‘A birth is more expensive than an abortion’: CO Dems argue fiscal virtues of liberal health care bill
The speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives argued in a recent committee hearing on a new "pregnancy-related services" bill that "averted births" could lead to cost savings for the state and its Medicaid program.
Rep. Julie McCluskie, D-Dillon, seated as a bill-sponsor witness during a Health and Human Services Committee hearing in Denver last week, was pressed on her argument that the bill would "decrease costs for our health care policy and financing department [and] Medicaid expenditures."
"[T]he savings from averted births outweigh the cost of covering reproductive health care for all Coloradans," McCluskie said, adding the bill will require abortions to be state-funded so as to avoid "potential interference" from the feds.
McCluskie claimed the bill is a response to voters approving a 2024 ballot referendum that repealed a state constitutional amendment banning public funds for abortion procedures and instead recognized the operation as a right.
Rep. Brandi Bradley, R-Lone Tree, questioned McCluskie’s cost argument from a pro-life perspective, and lamented the fact Colorado allows abortion up until the day of delivery.
Bradley countered that McCluskie’s cost-centric position ignores the high price of third-trimester abortions, which she calculated to be as much as $25,000, and asked General Assembly nonpartisan fiscal analyst Bill Zepernick to weigh-in on official figures.
"So help me understand: From a fiscal point of view, you say there's a decrease of $1.7 million from federal funds — but if there are no federal funds, you would say there's no money coming from federal funds," Bradley asked McCluskie.
"Can you walk me through why it just says a decrease, and not that there's zero money coming from federal funds, because if there is, the Hyde Amendment covers that," she said, referring to the practice of adding such a rider to health care appropriations bills since the late Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., first did in 1976 to prohibit abortion funding via federal dollars.
DEM GOVS URGE TRUMP TO LET STATES PLAY ROLE IN IMMIGRATION DECISIONS
McCluskie responded that the savings she referenced comes from "averted births that will not occur because abortions happened instead."
"So, a birth is more expensive than an abortion," she said. "So, the savings comes in Medicaid births that will not occur — since both federal and state general funds are used through Medicaid for other health care services."
Meanwhile, Bradley pressed McCluskie on the mental health and substance abuse complications some women who undergo abortions may develop.
Bill co-sponsor Rep. Lorena Garcia, D-Westminster, chimed in, calling Bradley’s concern one that "assumes misinformation" and instead claimed women denied abortions are at risk of suffering longer-term mental health complications.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Rep. Scott Bottoms, R-Cimarron Hills, rejected Garcia’s claim.
"You know that that definitely isn't misinformation," he said.
"CDC and NIH both — I stated these statistics three weeks ago, but they were ignored. Those statistics are wrong. Suicide goes up drastically, specifically second and third trimester. As I mentioned, if they have an abortion, as mental health issues goes up quite a bit."
A pro-life obstetrician later told the committee it seemed proponents of the bill "are saying that if more babies die by abortion it will be cheaper for the state."
Fox News Digital reached out to McCluskie, Bradley and House Minority Leader Rose Pugliese, R-Colorado Springs, for comment.
The full audio was posted in a legislative hearing depository.
