Yesterday, anti-choicers gathered in Annapolis to protest Maryland's policy on funding certain abortion for low-income women. Predicting this hostility, Republican lawmakers from the Maryland House of Delegates presented a plan for budget cuts last week that includes eliminating this state funding. We probably all know that the state of Maryland is struggling to balance a strained budget, in a time when even more Marylanders require assistance, but this is simply not a good way to cut costs.
According to the NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland website, the cases in which low-income women can get state assistance for the cost of their abortions is already highly limited:
"Maryland prohibits public funding for abortion for women eligible for state medical assistance for general health care unless: (1) continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the woman's death; (2) the woman is a victim of rape, incest, or a sexual offense reported to a law enforcement, public health, or social agency; (3) the fetus is affected by a genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality; (4) abortion is medically necessary because there is substantial risk that continuation of the pregnancy could have a serious and adverse effect on the woman's present or future physical health; or (5) continuation of the pregnancy is creating a serious effect on the woman's mental health and if carried to term there is substantial risk of serious or long-lasting effect on the woman's future mental health.” (See the NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland website for citation)
The Republican delegates say that this plan would save Maryland $2.1 million, because that is about how much was spent for abortions under this policy in 2009. But the fact of the matter is that cutting state funding for low-income women's abortions will likely raise costs for the state, not lower them. The women who would lose financial assistance under this budget cut would then be forced to find alternative funding to terminate the pregnancies that are dangerous to their health or, in a more likely situation, they will keep their pregnancies due to lack of funding. This will cost the state more in medical expenses for the women and their pregnancies, and it could possibly cost the women their lives.
Even when the funding is not limited to dangerous pregnancies, it can still save money for the state. The truth is that abortions generally cost much less than prenatal and delivery care. John Nugent, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, said this back in January and got a lot of backlash from the anti-choice crowd, but the fact remains. Of course this financial reality does not mean that any government authority should encourage women to terminate their pregnancies in order to save costs. It just goes to show that the Republicans' claim that this policy change would represent fiscal responsibility is a thin veil for their efforts to limit women's reproductive freedom.
In fact, all spending on family planning (not just abortion) lowers costs for the state. A study recently released by the Guttmacher Institute finds that every $1 spent on family planning saves taxpayers $4 that would be spend on Medicaid-funded prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care for the pregnant woman and child. However, you would never hear about this tax-saving initiative from the Republicans Delegates because it does not fit their socially conservative platform.
Del. Anthony J. O’Donnell (R-Calvert/St. Mary’s and House Minority Leader) believes this budget cut makes sense because "even some who are pro-choice don’t want their tax money going to pay for someone else’s abortion."
This is backwards logic. Plenty of people (of many political leanings) do not want their tax dollars paying for someone else's health care at all, regardless of their personal views on specific procedures. Many people also don't want their tax dollars paying for someone else's education, rehabilitation, unemployment, or even snow plowing. People want the potential to use the tax dollars they pay, and since most people do not plan to have abortions, they do not "want" their taxes to pay for it. But that is not how taxes work, and the Republican lawmakers should know that.
Although the economy and Maryland’s budget are suffering, this is not a sensible approach to saving money for the state. Not only is it impractical (as it will likely end up costing much more than it saves); it is also unfair. High-risk pregnancies are a reality for all women. It is unfair to refuse to protect low-income women from this serious threat to their health simply because of politicians’ ideologies. The reality is that empowering women to make decisions about their pregnancy is not only the right thing to do, but it also makes fiscal sense for the state.
0 comments:
Post a Comment