Medicaid Funding for Abortions is Good for Ohio’s Taxpayers

By On January 24, 2007 · 7 Comments

The latest round of Anti-abortion legislation passed by Ohio’s General Assembly will end up costing Ohio’s taxpayers billions of dollars.

I find it truly amazing that so many Republicans continue to push the party’s anti-abortion agenda even when it conflicts with the rest of their message.

What happened to fiscal responsibility, lowering the tax burden, and preserving and protecting Ohio’s families?

All of those goals were thrown out the window when they passed this ridiculous piece of legislation that says it is the policy of the state of Ohio “to prefer childbirth over abortion” and, as such, to forbid the use of state money to fund abortions.

This bill will force poor women to find alternative funding to pay for their abortion or force them to actually carry out their unwanted pregnancy to term.

Either way, it will have an immediate negative impact on poor Ohioans- and long-term financial consequences for the state as a whole.

If this short-sighted bill is successful at decreasing the number of abortions in Ohio it will end up INCREASING the number of poor mothers and children in the state ? costing Ohio’s taxpayers billions.

Medicaid funding for abortions is cheap compared to the cost of providing ongoing services to low-income Ohio mothers and their un-aborted children (e.g. public health care, child welfare, incarceration, etc.).

For example, “Between 1991 and 2004, there have been more than 271,900 teen births in Ohio, costing taxpayers an estimated $6.9 billion over that period.”

Thankfully, the Democrats are finally getting their chance at the table and, surprisingly, they are proposing some innovative solutions that might just work.

Check out BSB and WLST for a discussion on that topic.

Evangelize!
  • Print
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
 
  • http://www.writeslikeshetalks.blogspot.com Jill

    Thanks, Joseph. I know people who have left the Catholic church because of the failure of politicians who espouse the virtues of anti-abortion measures without balancing the consequences of doing so, which is, in this day and age, for society to be composed of more single mothers. The teen thing is dead and gone – long live the women in their 20s and up who choose to go fullterm with unplanned pregnancies and the offspring born to those women.

    This is not a zero-sum game.

  • http://paindealer.blogspot.com Mark_McNally

    Abort the poor?

    That’s just cold.

    This is an Oliver Swift “A Modest Proposal” thing isn’t it?

  • Daniel Jack Williamson

    “If this short-sighted bill is successful at decreasing the number of abortions in Ohio it will end up INCREASING the number of poor mothers and children in the state ? costing Ohio?s taxpayers billions.”

    I request a point of clarification. Do you have sympathy for poor mothers? Or do you despise poor mothers? Your message appears to be conflicted on this point.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Joseph

    We appreciate your participation in this forum, Mr. Williamson- but it is not necessary to follow parliamentary procedure or raise your hand.

    why don’t you tell me what YOU think.

  • Daniel Jack Williamson

    I think I can’t figure out if this post is saying that the state should pay for poor women to have abortions because they are in a terrible predicament that they couldn’t otherwise get themselves out of or if the state should pay for poor women to have abortions because it’s contemptible for poor women to have children.

    Are poor women trapped, or are poor women unworthy? Both? I see language in the post that seems to indicate both sentiments are in play.

    I’m willing to respond to your views if I understand what exactly your views are.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Joseph

    I think Jill captured it pretty well in her comment- it’s about “the failure of politicians who espouse the virtues of anti-abortion measures without balancing the consequences of doing so.”

  • Daniel Jack Williamson

    Medicaid, abortion, poverty, the role of government . . . I could write a post longer than all of Jill’s “57 Reasons.” But no one would keep reading, since my writing isn’t as interesting as Jill’s.

    To be brief: This blog entry is not persuasive to someone who is anti-abortion (your terminology), such as myself.

    On the flip side of the coin, the Chinese government thinks you are spot on.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...

Archives

All entries, chronologically...