to interfere with every woman's right to have an abortion. I am seeing this up close and personal. These people are truly evil.

There is nothing wrong with having an abortion. Truly, I see it as another method of birth control, albeit the most inconvenient, costly, and uncomfortable one.

Life is so precious to these assholes until it is born. Then it's a piece of shit.

I hate anti-abortionists. I really hate them.

[Anonymous]

And I suppose I should add that I personally have not had an abortion. (Whenever I defend abortion I get asked that). But that's simply because it is the most inconvenient, costly, and uncomfortable form of contraception I can think of (unless you tie your tubes or have a hysterectomy). The 3-week fetus should not, in my view, even have the same rights as dogs. Maybe cats.

[Anonymous]

Planned parenthood offers services to women who have also had miscarriages. Some catholic hospitals will not help because of some strange theories. I heard that if your water has broken at 3 months they will not help because they need for the mother to go septic first, then the mothers life will be in danger. We are now talking about a case where the fetus has already died or has no hope of survival.
My friend had a miscarriage where the heart just stopped. Luckily her local hospital was not a catholic hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Planned parenthood offers services to women who have also had miscarriages. Some catholic hospitals will not help because of some strange theories. I heard that if your water has broken at 3 months they will not help because they need for the mother to go septic first, then the mothers life will be in danger. We are now talking about a case where the fetus has already died or has no hope of survival.
My friend had a miscarriage where the heart just stopped. Luckily her local hospital was not a catholic hospital.

Complete misinformation - Catholic hospital do have ob/gyn services. They simply follow their principles and will not perform abortions. A miscarriage is a totally different beast, and they do not force women to become septic before they help. Show me one credible source that documents that.