Would GOP lawmakers put taxpayer money where their March for Life is?

The speakers at last week’s anti-abortion “March for Life” rally at the Arizona State Capitol proclaimed their undying support for pregnant women and their unborn children.

Or was it just talk? Banal buzzwords. Boiler plate platitudes. Because support, real support, has to be backed up by more than words.

Last year, for example, the Republicans who control the Arizona Legislature, along with former Gov. Doug Ducey, ignored the will of Arizona citizens, who had voted down such a proposal before, and passed a law along party lines that would allow all of Arizona’s 1.1 million K-12 students to receive roughly $7,000 in taxpayer dollars to pay for private school.

The plan was sold as a way of providing a leg up for the disadvantaged when, in fact, it is a handout for the rich. But Republicans had the votes and Ducey’s support, and they backed up their belief with money.

Our money, unfortunately.

Blocking choice is an unfunded mandate

If the March for Life people believed what they say, they would try to follow that example. As it is, Arizona’s anti-abortion zealots are proposing something Republican hardliners supposedly hate – an unfunded mandate.

You know that term, right? It’s when the government imposes some requirement on the rest of us without appropriating any money to cover the costs.

The speakers at the March for Life rally want an abortion ban. It’s their goal and the goal of their supporters.

As Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, put it at the rally, “Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has given lawmakers the authority to make abortion law, we’re even more committed to ensuring Arizona laws protect unborn children and the lives of their mothers. The top priority for pro-life policy in Arizona is seeing the state’s pre-Roe law go into effect.”

That law would outlaw abortion except to save the mother’s life.

Would anti-abortion lawmakers help pay?

The speaker of the Arizona House, Republican Rep. Ben Toma, echoed those sentiments, saying, “Since the Dobbs decision (which overturned Roe v. Wade) we have all seen the mobilization of pro-abortion forces, and their radicalism, guised under the banner of so-called ‘woman’s health’.

“I have my wife and daughters here; I’m all about woman’s health. Aborting a human being is not equivalent to a woman’s health. We must reject this lie from the depths of hell.”

If Toma believes this – actually believes it – where is the legislative proposal that would back it up? Because if abortion is banned they’d be putting pregnant women in a hell of a bind.

After abortion ban:A Phoenix clinic is on brink of closure

According to the Peterson-Kaiser Family Foundation Health System Tracker the average cost of pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care in America is $18,865.

And that’s for individuals with insurance. Many pregnant women have none. Even that estimate doesn’t take into account potential health conditions or multiple births or any number of other issues. And the cost bumps up to more than $26,000 when the birth requires a C-section.

Wouldn’t anti-abortion supporters who believe what they say propose laws to actually take care of pregnant women?

Let's see the legislation. Or a referendum

If Arizona’s Republican majority was willing to provide taxpayer money for the education of children whose wealthy parents didn’t need the cash, why aren’t they willing to propose legislation to take care of the medical bills of women they would force to carry a pregnancy to term?

Why not try to get such a law through the Legislature?

If they’re worried that Gov. Katie Hobbs would veto such a bill (because she would), the Republican majority could refer the issue directly to voters. They could put a pay-for-pregnancy plan on the ballot.

Any politician who genuinely believes in taking away a woman’s reproductive choices by outlawing abortions should be in favor of taxpayers footing the bill, right?

Or are anti-abortion lawmakers afraid of the answer they’d get from Arizona voters?

(Yes, it’s a rhetorical question.)

The difference between support and buzzwords

Of course, the expenses for women who would be forced to give birth if anti-abortion supporters got their way wouldn’t end in the maternity ward. The Brookings Institution estimates that the average yearly cost to raise a child is about $18,000.

No one is suggesting that taxpayers foot that bill. Although, it would also be an unfunded mandate.

First things first.

Show us a legislative proposal or referendum that would pay for pregnancy and childbirth expenses for women forced by law to give birth.

Or are those March for Life speeches about loving pregnant women and their unborn children just talk?

Banal buzzwords. Boiler plate platitudes.

Reach Montini at ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com.

For more opinions content, please subscribe.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Would anti-abortion lawmakers put your money toward their cause?