So you take the $ line argument back far enough, we're part of the problem as well (especially when we don't object or try to make a difference).
But I've been saying for almost 20 years that our whole culture undergirds the abortion industry.
But does that then mean because of our own often indirect ties to abortion that we can never speak out against it or those who expand its availability? (I don't think so)
So, the answer to your medicaid question is obvious. Of course, Hunter & the other legislatures fund abortions...and it's not limited to the example you gave. Are we to be ho-hum about that? (No)
So what then is a "reasonable" level of accountability to expect of a legislator, governor, or POTUS? My answer to that is to hold them accountable for a reasonable determination of their sphere of influence.
Example: A POTUS can implement the Mexico City Policy (like Reagan & George W. Bush) to keep $ out of the hands of the international abortion industry. A POTUS can also effect embryonic stem cell research policy. A POTUS can also nominate pro-life justices & other judges. A POTUS can put pro-lifers in key administrative/bureaucratic positions. A POTUS can even diminish domestic funding for the abortion industry.
Notice I said "diminish." I don't think it would be "reasonable" that a POTUS would be able to totally eliminate domestic funding of Planned Parenthood.
So you hold a rep accountable for the reasonable exercise of their sphere of influence. Example of a consideration: Did they seek or lead a policy or initiative that expanded abortion services--even if it was not the main thrust of the policy? A legislator voting for appropriations $ for Medicaid services isn't necessarily doing so. (You yourself showed that Medicaid funding in certain states doesn't cover abortion; secondly some states have more recently added "after-the-fact" court orders to previous-already-legislature-decided appropriations decisions. IOW, the funding decisions for abortion came in thru side-door judges, not front-door legislators. Please note that in my crit of Romney I've been consistent with that.
Countless times (a dozen or more) of posts I've haven't tried to hold Romney accountable for all 7% of the uninsured in MA now covered by RomneyCare. When folks pointed out that MA was under court order to fund low-income women Medicaid eligible, I didn't contend that. What I did contend was the over 4% of the MA population who earn above Medicaid level. Romney himself said that almost 1/4th of the MA uninsured earned $75,000 or more. That's almost 2% of the female pop in MA.
From other figures I extrapolated that another over 2% earn above Medicaid & below $75,000.
I think it is "unreasonable" to hold Romney accountable for the court order in MA aimed at low-income women. But they were less than 40% of the uninsured in MA. Therefore, the crit of $50 abortion subsidies in MA still holds.
Your attempts to paint Romney as this big pro-abortion funder due to some ‘seven degrees of separation” logic just falls flat.
A caused B which resulted in C and thus D felt compelled to raise the limit for co-pay abortions.
If Romney was this big abortion advocate like you and others claim, he would have included 100% abortion funding. He certainly could have, considering that 85% of the state legislature were Democrat PRO-abortion types.
But he didn’t.
Like it or not, abortion is currently legal, and many politicians are conflicted in their attempts to do good ... even when some of the money in comprehensive bills and omnibus legislation goes indirectly for abortions.
Unfortunately, the abortion funding can’t always be extracted from every bill. ProLife legislators often find themselves voting affirmative for bills in order to satisfy the ‘greater good’.
Romney also passed a number of laws in Massachusetts that were very ProLife... and subsequently ticked off the pro-abortion feminists.