This weekend there will be March for Life events across the country and you are going to hear a lot about how bad abortion is and how we need to get rid of Roe v Wade. What you most likely will not hear is what opponents of abortion plan to do if there is an increase in the birthrate due to legislation that would make access to abortion harder, especially for those from lower economic classes.
Okay, there are few things I need to admit or express before we dive further into this issue.
1. I would love to see abortions shrink to zero one day.
2. I used to be one of those Pro-Life people who thought all abortions were murders. I even attempted to call out a friend in the middle of a class speech in high school. A pretty jackass move even for me, and one that I regret at least every couple of weeks. In maybe a piece of foreshadowing, almost every time I hear/see the word abortion, I think about this moment and shake my head at my own stupidity.
3. I will never have to, individually, make the choice on abortion.
Now that those admissions are out of the way, I will continue.
We all know that it is possible that Roe v Wade could be overturned this year and that this could make abortions illegal, harder to get, or easier to get, all depending on where you live. It would appear it would mean each state would be able to set the rules. Which, primarily, means, people with money who want abortions will be able to get them and those without that ability will have to make tough choices. Just as tough as considering abortion in the first place. It also means some states will make abortion very hard or even punishable by law where others may make it easier to get, including abortions at later stages in pregnancy.
Most pro-life and pro-choice people have one thing in common; reduce the number of abortions. The difference is how they approach the issue. If you think pro-choice people are championing abortion because they want more abortions, you are mistaken. This post is not about calling either side delusional, murders, sinners, woke, racists, bigots and on and on. This post means to bring to light the reality of abortion in the USA.
We do not know the answer for sure but with data and learning from the past, we can start to paint the picture. Will it cause more harm to women? Will it result in even more overcrowding in foster care? Will it mean more families having to sell homes or leave good neighborhoods for worse to find more affordable housing? Will it lead to an even bigger disparity between the haves and have-nots? Will it lead to high health insurance and higher taxes? Will it cause safety issues beyond the people directly involved? The questions could go on and on.
Unfortunately, too often the pro-life people never consider this. They get so concerned in making sure that every embryo becomes a newborn they often do not worry about what happens when the child enters the world.
Just to give you an example, currently in our county (Winona County, Minnesota), 515 children need daycare but there is not enough room. (WXOW.com) Thus, people in the town who want to have children have to deal with who is going to watch their kids while they work. People have to make choices like quitting a job or volunteering to work every weekend to cut down on daycare costs. That is just the tip of the iceberg when we talk about the issues of abortion. I want to be clear; I am not saying that potential parents upon learning this should go out and get an abortion.
What it means does mean is those potential parents have to talk through several issues and what having a child could mean. It could mean couples who want kids and are ready cannot because there would be no one to watch their child. They might not be able to keep a parent home. Their work may not cover parental leave. Pro-life people gloss over these issues. Pro-life people on average want more kids to be born, not just due to lowering abortions, but often they just want the birthrate to get higher and higher. Of course, people should be smart enough to realize a child is expensive and to take cost in consideration when planning to start a family, but it is an issue when parents who want to have kids cannot or may have to consider abortion because the place they live cannot support the children who are already there.
According to the US Census Bureau, the average median household income is 61,400 as of 2017. That is just 15,000 more than it was in 1967. An increase of 33%. While that seems like a positive, that is just a 1.5% increase per year. This is way behind the 4% inflation rate since 1967. Additionally, according to PEW Research Center, the cost of childcare rose 70% from 1985-2011.
Even more discouraging is the following, also from PEW Research.
“Mothers who do work are paying more than ever for child care. In inflation-adjusted dollars, average weekly child care expenses for families with working mothers who paid for child care (24% of all such families) rose more than 70% from 1985 ($87) to 2011 ($148), according to research by the Census Bureau. For those families, child-care expenses represent 7.2% of family income, compared to 6.3% in 1986 (the earliest year available). However, childcare costs hit families at different income levels very differently, according to the census data. In 2011, for instance, families with employed mothers whose monthly income was $4,500 or more paid an average of $163 a week for childcare, representing 6.7% of their family income. Families with monthly incomes of less than $1,500 paid much less –$97 a week on average — but that represented 39.6% of their family income.” – (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/08/rising-cost-of-child-care-may-help-explain-increase-in-stay-at-home-moms/)
“Families shouldn’t spend more than 7% of their income on child care, according to a 2016 recommendation by the Department of Health and Human Services, but there’s no state in the country where parents can follow that recommendation, a 2018 analysis by Child Care Aware of America found.” (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/child-care-costs-just-hit-a-new-high-2018-10-22)
I bring all this up for two reasons. One, I am in the childcare meat grinder, we are lucky enough to have a family member who is going to watch our child. Two, this is not part of the discussion when talking about wanting to eliminate abortions. There never seems to be a willingness to address issues that we have in supporting children once they are born. Childcare is just a small component.
Often, the people that support the elimination of Roe v Wade and abortions support politicians who are against the following. Mandated paid parental leave, affordable education, affordable housing, affordable childcare, government programs to help those in need, affordable adoption, increased regulation on foster homes, free access to birth control, access to mental health, environmental issues that would make water and air cleaner, and access to care for people with special needs. Because of this, most “pro-life” supporters are really just pro-birth.
The easy comeback to people who are pro-birth and want abortions illegal and in some cases punishable is what about in cases of rape, incest, and harm to the mother. I try to avoid bringing these up in discussions because I do not think it helps move the needle in the right direction. However, it is worth bringing up in this arena.
“Pro-birth” people need to think hard and long about these issues. For example, a rape of you or your significant other occurs and pregnancy ensues, what is the right move?
It is easy to say, oh put the child up for adoption. Yet, this grossly simplifies the rape and the fallout from it. Could you imagine carrying around a reminder of the worst moment of your life for 9 months, only to give birth and then give away a child? Alternatively, can you imagine how long it would take to look at your child and not see the face of the person who raped you or your significant other? Even if your family did not say anything, anyone who has a baby has had a stranger approach them and say wow they look like their mom or dad. Hell, this has happened to me when babysitting a child that was not even mine. As an aside, if you do not know the child or the person the child is with, do not comment on the kid’s appearance.
Additionally, these people have access to very few resources and insurance does not always cover these resources.
Let us move on from rape to harm to the mother. First, if you are male, you will never have to lay your life down so a child is born, at least not in the way mothers may have to. Thus, you should avoid this argument at all costs; you have less to stand on than the knight from Monty Python. Second, if a person wants to put their life at risk for someone else they already can but making it illegal to keep yourself alive if you are facing possible death seems like a step too far.
Now that those options are out of the way, we can address other issues. Before we go further, I think it is important to address why abortions occur.
According to a 1987 survey and a 1988 report published by the NCBI more than one factor contributed to the choice to have an abortion. Seventy-five percent said the child would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities. Two-thirds expressed concern about being able to afford a child and fifty percent said that being a single parent or the relationship problems they had would cause issues. Teenagers and unmarried women were more likely to get abortions but for unmarried women, it was only 17% more likely. For women who had abortions after 16 weeks, 71% of them did it that late because they did not know they were pregnant until then. The cost of abortion and fear to tell others they were pregnant, means later abortions. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3243347)
I bring up these stats from 1988 because I think it is important to see where we are now and to see how (if) things have changed in over 30 years.
Since abortion became legal in 1973, the USA has reached a historic low. Since 2012, the rate has stayed below what it was in 1973. Below are some other facts found by Guttmacher, most data points are from 2014. (guttmacher.org)
· More than half of all U.S. abortion patients in 2014 were in their 20s: Patients aged 20–24 obtained 34% of all abortions, and patients aged 25–29 obtained 27%.
· Adolescents made up 12% of abortion patients in 2014: Those aged 18–19 accounted for 8% of all abortions, 15–17-year-olds for 3% and those younger than 15 for 0.2%.
· White patients accounted for 39% of abortion procedures in 2014, black patients for 28%, Hispanic patients for 25%, and patients of other races and ethnicities for 9%.
· Seventeen percent of abortion patients in 2014 identified themselves as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant and 24% as Catholic, while 38% reported no religious affiliation and the remaining 8% reported some other affiliation.
· Fifty-nine percent of abortions in 2014 were obtained by patients who had had at least one birth. One-third who had had two or more; 41% of abortion patients had had no prior births. These proportions were largely unchanged from 2008.
· Some 75% of abortion patients in 2014 were poor (having an income below the federal poverty level of $15,730 for a family of two in 2014) or low-income (having an income of 100–199% of the federal poverty level).
· In 2014, 16% of patients who obtained abortions in the United States were born outside the United States, a proportion comparable to their representation in the U.S. population (17% of women aged 15¬–44).
· In 2014, 51% of abortion patients were using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant, most commonly condoms (24%) or a short-acting hormonal method (13%).
· 88% of abortions occur before 12 weeks.
· In 2014, 65% of abortion patients traveled less than 25 miles one way to obtain care, 17% traveled 25–49 miles, 10% traveled 50–100 miles and 8% traveled more than 100 miles.
· If Roe v. Wade were overturned or weakened, abortion patients’ average distance to the nearest facility would increase by 97 miles, from 25 to 122 miles.
· In 2014, some 9% of abortion patients aged 20 or older had less than a high school degree and the overwhelming majority—91%—had graduated from high school; more than one in five had a college degree.
In 2004, Guttmacher tried to model their survey like the one in 1987. Their results were as follows.
· Similar to 1987, 74% said a child would interfere with life.
· Also similar to 1987, 73% could not afford a child and 48% referenced their relationship.
· There were some statistics that grew or shrunk by 10% such as a decrease in the partner pushing for abortion and an increase in completing childbirth. The only significant number was 38% said they had completed their childbearing. All other numbers were under 30%.
· A total of about 25-30%, both in 1987 and 2004, talked about the health risks to baby or mom, rape/incest or parents of the pregnant woman wanting an abortion.
This seems to say that the reasons for abortion have not changed much since 1987. So, why did the rate of abortion go from about 27% in 1987 to about 21% in 2004? It was not because abortions got harder to get, in fact, it got easier. They got even easier from 2004 to 2017 and the rate continued to drop. This would suggest there are other factors at work to decrease abortion.
Of course, it is damn near impossible to say what the abortion rate was in 1972, prior to them being legal nationally, but it would be just as impossible to say that rate was 0. According to a study in 1971-72, the abortion rate in New York was 29.4. Because it was legal to get an abortion in New York several states had abortion rates above 5%, including Michigan, Florida, and Illinois. According to the CDC, there were 452,607 abortions in 1971 and 503,423 abortions in 1972. That number jumped to 744,610 in 1973 and was over a million by 1975 however, this does not mean the number truly jumped from zero reported abortions to over 1,000,000 between 1969 and 1975.
We must also look at the birth rate to help getter a better sense of what this means. Most people are aware the birthrate has fallen since the early ’60s but it is irresponsible to say this is solely due to abortion if it was, the birthrate from 1972 and 1974 would be drastically different. In reality, the birthrate in 1972 was 15.6 and in 1974, it was 14.9. The birthrate fell almost every year from 1964 to 1972. In addition, the birthrate did jump from 14.8 in 1976 to as high as 16.7 in 1990. Currently, more and more families are choosing to have fewer children and the number of married couples without children is on the rise, which has continued to cut the birthrate. In 2018, the birthrate was down to 11.6, the lowest on record. (https://www.infoplease.com/us/births/live-births-and-birth-rates-year)
It easy to say we have had more abortions this year or that year but what is (if there is) the increase over time. The USA population has grown since 1973 so we should expect the number of abortions would go up. However, it reality the number of abortions continues to slide downward. This suggests again that the current methods we are using are working to lower abortion. This number is getting smaller because both pro-life and pro-choice groups want to see the abortion rate go down.
Very few people are still alive that experienced prohibition but we can take a lesson from that moment in history. The ban on drinking did not stop people from drinking. It created tons of illegal operations and helped create black markets. It also led to unfair punishments for immigrants, women, and people of color. Similar to the ban on marijuana, these measures hurt the people with the least amount of power. Elites were still able to drink easily without fear. The same occurred during the height of the war on drugs. Documents show that the movement to ban drugs such as marijuana was a way to keep people of color down. Just do some quick research on Harry Ansligner. I have included some of his quotes at the bottom. Additionally, these bans, both on booze and drugs, contributed to the rise in organized crime and violence.
It may seem crazy to think that outlawing abortions would cause an uptick on crime but it is not. People will be tempted to use illegal/dangerous ways to get abortions. The one thing successful crime syndicates do is make money. They are if nothing else, usually good at business.
There will also be an uptick in harm to women, which could come back and cost you the taxpayer. Most likely, unsafe abortions will take place and women will need medical care after. That medical care will be available and potentially costly. Not only that but unwanted children will cost the taxpayer as more money will be needed for shelters, foster care, food programs, school costs and more. You need to be prepared to pay more money if you want abortions to be illegal.
I know that the comeback from those who want abortion to be illegal will claim that people need to be responsible or should not have sex. There is room to discuss this while talking about abortion however; it is unrealistic to think people will stop having unprotected sex. We also cannot police what people do in their free time when it comes to sex. If we do, the slippery slope could get very dangerous. We can also help people be more responsible by increasing sex education, increasing cheaper/free access to birth control, increasing medical research into more birth control for men, eliminating the stigma of unwed pregnancy, and more.
So what about some of those other issues I mentioned earlier. Currently, this administration, while saying they want to eliminate Roe v Wade and make it harder to get abortions have done the following; taken away access to food for the poor, proposed elimination of benefits for disabled people, seeking cuts to education spending, rollbacks on air pollution and emissions, rollback on toxic substances, rollbacks on water pollution. All of these could or would make life worse and harm people that are currently living. Shouldn’t that matter just as much as abortion? If you do not care about those things, you are not truly pro-life. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-says-food-stamps-need-reform-advocates-say-millions-will-suffer/) (https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahkim/2019/12/17/trump-administrations-proposed-ssdi-policy-change/#5825acf54abe) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/trump-seeks-to-slash-85-billion-from-education-department-budget/2019/03/11/69ab930e-441f-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html) (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=EB61D337C08ECECC7AB546578DE472CE&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL)
I am not writing this to tell you to change from being pro-life to pro-choice, what I am saying is that you must be pro-life and not just pro-birth. If you want to tell people what they can and cannot do, you need to own responsibility for what happens because you are enforcing your choice/beliefs on them.
Harry Anslinger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger) quotes on Marijuana, used to help persuade people into making the drug illegal.
“Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others. It is a drug that causes insanity, criminality, and death -- the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind”.
“Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men”.
“Colored students at the University of Minnesota partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy”.
“Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice”.
“The primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races”.
“Marijuana is taken by musicians. And I'm not speaking about good musicians, but the jazz type.”
“I wish I could show you what a small marihuana cigarette can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents. That's why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally, because of social and racial conditions.”
“If the hideous monster Frankenstein came face to face with the monster of marijuana he would drop dead of fright.”
(https://www.peachtreenorml.org/end-prohibition/roots-marijuana-prohibition-harry-anslinger-marihuana-tax-act) (https://www.azquotes.com/author/23159-Harry_J_Anslinger)
Comments