Medicaid Abortion Funding: License to Kill
ShareCHAPTER 60 — MEDICAID ABORTION FUNDING: LICENSE TO KILL
American Life League
No woman is forced to abort a pregnancy in this country ... It must be stated as fact that no one is forced to submit to an abortion, that the power of the state has not been used in a coercive manner, and that Americans have not been forced or propagandized into supporting that which offends their religious beliefs or their moral convictions.
'Rabbi' Charles D. Mintz of the 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights.[1]
Anti-Life Philosophy.
It is grossly unfair to deprive women of their Constitutional right to abortion just because they can't pay for the procedure. Since abortion is morally just the same as having a mole excised or trimming one's toenails, those women who cannot afford this basic medical care should have it provided to them by the government.
In any case, cutting off funding for abortions will not decrease the number of abortions performed. The only result will be that more women will die of back-alley butchery.
Introduction.
I simply do not believe that this country has the responsibility to use our taxpayers' money to provide citizens, rich or poor, with the means of aborting their unborn simply because the child is unwanted ... simply as a convenience to those responsible for them. Congress has no right to tax the American people to provide such a convenience.
Senator John C. Stennis (D.-Miss.).[2]
It is really rather comical to listen to pro-abortionists as they rave "Keep the government out of our private affairs!," then demand that the same government pay for the results of the most private of those 'private affairs,' abortion.
It is also very amusing to hear them say that abortion is the moral equivalent of having a wart removed and that the government must pay for abortions, and then explain why the government doesn't pay for wart removals and other cosmetic surgery.
The fundamental justification used by pro-aborts for funding is that abortion is just the same as any other medical procedure in a moral sense therefore, since the government pays for other medical procedures for poor people, it follows that taxpayers should foot the bill for abortion as well.
Fallacies in the Arguments for Funding.
The cliche we hear most often is, 'A woman has the right to control her own body.' I agree. Let her exercise control before she gets pregnant. But do not ask the taxpayers of America to pay the price when there is a failure to exercise control by forcing taxpayers to subsidize the ending of lives of unborn children as a convenience to adult women.
Rep. Eldon Rudd (R.-Ariz.).[2]
Abortion as a 'Good.'
The constitutionality of state-funded abortions fails on several levels of a rigorous analysis.
To begin with, the pro-abortionists who demand that the State pay for abortions are making a basic fallacious assumption. They cling to the philosophy that abortion is a 'good' that should be paid for by the United States or individual state governments, since what is available to the rich should be made available to everyone. This gross assumption is, in and of itself, entirely false.
The rich have always gotten away with murder, sometimes literally. For example, United States Senator Ted Kennedy ("champion of women's rights") killed Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick and got away scot-free. Does this mean that the government should provide the means for the poor to escape prosecution for murder, too?
Another example; in the 1940s and 1950s, rich people in the East took advantage of Nevada's lax divorce laws by flying there to reside for a week and obtain a quickie end to their marriages. But the government didn't see fit to fly poor folks to Las Vegas to enjoy the same 'privilege.'
During Prohibition, of course, the rich did not suffer a crimp in their supply of liquor; in fact, many of them profited from the illegal trade in alcohol. Yet the government did not see fit to supply cheap wine to the poor, just because they could not enjoy illegal liquor like the rich. Nor does the state provide clean, tested, and relatively pure crack to poor people just because they can't afford it (although it may be moving in this direction by providing clean syringes).
Yet this type of indulgence is precisely what the pro-aborts are demanding.
State's Obligations.
Even if it were generally accepted that abortion were an ethical and proper surgical procedure, the State assumes no obligation whatever to pay for it, just as it does not assume any obligation to fund any other elective surgical procedure, such as plastic surgery, dental work, or hair restoration. In any case, the State is not at all obligated to pay for any procedure that it has no interest in. In the case of abortion, not even the father has any legal 'interest' in whether or not his unborn child is slain; how can the State claim any interest whatever?
Of course, some pro-abortionists make the hideous Hegelian assertion that an abortion costs more than bringing up a child to the age of 18 on welfare.
In support of this position, they grossly exaggerate the costs to society of a welfare child. Typical of such lies is the June 29, 1977 testimony against the Hyde Amendment offered by Sen. Charles H. Percy (R.- Ill.), who said that "If we can avoid a $100,000 cost for a $200 [abortion] investment and make a humanitarian investment at the same time what sense does it make to say, 'We cannot afford $200 for this expenditure [for an abortion]?"
Of course, we might use the identical logic to point out that it would take about the same amount of money ($200) to take an equally 'unwanted' homeless person off the street and then euthanize and cremate him. Think of the decrease in welfare payments and crime that society would benefit from if all of the half-million 'hard-core' homeless were eliminated!
Aside from the extreme callousness of such a position, the pro-aborts ignore the fact that less than five percent of all children born into a welfare families will remain on welfare until the age of 18. They also disregard the fact that the average period of welfare dependency is two years not eighteen.[3]
In fact, if the problem of paying for abortion vs. childbirth is examined in terms of the long run, abortion is a very bad deal for society indeed, as shown below.
[A medium text size on your computer's 'view' setting is recommended, otherwise, the tables may be discombobulated.]
STATE'S DECISION:
PAY FOR ABORTION OR DELIVERY?
A. COSTS OF ABORTION
AND DELIVERY
Cost of delivery: $2,400
Average cost of postnatal care: $1,350
Cost of welfare for two years (average
time of child on welfare): $2,340
Total cost of delivering
a welfare baby $6,090
Cost of Medicaid abortion: $250
State and property taxes paid by
baby during 30 years in the
work force (see Figure 48-2
in Chapter 48); $79,100
B. IF BABY IS ABORTED
State comes out ahead
($6,090 - $250) = $5,840
C. IF BABY IS DELIVERED
State comes out ahead
($79,100 - $6,090) = $73,010
This lack of foresight and preoccupation with quick and easy solutions is a hallmark of pro-abortion 'thinking,' and should be expected in any debate or discussion. Because they are naturally shallow thinkers, concerned only with their own comfort, pro-aborts invariably 'examine' a problem only from the most superficial level. They apparently cannot be bothered to perform even the most simple calculations to analyze an issue and discern the truth.
Lack of Need.
Finally, of course, there is no actual need for the State to pay for abortions. It has been shown that, if a poor family is confronted with a compelling 'need' for an abortion, they will find some way to pay for it. Some abortion clinics give discounts or do abortions 'on time.' And there are actually a number of pro-abortion groups, like The Abortion Fund, that pay for abortions. Pro-lifers should ask pro-aborts this question: If you love abortions so much, why don't you pay for them instead of forcing everyone to do so?
This point was proven conclusively in 1978 when the Hyde Amendment drastically chopped Federal funding for abortions by more than 99 percent. If poor women had been unable to obtain abortions due to this funding cutoff, the total number of abortions in the United States should have decreased proportionally over the same period.
But such is not the case, as shown below; total abortions actually increased by eight percent the year Federal funding was cut off for more than a quarter of a million abortions!
IMPACT ON NUMBER OF ABORTIONS CAUSED BY FEDERAL FUNDING CUTOFF
Abortions
Funded By Total
Year United States Abortions
1977 294,600 1,316,700
1978 2,100 1,409,400
Change -99% +8%
The 294,600 abortions that federal Medicaid paid for in Fiscal Year 1977 cost a total of $86,776,400, or $295 per death. The following year, the federal government saved more than $85 million by cutting off most abortion funding.
One might point out that the individual states took up some of the funding 'slack;' but less than 10 percent of the abortions previously paid for by the Federal government were subsequently paid for by individual states.
Maternal Deaths.
Hundreds of women this year will die because they cannot afford an abortion.
Pamphlet entitled "The ACLU's Campaign for Choice," referring to the Hyde Amendment. Page 1.
The pro-abortionists, in an attempt to stave off the Hyde Amendment (which cut off Federal funding for most abortions), trotted out the desperately tired argument that "thousands of women would be butchered by back-alley quacks" if Federal funding was lost.
The actual numbers of maternal deaths due to legal and illegal abortions in the years before and after the Hyde Amendment are as follows;
IMPACT OF THE HYDE AMENDMENT ON MATERNAL DEATHS DUE TO ABORTION
Abortion
Year Deaths
1973 102
1974 96
1975 87
1976 48
1977 62 ← Passage of the Hyde Amendment
1978 48
1979 61
1980 52
1981 64
For supporting calculations, see Chapter 59, "Maternal Deaths Due to Abortion."
Dr. Willard Cates, the pro-abortion head of the Abortion Surveillance Unit of the Centers for Disease Control, had predicted that the Hyde Amendment would lead to a doubling of deaths due to abortion. However, after he was proven wrong by the statistics, he admitted in the February 16, 1978 Washington Post that "The 'bloodbath' many predicted simply is not happening ... our numbers don't show that there has been a mass migration to illegal procedures."[4]
The Centers for Disease Control confirmed Cates' observation when it found on the state level that "In Texas, pregnant, low-income women who do not have federal or state funds for abortions do not appear to be resorting to illegal abortions to terminate unwanted pregnancies. These findings are consistent with those from a national monitoring system which also could not document that the restriction of public funds for abortion caused a large percentage of Medicaid-eligible women to choose self-induced or non-physician-induced abortions. A substantial portion of women who would have obtained a publicly funded abortion before the restriction are now more likely to continue their pregnancies to term."[5]
The above figures and quotes demonstrate quite conclusively that poor women did not begin dying as a result of the loss of Federal or states funds for free abortions.
For more information on maternal deaths due to legal and illegal abortions, see Chapter 59, "Maternal Deaths Due to Abortion."
Additionally, for an account of how ruthlessly the pro-abortionists will exploit women to try to reinstate abortion funding, see the story about Frances Kissling and Rosie Jiminez in Chapter 17 of Volume I, "Anti-Life Propaganda Stories."
Impacts of the Hyde Amendment.
The 'bloodbath' many predicted [as a result of the Hyde Amendment] simply is not happening ... our numbers don't show that there has been a mass migration to illegal [abortion] procedures.
Dr. Willard Cates, Centers for Disease Control.[4]
The Trends in Funding.
Until September 30, 1977, the Federal government financed more than a quarter-million abortions every year (the history of Federally-financed abortions is shown in Figure 60-1). And then, pro-lifers won perhaps their most significant victory since Roe v. Wade.
FIGURE 60-1
HISTORY OF FEDERALLY FINANCED ABORTIONS
Fiscal Number of
Year Time Period Criteria for Funding Abortions
1977 10/1/76 to 9/30/77 No restrictions 294,600
1978 10/1/77 to 12/4/77 Mother's life only
12/5/77 to 10/30/78 Life, rape and incest,
and physical health 2,100
1979 11/1/78 to 10/30/79 Life, rape and incest,
and physical health 4,430
1980 11/1/79 to 11/11/79 Life, rape and incest,
and physical health
11/12/79 to 2/18/80 Life and rape and incest
2/19/80 to 9/19/80 "Medical necessity"
9/20/80 to 9/30/80 Life and rape and incest 43,679
1981 10/1/80 to 6/4/81 Life and rape and incest
6/5/81 to 9/30/81 Mother's life only 17,983
1983 10/1/82 to 9/30/83 Mother's life only 528
1984 10/1/83 to 9/30/84 Mother's life only 293
1987 10/1/86 to 9/30/87 Mother's life only 75
References: (1) Douglas Johnson. "293 Abortions Paid For By Federal Medicaid: 1984 Lowest Figure to Date." National Right to Life News, May 2, 1985, page 10. (2) Rachel Benson Gold. "Publicly Funded Abortions in FY 1980 and 1981." Alan Guttmacher Institute's Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1982.
On October 1, 1977, the Hyde Amendment cut off funding for all convenience abortions, restricting payment to abortions for the life and physical health of the mother and rape and incest. The results were dramatic. In Fiscal Year 1977, before the Hyde Amendment took effect, the Federal taxpayer was coerced into funding 294,600 abortions. With the new restrictions, the Federal government only paid for 2,100 abortions in Fiscal Year 1978 a decrease of 99.3 percent!
In Fiscal Year 1987, when Hyde Amendment restrictions were further tightened to allow funding for abortions only to save the mother's life, the number of tax-paid abortions declined even further to 75.
This national trend was soon confirmed by the abortion figures compiled by the state of Illinois. The state paid for 23,209 abortions in 1976. After the courts upheld a 1977 state law banning the use of state money for abortions unless medically necessary to save the woman's life, the total number of abortions paid for by Illinois dropped to only 12 in 1983.[6]
The total decrease in abortions funded in Illinois was 99.95 percent.
This is compelling evidence that more than 99 percent of all abortions are performed for reasons of mere convenience and less than one-tenth of one percent (i.e., one thousandth) of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.
As Federal funds for abortions suddenly dried up, Michigan, among other states, elected to continue to pay for convenience abortions with its state monies. However, many states, including Ohio and Georgia, chose not to continue to slaughter their own babies.
The Real Pro-Abortion Agenda.
In 1990, President George Bush used his veto power twice to turn back bills that would have restored federal funding for rape and incest abortions. Predictably, pro-abortionists beat their breasts and moaned about the "insensitivity" of the President to women who had been brutalized once already.
The pro-aborts continue to make propaganda hay over these vetoes. However, as always when dealing with pro-abortionists, there is a lot more to the story than is first evident.
The true story was revealed in early 1990. Speaking for pro-abortion Congressman Les AuCoin [D.-Ore], legislative aide Ron Fitzsimmons acknowledged in a January 1990 briefing to pro-abortion activists that the real agenda of the pro-abortionists regarding the Hyde Amendment was to write a very loosely-worded "rape and incest" exception to the Amendment that was obviously open to abuse, so that pro-life congressmen would have no choice but to vote against it and the President would have no choice but to veto it.
The pro-abortionists would then trumpet the "insensitivity" of the President and the pro-life congressmen in an attempt to discredit them and defeat them in the November elections.
As Fitzsimmons said during the briefing session; "It's hard to ignore the rape and incest victims. But I can speak for my boss [Congressman AuCoin], he felt that in the long term what we want is full Medicaid funding. And the only way we're going to get that is to get the votes in, for people who will vote that way."[7]
Less Abortion Funding = Less Abortions.
We are told that prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions is discrimination against the poor, because without such abortion subsidies, poor people could not afford to have abortions. By that logic, taxpayers could be forced by Congress to pay for poor people to have faceliftings, hair transplants, expensive cars and tickets to the Kennedy Center since without such support indigent citizens could not afford these amenities.
Rep. Eldon Rudd (R.-Ariz.).[2]
Introduction.
More than 30 states have cut off funding for convenience abortions since Roe v. Wade. Despite curious pro-abortion claims to the contrary, in every case total abortions and sometimes pregnancies decreased dramatically.
Illinois.
For example, the state of Illinois paid for all abortions in 1976. The following year, the state legislature passed a bill prohibiting Medicaid funding except to save the life of the mother. The measure was challenged in court, and the measure was not implemented until 1980. From 1981 to 1983 the state of Illinois paid for exactly 77 abortions an average of 26 per year.
The total number of abortions in the state dropped from 71,326 in 1977 to 66,613 in 1982, a decrease of seven percent.[6]
Ohio and Georgia.
The loss of funding for convenience abortions resulted in a dramatic decrease in both pregnancies and abortions in both Ohio and Georgia, as shown below.
IMPACT ON ABORTIONS AND PREGNANCIES OF OHIO AND GEORGIA ABORTION FUNDING CUTOFFS
February February
to July to July Decrease
1977 1978 (percent)
OHIO
Live births 6,156 5,932 - 3.7%
Miscarriages 543 523 - 3.7%
Abortions 3,958 2,591 - 34.5%
Pregnancies 10,657 9,046 - 15.1%
GEORGIA
Live births 6,854 6,829 - 0.4%
Miscarriages 604 602 - 0.3%
Abortions 1,474 1,164 - 21.0%
Pregnancies 8,932 8,595 - 3.8%
Reference: Jacqueline R. Kasun, Ph.D. "Cutoff of Abortion Funds Doesn't Deliver Welfare Babies." The Wall Street Journal, December 30, 1986. Based on statistics in the May/ June 1980 issue of the Alan Guttmacher Institute's Family Planning Perspectives.
Pennsylvania.
In Pennsylvania, the state Health Department reported on April 21, 1987 that a total of 65,777 abortions were performed in 1980. After Medicaid funding was cut off in 1981, abortions declined for six consecutive years to 51,666 in 1986, a total decrease of 21 percent.
Michigan.
Nowhere have pro-lifers fought so hard to end state abortion funding as in Michigan. For twelve consecutive years, the pro-abortion governor disregarded the wishes of his legislature and the people and vetoed pro-life bills that would have ended state abortion funding.
In 1988, voters finally passed a referendum to stop the state of Michigan from funding 18,500 abortions per year.
The following year, total abortions in the state dropped 23 percent and births rose only 7.2 percent.[8]
Conclusion.
The most compelling conclusion that can be drawn from these State case studies is this: when access to free and easy abortion end, not only do abortions decrease, but pregnancies decrease as well!
This statistical relationship has always been a fundamental assertion of pro-life groups. Common sense tells us that, when the safety net of free abortions is no longer available, women who use baby-killing for birth control tend to become a lot more careful in their approach to sex and contraception.
Current State Funding for Abortions.
What Majority?
The pro-abortion people like to say that the American people are 'fair' in that they want to fund abortions for poor women (in reality, most so-called 'poor' women are high school students, since the person's actual income is used as the poverty indicator).
If this is true, why do only 13 states fund all abortions?
California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont all passed anti-funding laws, but state courts ordered them to continue funding. This means that 42 states have moved to cut off funding.
Figure 60-2 shows the status of abortion funding by the 50 states as of January of 1993.
FIGURE 60-2
STATUS OF STATE ABORTION FUNDING AS OF JANUARY 1993
Funding for All Abortions (14 States).
Alaska Maryland New York Vermont
California Massachusetts North Carolina Washington
Connecticut New Jersey Oregon West Virginia
Hawaii
Funding for Mother's Life, Rape and Incest, and Fetal Defects (2 States).
Iowa Virginia
Funding for Mother's Life and Rape and Incest (3 States).
Minnesota Pennsylvania Wisconsin
Funding for Mother's Life Only (32 States).
Alabama Illinois Missouri Oklahoma
Arizona Indiana Montana Rhode Island
Arkansas Kansas Nebraska South Carolina
Colorado Kentucky Nevada South Dakota
Delaware Louisiana New Hampshire Tennessee
Florida Maine New Mexico Texas
Georgia Michigan North Dakota Utah
Idaho Mississippi Ohio Wyoming
Free Abortions = More Abortions.
Common sense tells us that, if a state pays for convenience abortions for 'poor' women, that such women will be far less likely to be careful about using contraceptives and will use abortion as birth control.
Many or most of these 'poor' women are high school girls. Under current law, a person's financial status is determined by his income. If a high school girl has no income whatever or if she holds a job that is typical of those held by most high-schoolers she automatically qualifies for free abortions.
More than a third of the more than 500,000 abortions performed on teenagers every year are performed at taxpayer expense.
Figure 60-3 shows state-by-state abortion statistics, including the rate of pregnancies in each state that end in abortion. The states that fund all abortions for 'poor' women for any reason are listed in bold face.
The percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion is a much better indicator of how 'pro-life' a state is, because the raw number of abortions obtained is heavily dependent upon the state's population. For example, even though Utah has more abortions than Vermont due to its greater population, it has less than one-third the rate of abortions that Vermont suffers.
FIGURE 60-3
ABORTION STATISTICS BY STATE FOR 1985
Pregnancies
Rank State Abortions Aborted
1 DIST. OF COLUMBIA 26,200 58.0%
2 NEW YORK 191,300 43.3%
3 Nevada 9,550 40.1%
4 NEW JERSEY 62,400 38.7%
5 CALIFORNIA 277,250 38.2%
6 MASSACHUSETTS 43,000 36.1%
7 CONNECTICUT 20,200 35.7%
8 RHODE ISLAND 7,200 35.5%
9 MARYLAND 30,000 34.5%
10 HAWAII 9,600 34.5%
11 Florida 75,150 33.6%
12 WASHINGTON 35,000 32.9%
13 Michigan 64,800 32.1%
14 VERMONT 3,600 31.9%
15 Colorado 23,750 30.7%
16 Delaware 4,150 29.7%
17 Virginia 33,000 29.3%
18 New Hampshire 6,800 28.6%
19 Georgia 38,100 28.4%
20 Pennsylvania 63,200 27.8%
21 OREGON 16,450 27.8%
22 Ohio 62,300 27.4%
23 NORTH CAROLINA 33,050 27.4%
24 Illinois 67,000 27.2%
25 Texas 101,400 25.6%
26 Arizona 19,050 25.5%
27 Tennessee 24,000 25.0%
28 ALABAMA 20,100 24.9%
29 Kansas 11,900 23.3%
30 Maine 4,900 23.3%
31 New Mexico 7,250 22.4%
32 Montana 3,700 21.7%
33 Minnesota 17,950 21.4%
34 Wisconsin 19,800 21.2%
35 Missouri 20,850 21.1%
36 South Carolina 12,450 20.1%
37 Nebraska 6,550 19.9%
38 Oklahoma 12,200 19.7%
39 Alaska 2,700 19.3%
40 North Dakota 3,000 18.8%
41 Louisiana 18,450 18.6%
42 Iowa 9,500 18.1%
43 Indiana 17,900 17.7%
44 Kentucky 11,300 16.8%
45 Arkansas 5,800 14.3%
46 Idaho 2,700 12.9%
47 WEST VIRGINIA 3,800 12.6%
48 Mississippi 6,000 12.1%
49 South Dakota 1,550 10.8%
50 Wyoming 1,100 9.9%
51 Utah 4,300 9.6%
TOTALS
• Entire United States 1,573,250 25.8%
• 15 States that funded all abortions in 1985
(shown in CAPITAL LETTERS) 779,150 34.1%
• 36 States that fund abortions only for the
mother's life/rape/fetal defects 794,100 22.3%
Reference: United States Bureau of Commerce, Department of the Census. National Data Book and Guide to Sources. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 1990, 110th edition. Table 102, "Legal Abortions Number, Rate Per 1,000 Women 15-44 Years Old, and Abortion/Live Birth Ratio, By State of Occurrence, 1980 and 1985." Also Table 105, "Abortions By State."
Two major conclusions are immediately evident upon inspection of Figure 60-3;
(1) The rate of pregnancies ending in abortion in states that fund all abortions for 'poor' women is more than fifty percent higher that in states that only fund abortions to save the mother's life, or for rape and incest (the actual percentages, respectively, are 34.1% and 22.3%).
(2) Thirteen states and the District of Columbia currently fund all abortions for 'poor' women. Of the fourteen states with the highest abortion rates, eleven fund all abortions for poor women.
In summary, then, it is obvious that state funding for abortions drastically increases the total abortion rate in a state. Conversely, ending state funding causes a steep decline in the abortion rate.
The 1978 AGI Study.
When making a point for the pro-life position, it is always best to use statistics generated by pro-abortionists. In this manner, the pro-lifer can avoid accusations that he is using 'biased' information.
A comprehensive 1978 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, found that nationwide, the abortion rate of Medicaid-eligible women was three times the rate for more affluent women (64.3 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age per year vs. 21.1 per 1,000 per year). In all states but two North Carolina and Tennessee the rate of abortions to Medicaid-eligible was higher.[2]
In Alaska, the rate was 5.5 times higher; in California, the rate was 6.3 times higher. It is very significant indeed that every one of the states with the highest ratios have a high minority population.
Not surprisingly, the highest rate of lifetime abortions per woman among poor women was in the District of Columbia (an average rate of 4.8 free abortions per woman during the childbearing years of 15 to 44) and in California (an average rate of 4.4 free abortions).
The Alan Guttmacher Institute acknowledges that abortion funding drastically increases the abortion rate; "Thus, in five states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Kansas and Wisconsin), women who obtained Medicaid-funded abortions had abortion rates more than four times greater than those among nonpoor women. In six states (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, and the Dakotas), there were no Medicaid-funded abortions reported. These figures suggest restrictive Medicaid policies in the six states and more generous policies in the five states, even before the Hyde Amendment cutoff."[2]
This disparity is not due to a lack of access to contraceptives; according to the AGI, in 1976, 72 percent of married poor women used some form of contraception or sterilization; the figure for nonpoor women was 79 percent. The AGI claims that the difference was due purely to the 'fact' that only 29 percent of all births to poor women were wanted and 74 percent of births to nonpoor women were wanted. If abortions were factored in, this would mean that more than 90 percent of poor women's pregnancies are 'unwanted,' a conclusion that is absurd on its face!
References: Medicaid Abortion Funding.
[1] 'Rabbi' Charles D. Mintz. "Abortion and the Holocaust: Twisting the Language." 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights, 100 Maryland Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20002, telephone: (202) 543-7032. 1987, 24 pages. This booklet is stylishly written and laid out on only the best paper. It features five short essays by apostate 'Jews' and phony 'Christians' that are masterpieces of Doublethink and propaganda. This booklet is mandatory reading for any pro-lifer who wants insight into just how clever pro-abort propaganda can be.
[2] Greg J. Duncan. Years of Poverty, Years of Plenty. Institute for Social Research, the University of Michigan. 1984, pages 77 and 90.
[3] Alan Guttmacher Institute. Abortions and the Poor: Private Morality, Public Responsibility. Washington, DC: AGI, 1978. 48 pages. Pages 17, 18, 24, 32, and 35.
[4] Dr. Willard Cates, Centers for Disease Control. Washington Post, February 16, 1978.
[5] Centers for Disease Control. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, June 6, 1980, page 254.
[6] Frontline Updates. "Illinois State-Paid Abortions Drop to Twelve." National Right to Life News, August 16, 1984, page 4.
[7] Richard Doerflinger. "Hyde Amendment to Be Examined By Congress Again." The [Portland, Oregon] Catholic Sentinel, November 9, 1990, page 7.
[8] Frontline Updates. "Parental Involvement Laws." National Right to Life News, October 31, 1990, page 4.
Further Reading: Medicaid Abortion Funding.
United States Government. Medicare and Medicaid Data.
This annual report includes Medicare data for the appropriate year and tracks trends in enrollees, recipients, use of services, and expenditures. Also provides a list of Medicare carriers and intermediaries, including abortionists. Serial Number 017-060-00214-0, each year, 143 pages. Order by mail from Superintendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by telephone from (202) 783-3238.
United States Government, Department of Health and Human Services. Directory of Physicians and Suppliers that Accept Medicare.
Information on the 38 Medicaid carriers and the physicians who accept Medicaid money. Information includes the doctor, company name, address, and telephone number. Free; published annually in April by the Health Care Financing Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201, telephone: (202) 245-6113.
© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111
This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia published by American Life League.
