Could it be true that pro-life policies are a burden on taxpayers? That’s the conclusion suggested by a recent Congressional Budget Office study and reported by Politico with this shocking headline: “CBO: GOP abortion bill would raise deficit.”
But the CBO’s cost projection for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act — a House bill that would limit abortions for women who are more than 20 weeks pregnant — demands a closer look. Putting aside the fact that Planned Parenthood alone gets more than $1 million a day in taxpayer support, apparently the CBO rushed to calculate the “costs” of not killing fully formed, dramatically present children in the womb.
Politico’s Jake Sherman reports: “Depending on the number of additional births under H.R. 1797 … [additional] Medicaid costs could range from about $75 million over the next 10 years to more than $400 million over that period. … CBO officially estimates that the bill increases federal deficits by $75 million between 2014 and 2018, and $225 million between 2014 and 2023.”
How could pro-life Americans not want to keep their taxes low by advocating for a radical abortion system so extreme that the United States stands with China and North Korea in advocating for abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason at all, and sometimes with taxpayer subsidies? In fact, most of the 195 nations in the world limit abortions after 12 weeks and certainly before 20 weeks. But perhaps they have overlooked the budget savings that come with nearly unrestricted access to abortion.
Lost in the reporting on this story is news of several, not-so-surprising realities:
1. The short-term costs of raising a child are offset by the long-term gain of that child — who someday will not require formula, diapers and peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches, as he or she becomes a taxpayer, a business leader and a resource for the community.
2. As our communities grow and as the economy strengthens, the CBO’s prediction of Medicaid dependence may not hold up. Indeed, as we value life and family, many may come together to make an investment in the next generation without asking for taxpayer support. Parents, grandparent, aunts and uncles will find a way to cherish the children who bless a family with their very presence.
A balance sheet has two sides — input and output, what is spent compared to what is earned. To examine the cost of children without factoring in their potential contributions to society is not only shortsighted, it’s bad accounting. It’s like reporting on the costs of making a movie without noting the box office take. It’s like discussing the costs of building a home without looking at the price at closing. It’s half a story.
One wonders where the CBO experts who did this study think future government revenue will come from if we don’t invest in raising future taxpayers.
Take Social Security, for example. In 1950, there were 16.5 workers per retiree. Today, the ratio is 2.9 workers per retiree and by 2030 there will be just two workers per retiree. The more births, the better Social Security’s finances will be down the road.
The CBO’s math also ignores the extent to which our consumer-driven economy would benefit from an increase in the number of consumers. Economists track consumer spending because it is one of the best clues to whether a nation’s economy is poised to expand or poised to contract. Even Gallup tracks how much Americans intend to spend.
I have five children of my own. No one needs to tell me that parenthood is costly. But the costs are not the whole story. Lives have value to society — both intrinsic value and material value. In the long term, the benefits of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will more than make up for the costs.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest is president and CEO of Americans United for Life.