They say “You can’t put a price on life”.
But a friend of the blog writes:
Planned Parenthood has done it
From their 2016-2017 annual report
- Abortions performed = 321,384
- taxpayer money/revenue = $543.7 million
- cost to taxpayers per baby destroyed = $1,691.75
Glad we could settle that.
Worth noting is that if you consider the possibility that abortionists are not going to be able to get non-abortion jobs simply because even pro-choice parents don’t want their “muscle memory” to come back at the worst possible time, that number also is the approximate amount needed to keep an abortuary open and staffed.
Yes, I’m saying (again) that if there were no tax subsidies for Planned Infanticide, they’d go to 100 abortuaries or less, and many states would have no abortuary at all. It’s that simple.
Actually, I posit that PI would cease to exist and abortions would be performed at the hospitals.
At some hospitals, yes, but there are three problems with this. First of all, most people don’t want to be involved in that, even to the extent of working for a place that performs them. So for starters it’s an HR nightmare that explains why most are done in abortuaries.
Also significantly, a great portion of the population doesn’t want to get medical care at a place that performs abortions. For my family, the deal is simple; you can do abortions, or you can have my business, but not both.
Finally, the average abortion-minded mother does not exactly have a lot of cash at her disposal, so doing abortions at hospitals with hospital fee rates is simply not going to have that amount of cash–go from $500 to $2000 or higher, as the numbers here suggest, and a lot of people are going to simply have the baby.
Win-win-win-win, in my (probably not humble enough) opinion.
there are 3,144 counties in the USA, if that same $543.7 million had been distributed in equal block grants of $1,727,639.95 to each county to provide reproductive and prenatal care for women the current lamentable stats for usa (#61 for maternal care) would improve dramatically particularly for rural citizens (especially American Indians, rural blacks and hispanics)
Reading Dave Garrow’s biography of Obama. “Rising Star.” It’s encyclopedic but engrossing. I urge people to give it a look. Anyway, the year is 1961 and 17 year old Stanley Ann Dunham finds herself pregnant. It’s years before Roe vs Wade. What if… abortion had been legal and paid for by the government? Who would have won the Presidency in 2008?
Who would have won the Presidency in 2008?
Hillary!
golfdoc50
its the old question for republicans
Which is better, a ham sandwich or eternal bliss?
Well nothing is better than eternal bliss, but a ham sandwich is better than nothing!
McCain is a ham sandwich and nobody really wants to vote for a ham sandwich.
Just as actually happened, low conservative turnout would have given the election to Hillary!
I have no doubt that Billary would have prevailed in ’08. Point of my rhetorical question was to underline how relentless is Obama’s narcissism. I have just come to the point in Garrow’s book where Obama fills out an issues sheet during his first run for office and he is emphatic about supporting abortion, including Medicaid funded abortion, and his opposition to parental consent laws. Does it ever cross his mind that had his mom had the “choice”, his life might have ended in a stainless steel specimen pan? I don’t think so. After all, he is the light worker, Barack the magnificent.