Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
A new state bill advances the anti-human notion that the best way to put the government’s balance sheet in the black is to color its moral ledger bright red with the blood of preborn children.
On March 25, 2025, Colorado House Speaker Julie McCluskie, D, sat before a legislative committee to discuss Senate Bill 25-183, a measure designed to force the state’s Medicaid program to cover abortion services.
McCluskie didn’t even really try to hide her position. She just brazenly leaned into a fiscal argument that’s as chilling as it is revealing: “A birth is more expensive than an abortion,” she said, citing a fiscal note projecting that Colorado could save over $550,000 annually by funding abortions rather than births. She euphemistically called them “averted births.” Averted births?! Ma’am, the word you’re looking for is “murdered children.”
The bill’s “numbers” (apparently) back her up — $5.9 million to pay for abortions in the first full year, offset by $6.4 million in “savings” from these “averted births.
This wasn’t a slip of the tongue or a poorly phrased aside — it was the crux of her case. The video of her remarks has since exploded online, igniting a firestorm of outrage, especially for those who see human life as more than a line item on a budget spreadsheet.
The context here matters. Colorado’s voters just passed Amendment 79 in November 2024, cementing abortion as a “constitutional right” and opening the door for public funding of the procedure. SB 25-183 is the next logical step, a policy push to make taxpayers foot the bill for abortions under Medicaid.
McCluskie’s argument isn’t about compassion or women’s rights but dollars and cents. She’s not hiding it: The state, she says, can’t afford to let poor women have babies when it’s cheaper to terminate them.
This is the new frontier of post-Dobbs abortion advocacy in blue states. Gone is the reluctant “safe, legal, and rare” concession of the Democrats of a few decades ago. Now, abortions must be on demand, for all nine months, and are, in fact, the preferred outcome of pregnancy for any low-income women since killing the unborn is a fiscal “win” for the government.
It’s so nakedly violent and inhumane that I’m not even sure what more to say, other than to ask, “Did Satan himself ascend from Hell to lobby for this bill?” But let’s consider the arguments here.
First, there’s the sheer callousness of reducing human life to a cost-benefit analysis. McCluskie’s words strip away any pretense of empathy, turning a pregnant woman on Medicaid into a walking liability and her child into an expense to be minimized. It’s dehumanizing in a way that should make any decent person squirm — Christian or not.
What’s next? Telling the elderly on Medicare they’re too expensive to keep alive? Oh, wait — that’s already a whisper in some healthcare debates in America and is being openly practiced in Canada.
This isn’t a slippery slope, it’s a cliff, and McCluskie’s happily nudging us toward the edge.
Then there’s the practical absurdity. The “math” behind the bill assumes “averted births” translate neatly into savings, but life doesn’t work that way. Babies grow up. They become workers, taxpayers, citizens — people who contribute to society in ways no spreadsheet can predict.
The state is betting on short-term gains while ignoring the long-term cost of shrinking its own population. It’s like a farmer burning his fields to save on seed money — penny-wise, pound-foolish, and blind to the harvest that could have been.
And what about the women themselves? Medicaid exists to help the vulnerable, not incentivize them into irreversible choices for the state’s bottom line. McCluskie’s logic turns a safety net into a death trap.
But those are just the surface flaws. Dig deeper and you hit bedrock — the moral rot at the core of this argument.
From a conservative Christian perspective, what McCluskie’s pushing isn’t just bad policy; it’s an affront to God Himself. Scripture is clear: life begins in the womb, at conception (at fertilization). Psalm 139:13 says, “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.” Jeremiah 1:5 echoes it: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.”
These aren’t poetic metaphors; they’re declarations of biological reality. Every child, born or unborn, bears the imago Dei — the image of God. To suggest that the state should fund their destruction because it’s cheaper than letting them live isn’t just anti-human, it’s anti-God. It’s spitting in the face of the Creator and calling it economics.
And let’s not kid ourselves: This is eugenics dressed up in fiscal drag. Historically, eugenics was about “improving” the population by weeding out the “undesirable” — the poor, the disabled, the marginalized.
McCluskie’s argument fits that mold like a glove.
Who’s on Medicaid? The poorest Coloradans, disproportionately minorities and single mothers. Her pitch doesn’t say it outright, but the implication screams: These people’s kids are too expensive to exist. The state has a vested interest, she’s saying, in making sure they don’t reproduce. It’s not about choice — it’s about control.
Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder and a known eugenicist, would have nodded approvingly. She once wrote about “eliminating the unfit” to save society’s resources.
Sound familiar? McCluskie’s just swapped the racist rhetoric for a cool calculator.
The horror peaks when you realize what she’s really admitting: The government, in her view, should profit from the legalized murder of the preborn.
Not just tolerate abortion, not just permit it, but actively prefer it because it’s cheaper. This isn’t a neutral stance — it’s a financial incentive to kill.
Imagine applying that logic elsewhere.
Should we execute the homeless because shelters cost money?
Euthanize the disabled because their care drains the budget?
If life’s value hinges on its price tag, we’re not a society anymore — we’re a machine, grinding up the weak to grease its gears. And McCluskie’s fine with that, so long as the numbers add up.
As Christians, we’re called to a higher standard. So is every non-Christian, too, to be clear. Not killing babies for government financial gain is a pretty low bar. Honestly, it’s barely off the moral floor.
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me” (Matthew 19:14), not “abort them if they’re too pricey.”
The early Church rescued abandoned infants from Roman trash heaps because they knew every life mattered. Today, we’re fighting the same battle against a culture that sees people as disposable. McCluskie’s argument isn’t progress; it’s a throwback to pagan indifference, baptized in secular jargon.
And it’s not just the unborn at stake — it’s our soul as a nation. When we start measuring human worth in dollars saved, we’ve already lost something priceless.
Colorado’s Amendment 79 opened this door, and SB 25-183 is kicking it wide. If it passes, every taxpayer in the state becomes complicit in this grim calculus. That’s not a burden I’d wish on anyone’s conscience, let alone a Christian’s.
We’re supposed to defend the voiceless, not fund their state-sanctioned vacuum-induced death. McCluskie can dress it up as fiscal responsibility, but the truth is as ugly as it gets: She’s arguing that the state should bankroll death to dodge the cost of life.
It’s modern-day eugenics, served with a smile and sweetened by a promise to keep the government on the black side of the balance sheet. The question is whether Colorado — and America — will wake up before the moral ledger has been permanently stained red with the blood of preborn children.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
Notifications
