Democrat Sparks Outrage With Murder Cost Argument

Colorado Democrat Speaker Julie McCluskie ignites fierce backlash after advocating for taxpayer-funded abortions by claiming “averted births” would save the state money on Medicaid costs.

Quick Takes

Colorado’s Senate Bill 183 would require Medicaid and public employee insurance plans to cover abortion services
McCluskie argued the state could save money because “a birth is more expensive than an abortion”
The bill implements Amendment 79, which established a constitutional right to abortion in Colorado
Critics condemn the economic justification as reducing human life to a cost-benefit analysis
Analysts project the abortion coverage would cost $5.9 million annually but claim savings from “averted births”

Cost of Life: Colorado Democrat’s Controversial Abortion Argument

Colorado House Speaker Julie McCluskie has sparked outrage for her economic justification of a bill mandating taxpayer funding for abortions. The Democrat co-sponsored Senate Bill 183, which would require Medicaid, Child Health Plan Plus, and public employee insurance plans to cover abortion services. During discussions about the legislation, McCluskie emphasized that the state would benefit financially if women chose abortion instead of carrying pregnancies to term, triggering intense criticism from pro-life advocates and fiscal conservatives.

Unbelievable! Said it outloud! Abortion save the state money,so we should have the state pay for all abortions.Sad day in Colorado. https://t.co/JgPkClXCcf

— James Barry (@JamesMBarry) March 26, 2025

In her presentation of the bill, McCluskie made the financial case explicit: “That savings comes from the averted births that will not occur, because abortions happened instead. A birth is more expensive than an abortion, so the savings comes in Medicaid births that will not occur.” The bill would cost approximately $5.9 million annually but proponents claim this expense would be offset by savings from preventing births. The legislation follows Colorado voters’ approval of Amendment 79, which established a state constitutional right to abortion.

Fiscal Analysis Sparks Ethical Debate

The fiscal note for Senate Bill 183 projects that more than 333,000 women enrolled in Medicaid or Child Health Plan Plus programs might seek abortion services annually. McCluskie emphasized the financial benefits repeatedly during discussions, stating, “This bill will actually decrease costs for our Healthcare Policy and Financing Department, our Medicaid expenditures in both this year and out years, as the savings from averted births outweigh the cost of covering reproductive health care for all Coloradans.”

“The premise that insurance coverage for abortion care is a societal good because it saves money on births doesn’t feel right to me,” Teter said. “Access to health care is good always.”

Critics of the bill, including the Colorado Catholic Conference, have challenged both the economic reasoning and the moral implications. They argue that the fiscal note substantially underestimates the actual costs of abortion procedures, particularly late-term abortions. Vessely of the Conference noted that late-trimester abortions could cost around $3,000, far more than the estimates used in the bill’s fiscal projections. Opponents also express concern about taxpayers being forced to fund a procedure many find morally objectionable.

Political Implications and Implementation

The bill, which has already passed the Senate and the House Health and Human Services Committee, aims to reduce dependence on federal reimbursement for reproductive healthcare services. If signed into law, it would take effect in 2026, requiring Medicaid and other state-funded healthcare programs to cover abortion services. Supporters of the legislation, including Planned Parenthood, emphasize the importance of insurance coverage for abortion access following the constitutional amendment approved by 62% of Colorado voters.

“To further reduce federal interference, our legislation reduces the state’s reliance on federal reimbursement for reproductive health care,” Garcia said in a statement. “This bill upholds the will of the voters to ensure your fundamental right to access life-saving abortion care is never ripped away.”

McCluskie described co-sponsoring the legislation as “truly an honor” despite the controversy surrounding her economic justification. Critics argue that promoting abortion based on cost savings dehumanizes unborn children and reduces the value of human life to a financial calculation. Some opponents also point out potential long-term economic consequences, suggesting that promoting abortion could ultimately harm government programs that depend on a growing population of future taxpayers and workers in an already aging society.