Commentary
Minnesota's disadvantaged mothers need help, not abortions
by Scott FischbachState tax money in Minnesota is used for a lot of good things. It funds our schools, our parks, our nursing homes. It builds our roads and helps the underprivileged. But in recent years, about 1.5 million of our taxpayer dollars annually have been diverted to the purpose of killing unborn children.
So while the vast majority of state money is arguably used to build a better life for Minnesotans, some tax dollars help to end the lives of Minnesotans. The abortion funding must come to an end.
The people of Minnesota have never voted to pay for abortions with state money, and neither has the state Legislature. Taxpayer funding of abortion was imposed upon us by a wrongly decided court case known as Doe vs. Gomez in the mid-1990s.
Now it is time for the Legislature to represent the will of the people by passing a ban on taxpayer-funded abortions, and for Gov. Mark Dayton to allow the ban to become law. We know that Gov. Dayton supports abortion; he always has. But many who consider themselves "pro-choice" acknowledge that using tax dollars to pay for elective abortions goes too far.
Funding abortion seems especially unwise at a time when the state faces a massive $6.5 billion deficit. Paying abortionists to kill unborn Minnesotans is an expense that we simply cannot afford, and that unborn babies can live without.
According to the Minnesota Department of Human Services, taxpayers bought 50,869 abortions at a cost of $15.6 million between July of 1994 and December of 2008. Some of those unborn victims would already be paying taxes to the state if they hadn't been killed using state taxes. At a time of record deficits, unfunded mandates, consolidated schools, Social Security heading into the red and Medicaid bankruptcy, a few extra taxpayers would come in handy.
I know the argument will be made by the other side that poor women ought to have the same access to abortion as rich women. But if we really want what's best for disadvantaged mothers and their babies, we will help them, not offer them abortions. If there is any common ground on abortion in our society today, it is this: Both sides know that abortions can hurt women and that the complications from undergoing an abortion can be horrific, sometimes leading to death for the mother, and always for the baby.
The vast majority of taxpayer-funded abortions are covered under Medical Assistance, Minnesota's Medicaid program. These taxpayer funds are paying for abortions. Public funding of abortion is unjust, regardless of the program under which it is funded.
We are Minnesotans. We live in one of the richest states in the richest country in the history of the world; we can do better than to have state-funded abortions of the innocent offspring of pregnant women in need. If our society's answer to poverty is to abort the children of the poor, God help us.
----
Scott Fischbach is executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.
Comments (15)
\\But if we really want what's best for disadvantaged mothers and their babies, we will help them...
Very true, Scott. Then when will MCCL use its clout with the candidates it helped put in office to push for funding of health care and assistance for the poor. Many Republican legislators supported by MCCL are anti-abortion, however they are also trying to balance the budget by taking away public assistance from those whose need it most, including disadvantaged mothers and their babies. When will MCCL hold the Republican legislators accountable for their votes and pledges to defund public assistance?
As we discuss life issues, it is worth pointing out that our nation has spent trillions of dollars on war and to build up a massive military arsenal. When will this become a 'pro-life' issue? Like you Scott, I don't want my tax money used for killing people, and that's what the military is all about.
Like Mr. Heebsh above, I wonder when organizations like MCCL will work with legislatures to create meaningful laws that will give a hand up to disadvantaged mothers. My perception is that MCCL is so busy working with conservatives to oppose abortion that, with all due respect, the statement that "we will help them" rings hollow.
In response to Al, MCCL doesn't wade into debates about how best to help the poor (Republicans and Democrats disagree about the best approach). MCCL focuses specifically on the areas in which our society allows the unjust killing of innocent human beings.
Questions about the use of American military force generally don't fall in that category, since it is mostly uncontroversial that killing is not always wrong - e.g., killing may be justified in self defense or a just war. But the deliberate killing of the innocent by abortion, sanctioned and even funded by our government, is a different matter entirely.
So Edward immediately pivots back to womb control because questions of caring for others are too sensitive and he'd rather just talk about forcing them to spit out babies they can't actually support.
It's not that how best to help the poor is a "sensitive" issue, but simply that it's outside the realm of what MCCL does. Just as heart disease is outside the realm of what the American Cancer Society focuses on, for example. It obviously doesn't imply that the American Cancer Society does not care about people with heart disease.
MCCL's focus happens to be on stopping the unjust killing of innocent human beings, not solving poverty, though they are both very important causes.
Perhaps the MCCL should choose a name more fitting with its mission. 'Anti-abortion' could be used in the name instead of 'Life' if abortion is the only life issue the group will concern itself with. It would be nice if there were a group with a comprehensive scorecard showing how legislators and the governor stand on the broad range of life issues.
Edward Calvin,
If MCCL believes that actually helping the poor is outside of their mission, perhaps they might consider leaving language like "if we really want what's best for disadvantaged mothers and their babies, we will help them, not offer them abortions" out of their public mission statements.
After all, if you're really interested in helping disadvantaged mothers and their babies, you'd be offering them financial assistance, health care, housing, daycare, and transportation.
Unfortunately, many "pro-life" politicians seem to believe that responsibility for children ends when they're born -- it's fairly dishonest to talk out of one side of your mouth about "saving the children", while voting against social-welfare and education programs.
Also, the statement of "a few extra taxpayers would come in handy" is distasteful in the extreme. Is Mr. Fischbach intimating that we wouldn't have these budgetary problems if these pregnancies had ended in live birth? Surely none of these children would be on Medicaid or receiving Social Security benefits if they were disabled . . . oh, WAIT.
Women in desperate poverty need access to health care, including family planning and abortion, so that they can care for themselves and their families. Taking away their choice and forcing them to bear children that they can't care for is unethical and dehumanizing.
When pro-life advocates talk about "life issues," then mean issues in which the fundamental right to life is at stake. It is not at stake in economic issues or debates about welfare vs. private charity, as important as those are. But it is at stake in the unjust killing of abortion.
Andrea, I suppose I should mention that perhaps the bulk of the pro-life movement consists of pregnancy care centers and volunteers dedicated to helping pregnant women and new mothers in need (see http://www.mccl.org/page.aspx?pid=315). And MCCL pushed to enact the Positive Alternatives Act in 2005 to provide grants to pregnancy care centers that help women in need. It may be the legislation that MCCL is most proud of.
In any case, it is not inconsistent to urge society to care for women and children (which many pro-lifers volunteer their time to help do) rather than pay for abortions, while at the same time representing an organization with a limited focus on securing protection for innocent human life.
Edward, are these the same Pregnancy Care Centers/Crisis Pregnancy Centers which have been proven to provide medical misinformation and straight-up lies, to the point that a number of cities and states are regulating that they offer disclaimers?
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/01/19/washington-state-aims-become-first-state-hold-cpcs-acountable
"What these centers do not advertise is that they are not medical clinics; that they are staffed primarily by volunteers who lack medical training; and that they are expressly opposed to abortion and any form of contraception other than abstinence and will not make referrals for these services. In some cases, they will withhold a woman's private records generated during her visit if they believe the woman will later seek an abortion."
Out of 20 centers visited by testers in Washington State, "every single center provided false or distorted information about abortion and pregnancy."
Crisis Pregnancy Centers are a scam which preys unconscionably on the poor and vulnerable.
I know, because I *was* a teenage mother, and I wanted to volunteer at a center to share the perspective of someone who had chosen to keep and raise their baby. (I'm pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion -- I'd like to see them safe, legal, and rarely required.)
However, I found out that the centers I visited weren't interested in offering full and accurate information about legal & ethical choices - they only wanted to push anti-choice messages.
"But if we really want what's best for disadvantaged mothers and their babies, we will help them, not offer them abortions."
Your solution to helping them is by completing ignoring the wishes of the "disadvantaged" women themselves. How noble, of you, MCCL. How completely paternalistic and condescending.
Speaking of name changes. . . .
Somebody suggested that the MCCL change it's name because its only "life" issue is the prevention of abortion.
OK.
Then as long as we are asking people to ch;ange their names, how 'bout having Planned Parenthood remove the "parenthood" from their name. They're only goal is the prevention or elimination of parenthood. Talk about false advertising.
They should be recquired toi inform customers (they are a for-profit organization, remember) the scope of their services including their opposition to parenthood.
Speaking of name changes. . . .
Somebody suggested that the MCCL change it's name because its only "life" issue is the prevention of abortion.
OK.
Then as long as we are asking people to ch;ange their names, how 'bout having Planned Parenthood remove the "parenthood" from their name. They're only goal is the prevention or elimination of parenthood. Talk about false advertising.
They should be recquired toi inform customers (they are a for-profit organization, remember) the scope of their services including their opposition to parenthood.
"It's not that how best to help the poor is a "sensitive" issue, but simply that it's outside the realm of what MCCL does. Just as heart disease is outside the realm of what the American Cancer Society focuses on, for example. It obviously doesn't imply that the American Cancer Society does not care about people with heart disease."
While I don't want to attack this argument about abortion (I feel my stances have already been pointed out by others), I do wonder if you know much about the American Cancer Society.
If you visit cancer.org, there is a whole section titled "Stay Healthy" and while much information is geared towards cancer prevention, talk to anyone that works for ACS (or has done their research) and they will tell you all about how ACS is a huge promoter of healthy living- which would include the prevention of heart disease.
I just don't see how your comparison works.
Quit protesting in front of Planned Parenthood and start handing out condoms at the bars in the neighborhood - you'll prevent more abortions if you made half the effort educating men and making them responsible for their 50% instead of just harassing women after they are pregnant.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Latest News & Features
News Cut
with Bob CollinsIn The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock