As Amanda Terkel points out over at ThinkProgress, conservatives have started complaining and mischaracterizing a provision of the stimulus bill that would “grant waivers to states to allow them to cover family planning services and supplies to low-income women who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid.” According to the text of the provision, “the bill would give states the option to provide such coverage without obtaining a waiver. States could continue to use the existing waiver authority if they preferred.”
Adding his voice to the already vocal conservative opposition, Fox News’ Neil Cavuto pretended that preventing unplanned pregnancies and promoting maternal and infant health would do nothing to stimulate the economy.
Watch it:
Cavuto’s rant is bizarre, if not unsurprising. Giving women access to critical health care stimulates the health industry and ensures that women are healthy enough to continue providing for their families. Reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies also insulates the government from greater financial obligations — since low income families often turn to the government for assistance — and generally lowers health care costs.
In fact, according to a 2007 Congressional Budget Office report, publicly funded family planning services would save the federal government $200 million over five years, and $400 million over ten.
But, keeping healthy women is also just good policy. It’s difficult to imagine how unwanted pregnancies help struggling families make ends meet and afford health insurance for their families.


So, the problem here is that instead of more Bushian tax cuts for the rich that have worked so well for our economy and the families in it, we’re putting a little extra money in the pockets of poor women?
The absolute worst case scenario here is that government spends less on red tape, poor women have a little more money in their pocket to spend on food, deodorant and the occasional pack of gum (uh, stimulus!), and also poor women have fewer abortions!
Is the fear here that abortion clinics will shut down because their services are no longer needed? I can see where Boehner would worry about that–without abortion clinics to protest, his “base” will probably start noticing that his tax cuts for the rich are not helping them or the economy. But for the rest of us, I can’t see why this would be a bad thing.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:31 am