Steven Waldman

Steven Waldman


The Truth About Contraceptives Stimulating the Economy

posted by swaldman

I’m depressed about this whole flap over contraceptives being in the stimulus package. It reflects much about what’s wrong with politics and policymaking in Washington. Here are my top three reasons to be depressed:
1) Democrats are still not committed to the new abortion politics. Democrats have to make a decision between which approach they’re going to take to abortion. Approach #1 is “we won; get used to it.” In that approach, they push forward with pro-choice policies that they’ve always wanted.
Approach #2 is to take seriously Obama’s rhetoric during the campaign about seeking common ground. Under this scenario, one does not insert into the stimulus bill money that goes to Planned Parenthood until after you’ve come up with a bigger “deal” promoting abortion reduction. The Democrats’ move comes on the heels of Obama repealing the Mexico City “gag rule” and — just as important — issuing a Presidential statement that had abandoned a key part of the abortion “compromise” they’d proudly touted during the campaign.
The one bit of good news: Obama apparently has thrown this provision overboard.
2) The Republicans first impulse was to massively exaggerate. They had a good issue: stimulus money should be reserved primarily for job creation. And if you’re going to do some non-job-creating moves, they should be non-controversial (i.e. education spending). But, as usual, Republicans got carried away. When Pelosi defended the practice because it reduced costs — which it probably does — Republicans made it sound like Pelosi was arguing that contraceptions stimulate the economy. “PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY , declared Drudge Report in a typical headline.
She never suggested contraceptives — or Barry White music or oysters, for that matter — would stimulate the economy. She said, it would “reduce costs.”
Then, conservatives turned this into proof that Pelosi was anti-baby. Since Pelosi never explained how it would reduce costs, conservatives filled in the blanks, saying that saving would come from people having fewer babies.
Jim Pethokoukis at US News writes:

“This is wrong on so many levels, one of which is looking at children born to the “wrong people” as economic burdens rather gifts, the music makers, the dreamers of dreams. She sees them as a cost instead of blessed benefits. Wow.”

Some of the cost savings does come from reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. (And is the conservative position that that’s bad?) But some of it comes from improving the health of new babies. If you intervene earlier with low income pregnant women, clinics can improve the maternal nutrition and thereby create more healthy babies who need less emergency health care. Are conservatives really against that?
Then, conservatives exaggerated the exaggeration. The Family Research Council declared yesterday that the measure would cost not $200 million but rather $87 billion.
That is in exaggeration on such a massive scale that my calculater kept giving me an error message when I was figuring it out. The Family Research Council calculations were off by a mere 43,500% Does that break some sort of exaggeration record?*
3) The abortion-family-planning conflation continues, harming millions of babies in the process. Conservatives now refer to any money that goes to family planning as subsidies for the “abortion industry” because some of the money will invariably go to places like Planned Parenthood, which also provides abortion services. Any type of family planning becomes thereby demonized.
Yet none of the family planning money goes to directly fund abortions and much goes to services to improve the health of mothers who are having babies, and reduce the number of babies who die in their first year. In arguing to the Obama transition team in favor of the family planning measure that made it into the stimulus, that well know Left Wing Socialist Organization called The March of Dimes wrote:

“By allowing Medicaid programs to cover primary care and family planning services without having to obtain a federal waiver, low income women will be under the care of a health professional before pregnancy, increasing the likelihood that when they do become pregnant, they will obtain timely prenatal care as recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
• Numerous studies have shown that pregnancies spaced too closely together present a
medical risk factor for preterm birth. Appropriately spacing pregnancies — for which
counseling by a healthcare provider is recommended — has been shown to reduce the
risk of preterm birth.
• Approximately 1 in 5 infants born preterm have ongoing health problems, including
cerebral palsy, mental retardation, chronic lung disease, and vision and hearing loss. A
recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report estimates that the societal economic cost of
preterm birth (medical, educational, lost productivity) totaled at least $26.2 billion in
2005.5

(Full memo below the fold)
In addition, there’s a reasonable argument that spending more on family planning actually reduces more abortion than it causes. Yes, some people go to family planning clinics to get abortions but some go to get contraception, reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. It’s not an impartial source, of course, by the Gutthmacher Institute estimates that “Each year, the contraceptive services provided just at publicly funded clinics help women avoid 1.4 million unintended pregnancies, which would result in 640,000 unintended births and 600,000 abortions.”
Conservatives willfully refuse to grapple with the possibility that better family planning reduces the number of abortions — and pro-choice people seldom make the argument because they don’t want to concede the idea that reducing the number of abortions is a goal worth discussing.
On the other hand, the pro-family-planning folks have never, as far as I know, come up with a way of promoting family planning services that wouldn’t also lead to indirectly subsidizing abortion. And since they support direct federal funding for abortions, the pro-life forces are not wrong to fear some of this money will end up promoting abortion.
If pro-family-planning forces were willing to de-couple abortion from family planning, they could improve maternal health care and reduce infant mortality — but that would mean retreating a bit on abortion services.
So, pro-life forces end up supporting policies that lead to more abortions and liberal pro-choice forces end up fueling a political dynamic that leads to greater infant mortality.
Kudos all around.
* UPDATE: The Family Research Council explained the $87 billion figure by saying that’s how much the feds might pour out to help states with Medicaid. “We are saying it COULD be used for family planning – there isn’t much direction and throughout the bill it seems the Democrats are saying ‘trust us’ on where the money will go. Considering during President G.W. Bush years spending on this program grew from $252 million to $759 million just in the 14 states that were granted waivers (this on a program started under President Clinton that was supposed to SAVE money.) The Democrats’ bill removes the waiver necessity so all 50 states plus territories will be able to expand their family planning programs to people who aren’t normally considered poor (likely including more teenagers – with no parental consent protections). All the states need do is come up with a $1 to get $9 more in family planning/contraception funds. Current spending on family planning/contraception in Medicare is 1.3 billion – so $200 million increase actually sounds low – relatively. ”


March of Dimes Memo to Obama-Biden Transition
MEDICAID FAMILY PLANNING STATE OPTION

Proposal
The March of Dimes strongly supports the creation of an explicit option allowing states to
provide primary care and family planning services to women under Medicaid without having to obtain a federal waiver. This provision is included in legislation developed by the March of Dimes — “Prevent Prematurity and Improve Child Health Act” — first introduced in 2003 and re-introduced this Congress (S.794/H.R. 2746) by Senators Lincoln (D-AR), Lugar (R-IN), Bingaman (R-NM) and Snowe (R-ME) and by Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO).
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a version of this provision that was
approved by the House would yield a cost savings of $200 million to the federal government (and additional savings to states) over 5 years.
Current Law
Under current law, women of child-bearing age (15-44) are not eligible for Medicaid coverage until after they become pregnant, unless they are disabled or they have children who are enrolled in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Among the second group, income eligibility varies by state but is, on average only 41% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 1 in 5 women of child-bearing age — 12.6 million women — was uninsured in 2006. As the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and others have shown, lack of insurance poses a significant barrier to accessing health care services, including family planning.
A central purpose of family planning is to promote healthy births. As a condition of federal
reimbursement, Medicaid requires states to provide family planning services to women who meet the eligibility guidelines. However, because most low income women cannot enroll in Medicaid until they become pregnant, 26 states have obtained waivers from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to provide primary care and family planning services to low income women of child bearing age before they become pregnant. Specific services covered include examination and treatment, laboratory tests, medically approved contraception and infertility services, as well as patient education and counseling. Enrolling these women prior to pregnancy has resulted improved access to preventive care, reduced the risk of poor pregnancy outcomes and generated Medicaid savings.
In addition to the services described above, an increasing number of states are using the their waiver authority to provide ‘preconception care’ — recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and defined as, “the identification of those conditions that could affect a future pregnancy or fetus and that may be amenable to intervention.” Such care includes tobacco cessation counseling and pharmaceuticals, nutrition and folic acid counseling, and controlling pre-existing medical conditions that could impact a pregnancy (such as diabetes or hypertension).
Potential For Improving Maternal and Child Health
• Approximately half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned, and there is a strong
correlation between unintended pregnancy and failure to obtain timely prenatal care.3 By
allowing Medicaid programs to cover primary care and family planning services without
having to obtain a federal waiver, low income women will be under the care of a health
professional before pregnancy, increasing the likelihood that when they do become
pregnant, they will obtain timely prenatal care as recommended by the American College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (ACOG).
• Numerous studies have shown that pregnancies spaced too closely together present a
medical risk factor for preterm birth.4 Appropriately spacing pregnancies — for which
counseling by a healthcare provider is recommended — has been shown to reduce the
risk of preterm birth.
• Approximately 1 in 5 infants born preterm have ongoing health problems, including
cerebral palsy, mental retardation, chronic lung disease, and vision and hearing loss. A
recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report estimates that the societal economic cost of
preterm birth (medical, educational, lost productivity) totaled at least $26.2 billion in
2005.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(6)
post a comment
Anonymous Person

posted January 27, 2009 at 1:07 pm


So instead of criticizing Pelosi for making the comment that fewer children=better economy, you criticize those who pointed out how callous it was. Ridiculous!



report abuse
 

N.M.

posted January 27, 2009 at 2:55 pm


You contradicted yourself.
In your first point, you are “depressed” because you conflate support for family planning with subsidies for abortion.
In your third point, you are “depressed” because people conflate support for family planning with subsidies for abortion.
I take it you are depressing yourself?
To be perfectly blunt, I don’t know whether you are woefully ignorant – in which case you should not write about these topics – or deliberately mendacious. You write: “On the other hand, the pro-family-planning folks have never, as far as I know, come up with a way of promoting family planning services that wouldn’t also lead to indirectly subsidizing abortion. And since they support direct federal funding for abortions, the pro-life forces are not wrong to fear some of this money will end up promoting abortion.”
No federal money pays for abortion. Medicaid does not cover abortion. Family planning providers are required by law to keep their federal funding for family planning services – fee-for-service funding – separate from anything that has to do with abortion. What else do you want?
Seriously. What else do you want? If you can’t articulate what policy you’d like to see that would keep abortion “subsidies” more separate from federal reimbursement for services providing contraceptive information and supplies to low-income women, don’t blame anyone else for not dreaming it up.
This post illustrates to me the extent to which one must abandon logic and realism in order to support the position the GOP has staked out. You have literally contradicted yourself and demanded policy provisions you yourself cannot imagine.
And all to maintain your self-satisfied, oh-so-“reasonable” position in the “common ground.” Once again, the base instinct to stroke one’s own ego trumps both the public interest and common sense.
PS. I am morally opposed to my tax dollars being used to subsidize the capital punishment, which I view as immoral and deeply offensive to my faith. Until the federal government finds a way to separate my tax money from the execution (so to speak) of this policy, I demand the right to withhold my tax payments. I look forward to you advocacy on my behalf.



report abuse
 

Charles Cosimano

posted January 27, 2009 at 7:53 pm


Fewer children are better for the economy. Children, until they can work, are an economic burden. Schools cost money. Parents spend money on basic necessities that would be better spent on consumer goods creating more jobs. Combine that with the medical costs of early childhood diseases, taking valuable resources better spent on the elderly who can spend money and help keep the ecomony going and yes, children are an economic drag and child-bearing should be discouraged.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted January 27, 2009 at 11:37 pm


The article is confusing because it seems to argue both sides of the points. It seems to me the birth control is part of Obama’s statements about reducing abortions.
I doubt Pelosi wants less babies. Nancy Pelosi’s desire for contraceptives being in the stimulus package has practical benefits. Anyone receiving Medicaid is extremely low income. The current cost for birth controls pills is $50 or more a month, which is a considerable amount for someone already living at poverty level.
While taxpayers would not pay for birth control pills, we would pay for the birth of the baby. Women at poverty level have a higher rate of babies with problems. The babies are likely to grow up with physical or mental issues. They are more likely to need special education classes. Long story short, the cycle of poverty is likely to continue.
If the woman has a low paying job without health insurance, the woman and her baby will end up at emergency rooms for medical care.
I am surprised about that the current spending on family planning/contraception in Medicare being 1.3 billion. Unless the laws have changed, individuals on Medicare have to qualify for social security, which means they are 62 and above or disabled. It would be interesting to see a breakout of who is receiving family planning/contraception through Medicare.
The federal government gives states money for many different programs. There are controls and auditors from HHS’s Office of Inspector General for Medicaid and USDA’s Office of Inspector General for food stamps reviewing the programs. The audit structure is already established. Hopefully Congress has learned from giving the banks big money without controls.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted January 28, 2009 at 3:30 pm


Family planning that Obama may be cutting would have saved the federal government $200 million over five years by helping women voluntarily avoid pregnancies that otherwise would result in Medicaid-funded births. $200 million from a Congressional Budget Office assessment in 2007.
Call members of Congress, especially Republicans
The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society
Action Alert: Possible cuts to family planning in stimulus package Please call the White House immediately and ask President Obama not to cut family planning funds in the stimulus package!
Call the White House today at 202-456-1414. You can also leave a comment online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact.
To cut these funds is short sighted and will hurt women, men and families and will reduce opportunities for economic recovery.
Supporters of this funding cut question the relevancy of including these funds in an economic stimulus package. Ironically, when the Congressional Budget Office assessed a virtually identical provision in 2007, it found that it would save the federal government $200 million over five years by helping women voluntarily avoid pregnancies that otherwise would result in Medicaid-funded births. The money saved could be spent for job creation.



report abuse
 

Chris Cook

posted February 10, 2009 at 9:48 am


What ever happened to no compromise in the area of sin? Have we as a country become so calloused that we no longer break and weep at the thoughts of our hard earned dollars having even the possibility of being used to fund abortions. How could we have strayed so far as to look upon these pure, innocent children, and speak words against them just as Hitler did the Jewish people? He didn’t “kill” them rather he “purged society” of their presence. We don’t “kill babies”, rather we “abort fetuses”. God have mercy upon us.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!
Thank you for visiting this page. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Top Religious News Most Recent Inspiration Post Happy Reading!

posted 6:00:22pm Apr. 20, 2012 | read full post »

Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety. But mostly deep, deep gratitude. How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest money to make it a reality? How many people get to create

posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 | read full post »

"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, to lead an agency-wide initiative to assess the state o

posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 | read full post »

My Big News
Dear Readers, This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999. In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of the media for the Federal Communications Commission, the

posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »

"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009 BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven Waldman, co-founder, president and editor-in-chief, will re

posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.