The New York Times has written an entire piece bemoaning the fact that reducing federal subsidies for birth control would lead to poor women having more children, which would lead to higher Medicaid expenses:
Cutting off federal funding for Planned Parenthood — a longstanding conservative goal that is included in the Republican bill to replace the Affordable Care Act — would reduce access to birth control for many women and result in thousands of additional Medicaid births, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Because nearly half of all births nationwide are to Medicaid patients, and many of those babies are Medicaid patients themselves, the budget office estimated that defunding Planned Parenthood even for a year would increase Medicaid spending by $21 million in the first year, and $77 million by 2026.
Of course, compulsory sterilization of Medicaid recipients would lower Medicaid costs even more.
The roots of the birth control movement in eugenics is one of the dirty secrets of modern progressivism. Fearing that intelligent, well-bred Anglo-Saxons weren’t having enough babies while trailer-trash whites, immigrant hordes, and blacks were incessantly breeding, Margaret Sanger and her colleagues did their best to suppress the birth rate among undesirable people.
On the merits, we agree that simply cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood without other allocations for (non-abortive) women’s healthcare is probably bad policy. But it’s remarkable that in 2017 the NYT is flirting with the same bigoted impulses that were at the core of the progressive message one hundred years ago: The poor, unless we intervene, will breed like bunnies, and their babies are going to cost us a fortune!