Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Virginia's new abortion restrictions could save state more than $150,000, governor's office says

Anita Kumar

The state's new law restricting taxpayer-funded abortions could save Virginia more than $150,000 a year, according to the governor's office.

The General Assembly last week approved an amendment to the state budget that would limit funding for abortions to those performed in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk. Nothing in state law had previously banned Medicaid-funded abortions in instances when the health of the mother was in jeopardy.

Last year, 147 abortions at a cost of $174,000 were performed in cases where the health of the mother was at risk at clinics or hospitals, according to new data provided by the governor's office.

Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Catholic who has long opposed abortion, proposed the amendment, arguing that the change would bring Virginia into line with federal law on the issue, recently restated by an executive order signed by President Obama.

By Anita Kumar  |  April 30, 2010; 8:00 AM ET
Categories:  Anita Kumar , General Assembly 2010 , House of Delegates , Robert F. McDonnell , State Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Post's local opinions blog adds Virginia voices
Next: Moran asks Salazar to reconsider offshore drilling following Gulf oil well disaster


Whoa, there is some faulty logic there. At least some of those abortions that were previously funded are going to be for economically disadvantaged mothers.

This will just add to the number of children on the government dole - and may very well end up costing more than they save.

Posted by: reiflame1 | April 30, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Oh, so we should kill unborn babies to save money?

Posted by: Yankeesfan1 | April 30, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

I agree with reiflame. The expense to a family to adequately provide for a child will not end up saving the government money. And while I understand there is the underlying issue of what people believe is morally right, disguising this in a budget-saving measure is preposterous. If they want to pass that law for any reason it should be out in the open. Additionally, $150,000 is nothing when it comes to a state's budget. Financial cuts can be made elsewhere that would have a far greater impact.

Posted by: khornyan | April 30, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Unwanted and unloved children being raised by children on the public dole save money?-NOT !!!

Posted by: lsf07 | April 30, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

So Gov. Bob McDonnell is opposed to the efforts of Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood's founder) to "abort the poor and undesirable races out of existence." If saving Virginia its tax dollars are his real concern, he is being penny-wise and dollar-foolish. Regardless of his motivation, his action will allow some children to be born who otherwise would have been killed while in their mothers' wombs. Hurrah for that!

Posted by: DoTheRightThing | April 30, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Making it illegal because it is murder makes sense. It's hypocritical, but it makes sense. All other reasons are just hypocritical.

Posted by: NancyNaive | April 30, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Realizing the responsibility to raise their children, and acting in a manner in which they protect their bodies and develop their relationships? That will save money, and the individual person from enslavement.

Promoting a culture dependent on penicillin and therapy, maybe even HIV drugs, well, now that's expensive.

Posted by: cprferry | May 1, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Decreasing abortions will save money? I don't think so. If no abortion then the taxpayers will have to pay for the delivery at the end of the pregnancy and that will be a much greater amount than an abortion - particularly if there are complications. The cost of delivering a baby can range from $5,000 to $8,000 for a vaginal delivery to more than $12,000 for a cesarean delivery. So, forgetting the moral factors & focusing on money alone, the taxpayers will be worse off - MORE of their tax dollars will be spent with this amendment.

Posted by: margaretpierson | May 3, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company