[talaniman]

is IUGR a death sentence now ?

Without the proper prenatal care yes it is. As are many other thing that can happen during a pregnancy.

[speechlesstx]

FYI, the Texas House passed it's save the children and protecting women's health bill, with 5 Democrats joining. Meanwhile, it's (not unexpectedly) come to this...

CBO: 20+ Week Fetuses Aborted at Rate of 30 Per Day; Saves Money for Government-Run Health Care

(CNSNews.com) - Unborn babies who have reached at least 20 weeks of age in utero are aborted at a rate of about 30 per day in the United States, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO has also concluded that aborting babies at 20 weeks or later in pregnancy saves money for the government-run federal-state Medicaid system.

...

“CBO expects that most women who would be affected by H.R. 1797 would seek earlier abortions,” said CBO. “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 about $75 million over 10 years. If only half of those women were to obtain earlier abortions, then federal spending could rise by more than $400 million over 10 years.

“For this estimate,” said CBO, “CBO assumes that around three-quarters of abortions that would occur 20 weeks or more after fertilization under current law would take place earlier, before the 20th week restriction is triggered, under the act. As a result, we estimate that the increase in federal costs for Medicaid would total $225 million over the 2014-2023 period.”

That's right folks, late term abortions save you money and reduces the deficit according to the CBO. Some interesting thoughts from Guy Benson:

(1) Are abortion advocates going to fleetingly morph into budget hawks over $17 million per year? After all, hospital births are expensive.

(2) Since they've reduced the debate over the protection of innocent life to callous, green-eyeshade facts and figures, will CBO also score the effects of aborting hundreds of thousands of future taxpayers -- especially when it comes to annual cash-flow deficits in programs like Social Security?

(3) If late-term abortions "reduce the deficit," how much would we "save" by aborting more children? How many of abortions would it take to make the whole enterprise deficit neutral? And while we're at it, why limit this experiment to very young human life? Surely the active killing of at least some indigent and infirm Americans would produce deficit savings, right?

(4) Also, since we're indulging these amoral calculations, perhaps CBO could project the potential economic benefits and budgetary savings from the hypothetical re-institution of slavery. Second look at indentured servitude, CBO?

(5) Does anyone remember the CBO's score of the Senate's gun control bill, or Politico's story about it? Did the CBO measure how much gun registries would cost to set up, or how many jobs would be lost if certain guns were outlawed? What about how much money taxpayers "save" in future welfare payments whenever children from dangerous neighborhoods are gunned down? I performed a cursory search for CBO reports on the Toomey-Manchin law and the proposed assault weapons ban, and came up empty. Am I missing those?


UPDATE - I've contacted the CBO and inquired which member(s) of Congress requested this bill be scored, and a copy for any such request.


UPDATE II - Ramesh Ponnuru emails: "One more point: as an argument for abortion, deficit reduction swings free from choice. Forced abortions save $ too. Next stop China."

UPDATE III - I spoke to a representative at the CBO who asked that the entire conversation be off the record. It struck me as a bizarre request, and I said so. Still, I'll try to respect it. Broad strokes: CBO is mandated by law to score bills that are reported out of committee. Sometimes members make informal requests for specific scores, but CBO could not comment on whether that was the case on this particular bill. Question: Since the assault weapons ban was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in March, shouldn't that score be floating around somewhere? My search for various iterations of "S. 150" and "Assault Weapons Ban 2013" did not produce the score.


UPDATE IV - An interesting point from a commenter below: CBO recently determined that granting legal status to illegal immigrants would significantly reduce deficits -- but not aborting would-be US citizens would increase them? I think the reason for this apparent disconnect is related to the "scoring windows." CBO concluded that adult illegal immigrants would be able to work and pay taxes immediately (thus affecting the ten-year window), whereas newborns are more of a long-term investment. Therefore, pre-born infants' deaths would cost less than their births in the short term. This entire discussion is surreal.

Are we really reducing the value of human life to how much it costs taxpayers? Wait, you guys have been doing that for years - "are you going to pay for her "unwanted" pregnancy? Are you going to pay to raise the "unwanted" child? Who pays for the care of the "unwanted" child born with birth defects or serious health problems?

How far are you willing to take it to save money and reduce the deficit?

[NeedKarma]

Are we really reducing the value of human life to how much it costs taxpayers?

Well yea, isn't that what the insurance companies do? Your health is a business that they want to profit from, and they do so... handsomely.

[speechlesstx]

I did not know insurance companies intentionally kill off their customers to make money. Who'd a thunk it?

[NeedKarma]

They don't, they need them sick to siphon more money out of them. Business 101.

[talaniman]

FYI, the Texas House passed it's save the children and protecting women's health bill, with 5 Democrats joining. Meanwhile, it's (not unexpectedly) come to this.


Are we really reducing the value of human life to how much it costs taxpayers? Wait, you guys have been doing that for years - "are you going to pay for her "unwanted" pregnancy? Are you going to pay to raise the "unwanted" child? Who pays for the care of the "unwanted" child born with birth defects or serious health problems?

How far are you willing to take it to save money and reduce the deficit?

Naw, they passed a close the abortion clinics for poor and low income women bill. The alternative is unclear. So its not like it was a public service for safety because they would have provided an alternative. Interestingly abortion have to be inspected before a license is issued and most had been licensed for years already.

Hell the bill sponsor didn't know what a rape kit was.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/24/texa...a_rape_kit_is/

It's an insult to everyone intelligence to say this is about safety. They know full well with the financing and bid process a year at most is not enough time for upgrades. Worse till for the one that are up for relicensing now and the next few months.

Another example of poor planning and implementation by righties with a clear agenda.

[speechlesstx]

They don't, they need them sick to siphon more money out of them. Business 101.

I think you need to go to over that section again. They need lots of healthy customers to make money. But again, this isn't about insurance companies it's about how the CBO scored a ban on late term abortions. Try and stick to the subject.

[speechlesstx]

Naw, they passed a close the abortion clinics for poor and low income women bill.

Well that's bound to cost Texas lots of money, making all those women have babies.

[talaniman]

It is a poorly written law. Written for a social agenda only, banning abortions.

[speechlesstx]

It is a poorly written law. Written for a social agenda only, banning abortions.

As opposed to what exactly that comes from Democrats? Obamacare? Environmental regulations? Immigration reform? What?

[talaniman]

The subject is the bill you righties in Texas wrote not if the dems write poor bills. They do but they aren't here in Texas governing YOU are.

[speechlesstx]

The subject is the bill you righties in Texas wrote not if the dems write poor bills. They do but they aren't here in Texas governing YOU are.

You opened the door, I feel compelled to walk in.

Tal:

It is a poorly written law. Written for a social agenda only, banning abortions.

Me:

As opposed to what exactly that comes from Democrats? Obamacare? Environmental regulations? Immigration reform? What?

We aren't governing the nation, you are.

[talaniman]

It's a slow process moving your noisy right wing dead weight.

[speechlesstx]

It's a slow process moving your noisy right wing dead weight.

Right, because we're too stupid to know what's good for us so we need you to rescue us from ourselves. See Illinois, Detroit, Kalifornia, the UK's health system...

[N0help4u]

Something sure is breaking down society and if people can't see it they are just too blind. Everything all ties in, the economy, bringing in illegals (*Republican's paved that road), dead shacking up, beat dads, single moms, working women,. Biggest culprit our government system and corporations

[talaniman]

Right, because we're too stupid to know what's good for us so we need you to rescue us from ourselves. See Illinois, Detroit, Kalifornia, the UK's health system...

Stupid isn't my word, it's yours, uncompromising and single mindedness are the words I would use, in general. Conservative ideas are great but the process of implementation sucks to high heaven. The noise is nauseous, and the methods are discriminatory.

As to motive I won't even guess but I doubt it serves any one but yourself.

[speechlesstx]

Stupid isn't my word, it's yours, uncompromising and single mindedness are the words I would use, in general. Conservative ideas are great but the process of implementation sucks to high heaven. The noise is nauseous, and the methods are discriminatory.

As to motive I won't even guess but I doubt it serves any one but yourself.

It's the attitude Tal and actions back it up. You have a habit of telling us personally on these pages we don't read enough or know enough or whatever and we should get out of the way of progress.

In light of the implementation of Obamacare that's virtually universally recognized (except by you) as a train wreck, I'd be careful accusing others of sucking at implementing their great ideas. And the chutzpah it takes to say we're self-serving (see Obamacare, environmental regs, immigration reform, war on women, global warming hysteria, etc.) is off the charts.

P.S. And just in time the perfect example lands right in my lap. Chuck Todd and other MSNBCer's along with WaPo's Greg Sargent make your case.

Sabotage governing

It’s not unusual to hear dirty hippie liberal blogger types (and the occasional lefty Nobel Prize winner) point out that today’s GOP has effectively abdicated the role of functional opposition party, instead opting for a kind of post-policy nihilism in which sabotaging the Obama agenda has become its only guiding governing light.

But when you hear this sort of argument coming from Chuck Todd, the mild-mannered, well respected Beltway insider, it should prompt folks to take notice.

Except it ain't true. Obamacare is self-destructing on its own.

[Tuttyd]

Right, because we're too stupid to know what's good for us so we need you to rescue us from ourselves. See Illinois, Detroit, Kalifornia, the UK's health system...

No one should read the article other than for the purposes of political spin.

A lot of percentages figures lace the article but there are no references to be found in relation to these percentages.

[excon]

Hello again,

Right wingers WIN. No more abortions...

[Tuttyd]

There is nothing that I can see thus far whereby abortion is touted as being banned.