CBO: Murdering Unborn Babies is Fiscally Conservative

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. 36 would cost over the next 10 years. H.R. 36 is the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that will be considered by Congress today. 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:

Under H.R. 36, some abortions would be averted: some women who would have sought an abortion 20 weeks or more after fertilization under current law would instead carry those pregnancies to term (while other women would have abortions earlier in their pregnancies). Because the costs of about 45 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. 36 results in additional births relative to current law. In addition, some of those children would themselves qualify for Medicaid and possibly for other federal programs as well.

[…]

If almost all of those women responded by having abortions before 20 weeks, there would be few additional births relative to current law. On the other hand, if the majority of women who would have sought abortions after 20 weeks chose instead to carry their pregnancies to term, then the number of additional births would be greater.

CBO expects that most women who would be affected by H.R. 36 would seek earlier abortions. But how many women would do so is an important determinant of additional federal costs. For example, if 90 percent of women who would have sought an abortion 20 weeks or more after fertilization instead were to seek earlier abortions, federal spending would rise by about $100 million over 10 years. If only half of those women were to obtain earlier abortions, then federal spending would rise by nearly $500 million over 10 years.

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.