Listen To Story Above
A Colorado Democrat has sparked controversy by suggesting abortion as a cost-saving measure for the state during a recent legislative discussion.
Julie McCluskie, Colorado’s House Speaker, delivered remarks while co-sponsoring legislation that would mandate Medicaid and Child Health Plan Plus program participants to cover abortion services. The proposed bill would extend this requirement to public employee insurance plans as well.
During her presentation, McCluskie emphasized the financial advantages of choosing abortion over childbirth, focusing primarily on potential government savings rather than the human aspects of the decision.
SHOCKING: Speaker Julie McCluskie (D) is effectively encouraging Coloradans on Medicaid to have an abortion instead of giving birth, because it's cheaper for the state.
This occurred yesterday. Really showing your cards @McCluskieforCO #COPolitics pic.twitter.com/lbhguaYLeO
— Scott Shamblin (@scottpshamblin) March 26, 2025
“That savings comes from the averted births that will not occur, because abortions happened instead,” McCluskie stated. “A birth is more expensive than an abortion, so the savings comes in Medicaid births that will not occur.”
Her clinical approach to the sensitive topic continued as she detailed the financial implications. “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,” she explained.
While acknowledging the $1.5 million cost associated with providing abortion services, McCluskie quickly highlighted that “ultimately, the state will see a cost savings.” She concluded her remarks by expressing that co-sponsoring the bill was “truly an honor.”
This is sadistic Colorado Democrat Julie McCluskie. She said that and encourages people on Medicaid to have an abortion instead of giving because it is cheaper for the state. What a demon! pic.twitter.com/CFq9BCGb2k
— Matthew Nichol (@MatthewNichol5) March 28, 2025
The presentation has drawn criticism for its stark economic focus on what many consider a profound moral issue. Critics argue that such rhetoric overlooks the broader societal implications and demographic challenges facing the nation, including the need for a robust workforce to support various social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
The approach has raised concerns about the dehumanizing nature of reducing such decisions to mere financial calculations, particularly when discussing matters of life and family planning. The legislative discourse highlights the growing divide in how different political perspectives approach reproductive healthcare policy and its intersection with government spending.
This development occurs against the backdrop of ongoing national debates about healthcare funding, reproductive rights, and the role of government in healthcare decisions. The stark economic framing of the issue has intensified discussions about the ethical implications of policy-making in this sensitive area.
