A creature working for the Los Angeles Times as a “Political Analyst/Columnist” named Cathleen Decker, came out with one of the most astonishing and honest takes on the Trump-Ryan Obamacare replacement plan that I’ve seen.

GOPcare's ban on Planned Parenthood would result in loss of healthcare to many in rural/low income areas; thousands of births would result.

— Cathleen Decker (@cathleendecker) March 13, 2017

CBO report says many of those births/children's healthcare would be paid by Medicaid, which currently covers 45% of all births.

— Cathleen Decker (@cathleendecker) March 13, 2017

The Washington Post did the same thing: CBO: Defunding Planned Parenthood would lead to thousands more births.

The tweet has a distinct air of panic about it. ZOMG!!! MORE OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE BORN IF WE DON’T KILL THEM OFF!!!

Is it rural babies or low income babies we should be afraid of? Or just poor farmer babies? Please clarify. Thx.

— CatholicVote.org (@CatholicVote) March 14, 2017

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/841405774932918273

This is thinking that is a worthy heir of Margaret Sanger who founded Planned Parenthood as a vehicle for genocide.

Decker goes on to try to weasel out of the situation by saying she was quoting the CBO scoring document (see page 23). She was but in a way that was divorced from the context of the CBO’s analysis. The CBO says cutting funding to Planned Parenthood would save the government $178 million next year. It then goes on to say that you have to assume that some of the children who aren’t aborted will be born to Medicaid recipients (it assumes 15%) and that you have to offset the savings by the increased Medicaid outlays. This, the CBO estimates, reduces the savings to $156 million.

There is good reason to challenge some of the CBO’s verbiage, for instance, no woman anywhere will be deprived of health care if all Planned Parenthood centers are shut down because Planned Parenthood does not provide health care. It provides abortions and a limited package of low skill, inexpensive, and easily acquired referrals and services. Your typical CVS can do everything Planned Parenthood does without killing babies.

The CBO report doesn’t even say that getting rid of Planned Parenthood would reduce services:

To the extent that there would be reductions in access to care under the legislation, they would affect services that help women avert pregnancies.

What the entire paragraph shows is that the CBO doesn’t think this will have much of an impact but they know they can’t say it won’t have an impact or they’ll be accused of being GOP shills. So they say “assume 15 percent.” The Census Bureau did the exact same thing after the Simpson–Mazzoli Act of 1986. It was supposed to reduce net illegal immigration. The Census Bureau didn’t think it would have any effect but they decided to assume it would cut net illegal immigration in half. One of them told me it fell under “Better Number Theory,” which, simply stated, says “if you have a better number we’ll use it.”

What is telling, however, is the CBO assumption that if federal funding for Planned Parenthood is shut off then no one will use Planned Parenthood for its non-abortion services.

Of course, the killing of undesirables is what Planned Parenthood is about. It supporters know that, too. That is why Planned Parenthood locates in poor communities, particularly minority communities. It is no accident that for every 1000 live births by a black mother that there are 420 abortions. The crisis facing the United States, and most of the developed world, is not too many people but not enough people. To support our social safety net and environmental programs and national infrastructure we need taxpayers. Killing them because they were born in wrong ZIP code is not only immoral and inhumane, it is profoundly unwise if you believe in the welfare state.