DENVER (LifeSiteNews) — Activists let the mask slip when a Colorado Democrat argued that abortions are less expensive for the state than births.
During a March 25 House Health & Human Services Committee meeting, Democrat Colorado House Speaker Julie McCluskie argued for state-funded abortion services on the basis that abortion is less expensive than births.
“A birth is more expensive than an abortion,” she told the committee. “Ultimately, we do achieve a cost savings because of the averted births that will not take place.
“This bill will actually decrease costs (…) as the savings from averted births outweigh the costs of covering reproductive health care for all Coloradans,” McCluskie continued.
“Those savings come from the averted births that will not occur because abortions happened instead,” she argued.
Colorado House Speaker advocates for abortion because giving birth apparently costs more than killing a baby.
This is absolutely sickening.pic.twitter.com/EFlB09nTp9
— Media Research Center (@theMRC) March 27, 2025
McCluskie’s statement was in defense of Senate Bill 25-183, which aims to create a state-funded system for abortion and abortion-related services.
According to the bill, Department of Health Care Policy and Financing must “cover abortion care services for Medicaid and Child Health Plan Plus program participants using state funds, and for public employee insurance plans to cover abortion care services for plan members.”
The legislation argues that state-funded abortions will actually save the government money as abortions are cheaper than births.
“Costs for abortion services are estimated to be $5.9 million, while cost savings for averted births are estimated to be $6.4 million,” the bill claims.
It further suggests that killing off Colorado babies would save more money in the long term because abortion is a “one-time expenditure” as opposed to the baby needing state care throughout its life.
“Medicaid-covered births typically involve additional social safety net impacts for the child, whereas abortion care services represent a one-time expenditure,” it claimed.
The suggestion was roundly condemned by pro-lifers, who denounced disregard of human life as “horrible” and “abominable.”
“Seriously, the bill’s sponsors are saying that if more babies die by abortion, it will be cheaper for the state,” Dr. Catherine Wheeler, a pro-life OB-GYN and former abortion provider, told the committee.
However, the committee voted to advance the bill. The bill has already passed the Senate and is headed to the House of Commons. If passed, it would take effect in January 2026.
While McCluskie’s statement is shocking, it is not surprising for the abortion industry to push abortion for financial benefits.
In fact, a recently released report from the American Life League’s STOPP International revealed the annual earnings from Planned Parenthood, the United States largest abortion provider.
According to the report, the abortion provider paid its top officer nearly $1 million and its Los Angeles CEO almost as much with an annual compensation of nearly $876,000. Additionally, the average annual salary of a Planned Parenthood CEO is more than triple that of other nonprofit executives.
