What’s the cost of around 10,000 babies being born each year? According to the CBO estimate on H.R. 36, which was passed Tuesday by the House, it’s $175 million in additional Medicaid costs over 10 years. The CBO, by law, has to come up with these estimates, and the amounts are vanishingly small, lost in a $1 trillion federal budget.
Bloomberg BNA health policy writer Alex Ruoff decided to tweet this ghoulish number.
The 20-week abortion ban being voted on soon would add $175M to the federal deficit due to increased birthshttps://t.co/tMMuP7DcJK
— Alex Ruoff (@Alexruoff) October 3, 2017
Without context, it certainly looks like a good way to save $175 is to let 25 or 30 babies perish every day, rather than let them be born, which costs more money. This tweet set Twitter off in a fit of revulsion.
"Let's kill people because it's cost-effective" is a great talking point & I very much hope it becomes the tip of the pro-abortion PR spear. https://t.co/9Dyw4BDrSM
— Esoteric Jeff (@EsotericCD) October 3, 2017
If Dems want to kill people to save money they should check out how much cash they can save by murdering the retired https://t.co/PEJF69alkE
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) October 3, 2017
Who quotes the birth of children as a deficit? Morally bankrupt.
— Jerry Warner (@jwrneriii) October 3, 2017
We can really cut the deficit if we abort up to the 8th trimester.
— Razor (@hale_razor) October 3, 2017
The word that keeps coming up in it is "uncertain."Once people understand abortion is not birth control but murder. Better planning happens
— ❌ ?? John ?? ❌ (@john_az_usa) October 3, 2017
Maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to tear into Mr. Ruoff, because after all, it’s part of his job to tweet about these things. But it wasn’t too smart to offer something like that without context. What’s really scary is that many on the left think that saving money is a great justification for killing people.