Oh wait, some of them already did say stuff about Medicaid births!

30 Sep 2013 12:42 pm
Posted by: Donna

A couple weeks ago I posted about right wingers’ reaction to a report that insurance coverage for half of babies were born in the US came from Medicaid.


Who do you suppose will be the first conservative politician in Arizona to fret publicly about Medicaid births in our state? You know one of them will.

Well, as it turns out, someone did just that in September, 2012. And I wrote about it here! I’d forgotten all about it.

Per the Republic report I cited:

“I had no idea that the number had grown to that ridiculous level,” said Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. “That’s shocking and depressing.”…

…Kavanagh, who was unaware of the trend until speaking with The Republic, said he’d like to find out more.

“There clearly is a serious cultural problem in this state and this nation if the numbers have risen,” he said. “It’s a yellow flag about the economy and society, and something that not only politicians but people from diverse disciplines need to look at and find out what’s going wrong and how we can fix it.”

Kavanagh wondered if Arizona was being too generous with the benefits, but said he’d need to look into it further. “If we compared these figures to 20 years ago or 10 years ago and we corrected benefit levels, do we have a difference?” he asked. “If the difference is truly caused by giving more people access to AHCCCS, then it could be a political question.”

Rep. Kavanagh has popped up in my comments section to whine about my lack of “civility” or whatever because I have written true things about him and AZ House Speaker Andy Tobin. In last year’s post he popped up to say “I am always glad when an innocent life is allowed to live” in the comments. Except when we’re being “too generous with the benefits” in bringing the “innocent life” into the world.

Sen. Linda Gray also weighed in to say she wanted the lege to leave the situation alone but still couldn’t resist engaging in some proselytizing and slut-shaming.

Sen. Linda Gray, R-Glendale, who for years has led the Senate human-services committee, also was unaware of the numbers. “Wow,” she said when told of the increase in Medicaid-covered births.

But she said she believes this is more of an issue for the state’s religious community to address than the Legislature. It’s a matter of values, she said.

“It’s a sad commentary that women are choosing through circumstance or whatever reason to go ahead and have sex prior to marriage or to not have a commitment to the other person to get married and take care of this child,” she said. “I think it’s more up to parents and the churches to encourage couples to become married and not up to government to do that.”

And the very, very “pro-life” (now former) Sen. Sylvia Allen had actually put the issue before the legislature in 2011.

Allen is the only state lawmaker to have broached the subject in recent years, and her effort got little attention. In 2011, she proposed a bill that would have required women on AHCCCS to contribute some co-payments for obstetric services, including delivery. Mothers would have paid a total of $300 to $2,000, depending on their income.

“I want us to have families, but what I’m concerned about is the state is struggling to pay these bills, and the federal government is struggling to pay these bills,” Allen said. “Individuals have to be responsible. These are their children.”

When Allen proposed her legislation early last year, AHCCCS chief legislative liaison Jennifer Carusetta told lawmakers that federal law precludes the state from requiring co-pays for AHCCCS services, and the bill died. No lawmaker proposed legislation this session addressing the issue.

Allen said with nine months’ notice, families should be able to come up with money for some sort of co-pay or to pay at least some of the expenses.

“This is a situation where you have nine months to plan that child,” she said. “You are making a choice to have a child.”

So Allen “wants us to have families” but she proposed a bill that would make it more expensive for women to give birth than to have abortions. That’s smart.

To be honest a lot of people in Arizona resent Medicaid covering births. I hear it all the time and you can see many commenters to the 2012 article (which was total clickbait) angrily stating variations of “don’t have kids if you can’t pay for them!” I’ve never had any success arguing anyone out of it. It sucks, but the “welfare” talking points have proven to be highly effective and resilient. But there is a special place at the bottom of hell for politicians who want to deny Medicaid coverage for birth while opposing abortion and passing numerous laws to make it difficult to obtain, as well as actively trying to restrict contraception access to women. Members of Congress with that mindset are threatening to shut the US government down, as we speak, if they can’t deny women birth control. It’s stupid, immoral, and about the most uncivil thing imaginable.


  1. Comment by Timmys Cat on October 1, 2013 9:02 pm

    Wuh? I thought Diva Time didn’t change till the end of the month?
    “Spring up? riiiggght Fall back… to sleep.

    A fanatic is a man that does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the case.

    Finley Peter Dunne

    Oh yeah, this is where the hypocrisy of these critters comes out. They just have to save all life except when they have to pay for it. Or it goes against their ideology, like ending capitol punishment or gun control to save lives.
    Saving and paying for precious snowflake babies is one thing, but actually paying to save “those kinds” babies is another story.
    Besides snowflake babies are so much easier to sel….put up for adoption. Just ask St Cathi of the Holy Hammers husband. His specialty is adoption law.
    Interesting, eh?

  2. Comment by Timmys Cat on October 1, 2013 9:12 pm

    Hears a gnu won I lurned today-

    Androcentrism (Greek, andro-, “man, male”) is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing male human beings or the masculine point of view at the center of one’s view of the world and its culture and history

    The vast majority of Bibles available today were translated mainly by men. For instance, 93% of the New International Version (NIV) translators were male and 86% of the NRSV translators were male.[21] Therefore, arguably, many Christian teachings come from a more masculine or androcentric viewpoint, and women’s experiences and viewpoints can be marginalised

    Noooo!!! Rilllly?

    Seems all this assumed manly superiority is merely a learned viewpont, not an actuality.
    This interests ME

  3. Pingback by Democratic Diva » No, anti-choicers, there aren’t thousands of clinics that could easily replace Planned Parenthood on September 8, 2015 2:02 pm

    […] ha, kidding! Some of our own Arizona legislators have been very vocal in expressing their ire over Medicaid covering childbirth. I suppose they feel poor women should be […]

  4. Pingback by Democratic Diva » The anti-choice movement is not about “life”. Never has been. on December 3, 2015 6:17 am

    […] “Pro-lifers” are so divorced from any actual concern for life that they don’t even seem to care much for those babies they’re always prattling on about. They don’t go to bat for prenatal care or social supports for poor mothers very often and have been known to complain about the births they claim to want so desperately to happen being paid for by Medicaid. […]

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment

Democratic Diva is proudly powered by WordPress and WPDesigner.