CBO: Murdering Babies After 20 Weeks Saves Government Money

They say that the CBO is nonpartisan. I generally agree. Both parties use CBO reports to their respective advantages. The CBO issues reports and gives testimony upon request by the various Congressional Committees. If they were tasked with finding out how much a certain bill will cost over the next decade, that’s what they’ll find out. It doesn’t matter who requests it or what party that representative belongs to.

In one of its more recent reports, the CBO was tasked with finding out how much H.R. 1797 would cost over the next 10 years. H.R. 1797 is the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that was recently passed by Congress. Their report is not necessarily what’s of concern. It’s what pro-abort politicians are going to do with the data. They’re going to use the data to grandstand on the importance of being financially solvent and not adding unnecessary expenses to the national debt and thereby increasing the deficit. They’ll use the relatively measly expenses that might get added to federal expenditures as a result of the bill as yet another reason to oppose any pro-life legislation. As if the point of any pro-life bill is to add another senseless bureaucracy or welfare program. Because Democrats never want to add more programs or spend money on things we don’t need.

So, here’s how the CBO report made its conclusion:

 “Because the costs of about 40 percent of all births are paid for by the Medicaid program, CBO estimates that federal spending for Medicaid will rise to the extent that enacting H.R. 1797 results in additional births and deliveries relative to current law. In addition, some of those children would themselves qualify for Medicaid and possibly for other federal programs as well.”

As CNS News pointed out, the report also affirms the converse:

 “In other words, according to CBO, to the degree that government runs and pays for the health-care system—as it does through Medicaid—aborting late-term babies is a cost-saving measure for government. Letting late-term babies live, according to this reasoning, is an increased cost for government.”

Pro-lifers are of course repulsed by the idea that murdering a significant number of citizens is simply a cost-cutting measure to government. But to pro-aborts, all we are is “dust in the wind.” And numbers. This is probably the one area where Democrats want to “cut costs.” It’s just that the cost in this case is innocent human life.