Who Really Benefits From Abortion?

[Cricket123]

A lesson I learned from my father was this: if you want to understand why things are a certain way you need to answer one question: cui bono? Who benefits? I’ve found this to be a pretty reliable standard. Hopefully this won’t degenerate into Obama bashing, or Bush bashing. For the record, I dislike both of them about equally. I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I am a Catholic.

I majored in ancient history. I don’t believe in progress. I believe, as Ecclesiastes said, there is nothing new under the sun. I believe that politicians are not so much immoral as amoral. They will do what they think is necessary to be elected. I believe that, in America today, we do not have two major parties but one that pretends to be two. The Democrats have become the party that is not Republican, and vice versa.

The two “sides” air their differences publicly to obscure the fact that there really is, in effect, only one party and it represents only one constituent: money. For example, $700 billion for the banks, $787 billion for the rest of the country; could our priorities be more clear? Where your treasure is, there your heart will also be. As a society, we are not a Christian nation, we serve Mammon.

A figure for comparison: according to WHO figures, $700 billion is enough money to end hunger. On Earth. For a generation. I think I remember Jesus having a few things to say about feeding the hungry. But I digress.

What does any of this have to do with abortion? Well, as much as we like to demonize Planned Parenthood, it is, after all, a non-profit. And its budget is in the millions…compared to the numbers that get tossed around so casually these days, rather small. So who is making the real money? Well, take a look at any of the lists of companies that support abortion, like this one:

catholic-forum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19728&postcount=15

You’ll notice certain companies figure prominently :

1. Insurance Companies
2. Banks
3. Pharmaceutical Companies

Why would insurance companies support abortion? The average cost of an abortion is $450. The average cost of prenatal care and delivery is $8000. And that’s for a normally delivered healthy child. What about a c-section, or a child with medical problems? Not to mention the elimination of any future expense. Sounds like a clear financial incentive to me.

Banks? Well, as recent events have demonstrated, banks and insurance companies are pretty well entangled. Banks have a clear interest in seeing insurance companies do well. Very well, if possible.

Pharmaceutical companies? As both Paul VI and John Paul II said, contraception and abortion are related. Birth control pills are abortifacient. They are also very profitable. Again, we’re talking billions here.

It seems that all three of these have excellent reasons to keep abortion cheap, legal, and frequent. This is not so good. It suggests to me two things:

1. Most of our pro-life efforts are misdirected.
2. There is no effective pro-life choice politically.

By analogy, the clinic downtown is the “street dealer” while the cartels rake in the large dollars far away. Insurance firms, Banks, Big Pharma…not exactly a haven for bleeding heart liberals either. We all know where the Democratic party stands. Could it be that the Republicans have been less than honest about their own position. With billions at stake, I think that is very probably the case. It would certainly explain why Reagan and Bush enjoyed Republican Congresses and yet did so little. I’m curious to hear what the community thinks.

Sancta Maria - Mater Dei - Ora Pro Nobis

 

[Barb3]

I’m not sure whether or not I can “cover” all of the questions brought up in this forum. I do know that I’ve never been “pro-choice” and can’t quite figure out why the Democrats seem to feel an obligation to be “pro-choice”. I couldn’t vote for Obama because he is NOT pro-life but I do think that two of my children voted for him and one did not vote for hhim, mainly because he is a Republican and the other two are Democrats. To be truthful I have NEVER discussed this with my children a/c they’re all grown and whatever decisions they make are theirs!!!
I do want to comment that two of the main, original people involved in Roe vs. Wade decided that their original idea regarding abortions was WRONG, repented and became Catholics – Roe and the Dr. who originally did most of the abortions – think his name was Dr. Nathanson. I do believe this information is quite interesting.
I don’t believe abortion will ever be outlawed in this country but do pray each and every day that it will.

 

[Leeta]

You are incorrect to think that prolife efforts should only focus on the banks, insurance and pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately, the battle has long been joined on ALL fronts in the abortion war. Life Decisions International focuses on pressuring the corporate sponsors of Planned Parenthood. There are several Catholic investment funds, Ave Maria Funds, etc who help people invest morally. Christus Medicus looks at health insurance funding of immoral procedures and devices. Life Dynamics focuses on medical malpractice of abortionists.
Planned Parenthood may be a non-profit oganization, but it is allowed to make profits. They overcharge for birth control and also get taxpayers and insurance to give them money. They pay themselves in huge salaries, or in buildings and equipment or in hiring more workers to promote death. Go to STOPP for more information.
The abortionists earn a lot of money and they invest it in companies which support what they do as well as in politicians who protect them, i.e. like Gov.Sibelius of Kansas or Obama.
The developer of the abortion pill, RU-486, owned by the German company Hoechst, is the company which manufactured Zyklon B gas for the concentration camps under the Third Reich.
Yes, what a web of deadly connections there is! Abortion is a legal and very protected industry. Money made form the killing is invested in further killing. The government aids the industry by not requiring women be fully informed, or to enforce health and safety standards for the mothers in order to minimally regulate this grisly industry.
Abortion can be outlawed, just like rape is outlawed. Rape still occurs every day, but that does not mean we should quit going after rapists and trying to protect women from assault by men and abortionists.

 

[Cricket123]

Just to clarify, I don’t think that pro-life efforts should focus only on insurance companies, banks, and pharmaceutical firms. I’m saying that these entities stand to make far more money from abortion than Planned Parenthood ever will. I’m saying also that the Republican party has traditionally both supported and been supported by these companies. We all know what happens in politics when it is a choice between money and principle.

Consider the figures from LDI’s own website on PP:
fightpp.org/show.cfm?page=basic

They estimate PP’s income at around 1 billion for 2006.
They estimate 125 million of that is from providing clinical abortion.
They estimate PP’s excess revenue at 115 million for that year.

While I certainly do NOT support PP, I suggest that these are not large numbers compared to the billions that are at stake for the three entities I mentioned.

For example, consider the following scenario: an insured woman discovers that she is pregnant. She gets an abortion at around 7 or 8 weeks, when 90% of all abortions are performed. If her policy covers elective abortion, using the average costs, the company pays $450 and within 7 months realizes a cost savings of $7550. That represents a return on investment of approximately 1677%, or an APR of 2876%. Pretty good returns.

If her policy does not cover elective abortion but it is cheap enough for her to pay out-of-pocket, that’s even better for the insurer. They get to realize huge savings with no expense at all! I sincerely doubt the actuaries are unaware of this “windfall effect”. At these rates, the insurer will realize 1 billion in savings after 1325 abortions, and that’s if they pay for the procedure. They make more if they don’t.

I don’t think anyone should stop any pro-life action to which they feel called. I just think we should be aware of who is really profiting and to what extent. Especially after all the bailouts, I think it should be clear that this kind of money buys an awful lot of influence on both sides of the aisle.

Should we ignore PP? No. According to LDI, they perform about 20% of all abortions in the US. On the other hand, this also means they do not perform the other 80%. Not only that, it would seem that there are much larger, more powerful forces at work who stand to gain or lose billions. As I said, we all know what happens in politics when it is a choice between money and principle.

 

[Cricket123]

“At these rates, the insurer will realize 1 billion in savings after 1325 abortions, and that’s if they pay for the procedure. They make more if they don’t.”

Oops. I meant 132,500. Still, the point is, billions. Even more if you consider all the expenses that will never be paid for a child who is never born.

 

[gam197]

Such services as psychologists or Chiroprators were not paid for by insurance policies Insurance companies did not always offer abortions or birth control. It was gradual, first it would start, say with state workers including abortion, or Medicaid including abortion and then birth control, etc. It was a progressive change in what would be covered under any given group policy.

Initially it was basis health insurance but as many things got added, lots of people and different groups fought each step of the way by getting the word out, going to legislative hearings, calling their representatives and phoning these insurance companies but lost almost each and every time.

The reason I think that they have focused on Planned Parenthood is that it is a large lobbying group whose tentacles stretch into many areas and our energy and resources seem to be limited. If this one group could be defunded, it would help to bring about major change.

 

[Cricket123]

Insurance companies did not always offer abortions or birth control…

True, but that’s not the point. The point is who profits, not who pays. Insurance companies profit from the existence of cheap, legal abortion. If they pay, they see a healthy return on their investment. If, for example, a law exists which prohibits them from paying for elective abortion, they profit even more. Therefore, it is in their interests to see abortion remain cheap and legal.

The reason I think that they have focused on Planned Parenthood is that it is a large lobbying group whose tentacles stretch into many areas and our energy and resources seem to be limited. If this one group could be defunded, it would help to bring about major change.

Maybe, depending on the circumstances, but I think the victory would be largely symbolic. According to LDI, their income was around 1 billion dollars, with a third coming from taxpayer monies. So say all taxpayer money was removed. That leaves 666 million (irony?) Suppose a boycott-type action left them with an even 500 million. Well, now what? I think the likely outcome would be that they would lose market share while the other 80% picks up the slack. Net result: zero. Pessimistic, perhaps, but realistic.

Similarly, if Roe were overturned, what would happen? Well, the matter would go back to the states. Cases would be filed, challenged, and start winding their way through the system. Net result: short-term, zero. Long-term, likely some states would ban abortion, others would not. In the end, perhaps some decrease in abortions, along with increased travel to states where it is legal.

 

[gam197]

I agree that health Insurance companies profit but they also pay for sickness, blood clots and cancer. Also many of them switched from regular insurance plans to HMO and managed care plans.

originally posted** by Cricket 123**
Maybe, depending on the circumstances, but I think the victory would be largely symbolic. According to LDI, their income was around 1 billion dollars, with a third coming from taxpayer monies. So say all taxpayer money was removed. That leaves 666 million (irony?) Suppose a boycott-type action left them with an even 500 million. Well, now what? I think the likely outcome would be that they would lose market share while the other 80% picks up the slack. Net result: zero. Pessimistic, perhaps, but realistic.

Similarly, if Roe were overturned, what would happen? Well, the matter would go back to the states. Cases would be filed, challenged, and start winding their way through the system. Net result: short-term, zero. Long-term, likely some states would ban abortion, others would not. In the end, perhaps some decrease in abortions, along with increased travel to states where it is legal.

“It operates 97 affiliates and nearly 880 birth control centers throughout the United States”(Calif. Catholic Daily). Most of these Planned Parenthood birth control centers have thousands of patients.They get about 400 Million in tax dollars but they are also involved in Title X money which is the tax money funded for the school based clinics so is this included? Their budget states “fees from customers” so I guess this is insurance money although this seems low.

If we could defund them in the U.S. and close clinics, it would help destroy their well-organized political clout.

As I said, we tried and spent years fighting insurance and pharmaceutical bills and lost. How would you suggest we go after insurance companies?

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Who can benefit? Lucifer, Liar, Father of Lies, Murderer from The Beginning. If we let him.

Now, if we’re smart, we take this horrific evil and offer our sorrow and prayers to our Blessed Mother and Jesus. Then we all benefit.

 

[Cricket123]

I agree that health Insurance companies profit but they also pay for sickness, blood clots and cancer. Also many of them switched from regular insurance plans to HMO and managed care plans.

For my purpose, I consider HMOs and managed care plans “health insurance”.

“It operates 97 affiliates and nearly 880 birth control centers throughout the United States”(Calif. Catholic Daily). Most of these Planned Parenthood birth control centers have thousands of patients.They get about 400 Million in tax dollars but they are also involved in Title X money which is the tax money funded for the school based clinics so is this included? Their budget states “fees from customers” so I guess this is insurance money although this seems low.

Maybe I’m not articulating my point well. An abortion provider profits from abortion if he charges more for the service than it costs to provide it. I don’t think this is the case for an insurance company. An insurance company profits by not paying claims and thereby retaining the money it has received in premiums. This is, I think, an important distinction.

Consider this case: My second son was born by c-section. Mother and son spent 5 days in hospital. Within a month he needed surgery for a life-threatening but easily corrected genetic condition. Hardly a unique story.

However, this represents a significant loss to the insurance company as the costs far exceeded the premiums paid. If, for any reason, this birth were not to have occurred, the insurer would have realized savings in the tens of thousands. Every pregnancy carried to term, every child born represents a potential risk to an insurer. Even if they are not covered, they could be one day.

This is why I say that cheap, legal abortion is a mechanism by which insurance companies realize huge profits. It arises out of the very nature of for-profit health care. This, I think, has some serious implications.

Do you see what I’m saying? Cannot continue posting now. Will return soon.

Sancta Maria - Mater Dei - Ora Pro Nobis

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Cricket123
Maybe I’m not articulating my point well. An abortion provider profits from abortion if he charges more for the service than it costs to provide it. I don’t think this is the case for an insurance company. An insurance company profits by not paying claims and thereby retaining the money it has received in premiums. This is, I think, an important distinction.

Consider this case: My second son was born by c-section. Mother and son spent 5 days in hospital. Within a month he needed surgery for a life-threatening but easily corrected genetic condition. Hardly a unique story.

However, this represents a significant loss to the insurance company as the costs far exceeded the premiums paid. If, for any reason, this birth were not to have occurred, the insurer would have realized savings in the tens of thousands. Every pregnancy carried to term, every child born represents a potential risk to an insurer. Even if they are not covered, they could be one day.

This is why I say that cheap, legal abortion is a mechanism by which insurance companies realize huge profits. It arises out of the very nature of for-profit health care. This, I think, has some serious implications.

I understand what you are saying and agree that these insurance companies have been profiting from abortion. By the time many of the women who are sick with breast cancer, lupus, etc, they are about to go on Medicare and the taxpayers pick up the bill for illnesses that they acquired earlier so the Insurance company is again freed of any burden to pay for damages.

I just don’t know what anyone can do about these insurance companies or the pharmaceutical companies as they are so powerful.

Republicans have been less than honest about birth control and their funding family planning programs but then democrats are totally in favor of anything that brings about total population control even the one child policy.