The 200 Million Dollar Question

For breaking news on threats to birth control access and information visit birthcontrolwatch.org

Remember last week House Republicans, led by Rep. John Boehner, staged a prime-time temper tantrum arguing they couldn't tolerate spending $200 million on contraceptive coverage, which they reported was part of the stimulus plan? Democrats capitulated and contraception was gone. Now, it turns out there never was a $200 million budget request for contraception included.

Rep. Boehner made a huge "mistake," one that conveniently served his interests, and that he didn't step up to correct. A week ago today he stood on television and announced that the stimulus package included hundreds of million of dollars for contraception, on Meet the Press he was more specific saying it would be "over $200 million." Ever since that dramatic press conference, policy experts have been searching for any mention of such an expenditure. Rep. Henry Waxman called Boehner's office seeking their source on it, but Boehner's office is not forthcoming. That's because the budget item didn't exist. There is a $200 million figure that appears in the stimulus package for contraception: it refers to the projected cost savings to the states in five years. Good thing the package didn't include mention of the $700 million it was projected to save states in ten years. One could only imagine the outrage then.

The media perpetuated the Congressman's self-serving blunder. They used Boehner as an unimpeachable source, not checking to see if his figure was correct. Turns out Boehner is impeachable. The inclusion of contraception in the stimulus package was not a budget allocation but instead a proposal to insert more government efficiency into the process; streamlining the states' cumbersome application process for Medicaid waivers for family planning services. According to actual documentation by the Congressional Budget Office, in the first three years the provision would not cost more than 50 million each year. They project that after the third year, it costs nothing and the savings to the states would total more than 100 million each year. That's $200 million in savings by year five. $700 million in savings by year ten.

Currently under Medicaid the federal government acts as if pregnancy is cheaper than preventing it. According to the experts, who have been excluded from this debate, the provision in the stimulus package would have allowed every woman who is already eligible for Medicaid coverage for pregnancy-related care, to be eligible for pregnancy prevention care too. Just under half the states have already requested and received waivers to do exactly this --14 even during the Bush administration. Changing the law would have simply made it much quicker and easier for additional states to expand their Medicaid programs in this way, and for states already with expansions to renew their programs.

Mary Jane Gallagher, President and CEO of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, wrote on RH Reality Check,

Right now, Medicaid - the government's way of paying for health care for low-income women and men - provides funding for pregnancy-related care for women whose incomes are up to a certain percentage of the federal poverty level (roughly $17,600 for a family of three). The provision that was stripped out of the House bill would have allowed states to provide family planning services to anyone who, based on their income, would be eligible for pregnancy-related care under Medicaid. In other words, if you would qualify for pregnancy-related care under Medicaid, you would also qualify to access family planning services, including contraceptives, if you do not wish to become pregnant.

So, a good question for the media to ask Boehner now: "Where did you get the $200 million dollar figure on how much the provision would cost? And when he's unable or unwilling to answer that, the follow-up question should be, "Why didn't you correct this mistake? Why did you let it get this out of hand?"

It remains to be seen whether the shock media still perpetuating the story will become as apoplectic about being misled. Will Chris Matthews, who compared offering poor women access to contraception to the coercive forced abortion laws in China, inform his viewers of this news? Will Curtis Sliwa, who appeared on Sean Hannity's show to announce that making contraception more accessible is part of Nancy Pelosi's plan to "eliminate minority populations," be swayed by the truth? Will Neil Cavuto re-examine his proposal to encourage unwanted pregnancy because, "You want more people eventually in this country paying into social security because you have more people retiring."

We know the answer to those questions. The one question that does remain is "Will Boehner get away with brazenly misleading the public on this issue." Hopefully some real journalism will emerge to answer this question.

This post originally appeared on RH Reality Check--Information, commentary and community for Reproductive Health and Justice.

Comments

[hollybork]

Cristina - excellent story. Thank you.

[lovable]

thats the problem today and for the last 20 years . the right wing says something even a lie and instead of the media checking it they make it big news and repeat it. the repubs are aware of this. no one will go on mathews now and say chris it wasnt in the bill. this 200 mil lie will just fade away. boehner put out a non existant cbo report and when non journalist david gregory had boehner on mtp he was not asked about the lie he was asked about tax cuts. SAD . ARRIANA WHERE ARE YOU AND VANDEHOUVAL TO CORRECT THESE LIES THAT THE MEDIA REPEAT !!!!!!!!!!!

[scared4ALL]

Tell the media to tell it like it is!

cnnnewsroo­[e-mail], countdown@­msnbc.com, [e-mail], [e-mail], phil.griff­[e-mail]­, steve.capu­[e-mail], Jeff.zucke­r@nbcuni.c­om, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], darren.mcd­ermott@wsj­.com, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], advocate@t­hebulletin­.us, byork@nati­onalreview­.com, [e-mail], [e-mail], comments@m­claughlin.­com, ElRushbo@e­ibnet.com, evening@cb­snews.com, Foxreport@­foxnews.co­m, [e-mail], [e-mail], Hannity@fo­xnews.com, [e-mail], [e-mail], igcolonel@­hotmail.co­m, irena.brig­anti@foxne­ws.com, jocelyn.au­stin@foxbu­siness.com­, [e-mail], joetalksho­[e-mail], letters@ch­arleskraut­hammer.com­, lou@loudob­bsradio.co­m, [e-mail], mitch.davi­s@foxnews.­com, [e-mail], Ontherecor­d@foxnews.­com, oreilly@fo­xnews.com, [e-mail], richard.wh­ite@foxnew­s.com, robert.fin­nerty@foxn­ews.com, Special@fo­xnews.com, [e-mail], suzanne.sc­ott@foxnew­s.com, ureport@fo­xnews.com, weekendliv­e@foxnews.­com, [e-mail], bsmith@pol­itico.com, lindamulle­r@buchanan­.org, [e-mail], jake.tappe­[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], nightline@­abcnews.co­m, [e-mail], [e-mail], 60minutes@­cbsnews.co­m, [e-mail], [e-mail], comments@f­oxnews.com­, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], phil.boyce­@citcomm.c­om, letters@la­times.com, readers.re­p@latimes.­com, news-tips@­nytimes.co­m, senioredit­or@nytimes­.com, editor@usa­today.com, [e-mail], wsjcontact­@dowjones.­com, letters@wa­shpost.com­, ombudsman@­washpost.c­om, letters@ne­wsweek.com­, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[scared4ALL]

Thanks for this article. I wish it had a more detailed title to be sure all would read it. I almost passed it by because my time on the computer is limited. For those of you complaining about media not revealing & covering this matter you can email them a piece of your mind. I'll send a media list for you to speak your mind on this & all important issues & matters. Hold them accountable in reporting truth & thank them when they do. Some are bought & paid for, yes. But some still have our best interests at heart & are speaking out.

I send the media this when I write them. Funny how this scene from the movie "Network" still applies to today. "Mad As Hell">

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08

I'll send that media list now.

[MIVOTE]

The biggest problem is that MSM does not check fact from fiction. They will put out gossip and innuendos and never retract it so that American listeners can get the facts straight. Seems they work on their own agenda just like the Repubs in Congress. This is the disservice to all of us. It happened during the Boosh years and seems to continue on today. This type of jounalism needs to stop and stop quickly.

[homerandivot]

Along with the MSM wouldn't it be prudent for Nancy Pelosi to know that it wasn't in the bill so she could counter the statment/LIE in a reasonable amount of time. Jeeeez, I thought I even heard something about the White House demanding that the provision be taken out. Does anyone even read these bills that they vote on let alone one as important as this one?

[Chlowina]

Like everything else with Boehner, he pulls it out of his @$$. How much do you want to bet he was feeling full of himself when everyone believed him. Now, he's hiding.

Time for people to double check everything the repugs are claiming in regard to the stimulus.

[bronceye]

No....they­....won't! They are still allowing the repubes to talk about the fact(?) that less than half of the money will be spent in the first year. The truth of that statement has already been refuted by the fact that the paper they quote studied less than half of the expenditures. Fox noose and their chuckleheads keep quoting it as a complete and factual study of entirety. Who's calling them on it???

[darker]

Bush Republicans are a PATHETIC BUNCH OF LIARS who
PROVED THEY CANNOT GOVERN and try
to OBSTRUCT AND SABOTAGE those who do want to govern.

They are guilty of TREASON.

[Grusha]

Why isn't there a vehicle to fact check and condense such massive legislation? This bill is reported to be 1500 pages long which creates an understandable disincentive to cracking the code. It appears even congressional staff haven't read it (but are instead misleading the public about the contents.)

We need more eagle eyed investigators that are equipped to process these huge amounts of information so it can be more easily understood by the public. Cristina Page is one of these. Imagine how many more we'd need to accurately understand this bill.

[dessertsfirst]

I wouldn't count on the MSM coming through on this one...
People have complained that the MSM has been "in love" w. Obama, and given him all kinds of coverage during the campaign, and since becoming elected. However, few have failed to note that the MSM is very slow to pick up on criticism of the repubs.... they just tend to ignore repubs faux paus... I've noticed this even from CNN!!

[lynjs]

Again the press has let us down. This is what happens when megacompanies own everything.

[Indie2008]

You got that right!

[marleysghost]

It's the old Republican game again. Repeat a lie often enough and people will think it must be true. I think that from now on all of Boehner's statements need to be double checked for veracity as he is now a chronic liar.

[dessertsfirst]

He took the page out of GWB book.

[schatsie]

who took it from Ronny R's game book..and Newt kept it up.

[TLV]

The GOPers lied again? Business as usual.

[struwwelinchen]

FIRST 1OO DAYS: WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO IMMIGRATION REFORM?

It seems that the media is unwilling to address one of Obama's campaign promises: IMMIGRATION REFORM.
I believe this is because mainstream and left leaning media are afraid of the flood of hate attacks from the right.
Discussing immigration is equal to opening a can of worms (although these particular worms wear swastikas).
Delaying immigration reform will continue the unnecessary suffering of tens of thousands affected by current immigration laws. Many spouses, children(even babies) currently have no reasonable options to legalize their loved one or to prevent their deportation. Maybe it was not the right choice to cross the border illegally, but there are many innocent victims suffering when an individual is deported.
I believe this is one of the great civil rights hurdles which should be taken on by
Obama- unpopular or not!!!!

[zanzig]

It seems to me that President Obama has his hands full with the economy and the 2 wars (and connected issues like torture and Guantanamo) in his first 11 days. Do you think that he might have a chance to get these matters through Congress first? After all immigration won't matter if there is no economy left; how many immigrants do you think will want to cross the borders to a failed economy?

[DesertZ]

Why didn't this Boehner BS get any air or print play? I don't get this at all. This guy never tells the truth, anyway. Once again, the MSM dropped the ball!

[LeftRight]

Because the MSM is right wing (in spite of all the complaints of those on the right.....) and they will report without question anything given to them by the right wing or the Republicans.