Business is booming
An interesting perspective on abortion and George W. Bush by a Christian ethicist:
Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.
How could this be? I see three contributing factors:
First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.
Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.
Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases. ...
What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.
posted by Jonathan Potts at
5:56 PM
2 Comments:
"What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers."
Well, by following this logic, one could just as persuasively say, "Abstaining from sex and abortion are not separate issues."
Not that it's a good policy, but at least it's a bit more on point that some mellow notion that we need to increase jobs, the social safety net and find men who are more loyal to their women.
No shit.
Bush believes he has a policy to do that (I happen to think it doesn't work very well). If these social forces are what's causing a rise in abortions (and I have a feeling a small study from a MN advocacy group isn't the most likely starting point for a major policy shift), then what role would Bush even play in them?
He's responsible for hiking the marriage rate? He's responsible for making men care about the women with whom they have unprotected intercourse? His job to make sure men wrap it, or women pop a pill?
At what point does personal responsibility fail to trump federal policy? Do we really want the executive branch meddling in these affairs, no matter how odious we find the practice of aborting children?
4:28 PM
This evidence is indeed open to a range of interpretation, and raises many questions. I can't speak to the reliability of the study. Recently, I read an essay in which the author made the same argument, noting that abortions were on the rise during the Reagan presidency but declinded during the Clinton years. The only problem with that logic is that Reagan, despite his rhetoric, allowed the welfare state to grow, while Clinton pushed through a welfare reform bill tough enough to appease a Republican Congress.
No one disputes that policies that promote personal responsibility are ideal. But as the president once said, sometimes we have to deal with the world as we find it. Is the pro-life movement chiefly concerned with scoring rhetorical victories and occupying the moral high ground, or do they really want to help children and families?
8:49 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home