David Meredith's Blog - Posts Tagged "government"
Why Both Sides Have it Wrong in the Abortion Debate & How Universal Birth Control is Actually the Most Economically Conservative Position
Roe vs. Wade? Pro-life? Pro-choice? Abortion – yes or no?
There is perhaps no other issue in the American political conversation that is as polarizing and divisive as the debate concerning abortion. Does a woman’s right to decide what happens to her own body trump the right of the fetus to life? Should the unborn not be afforded the same rights and protections as any other living human being? There are no easy answers. The arguments go back and forth, seemingly forever; both sides adamant in their certitude that theirs is the good and righteous fight against unrelenting evil, without anything ever seeming to be settled. But what if there was a third option? What if the way that we’ve framed the whole abortion debate totally misses the point?
How about if instead we started the discussion with this question: Is an abortion a good thing? Throw out the moral indignation and righteous anger. Forget questions of whether or not abortion is morally acceptable or not and just answer that question first. Is it a good thing? Now, think carefully before giving answer. Some might argue that abortion is preferable to baring a child that a mother cannot afford. Some might argue that it is morally permissible under certain circumstances, even occasionally necessary, but I don’t think there is any rational person who could make any sort of coherent argument that it is “good”.
All questions of morality aside, an abortion is still a highly invasive, very expensive medical procedure. As with any such procedure the potential for complications like infection, scar tissue formation, sterility, and even death are very real possibilities. Therefore, given the choice, if one can avoid such an arduous and costly ordeal completely, would that not be the best choice?
I think most people would probably answer, “of course!” so the question then arises; Is prevention of abortion really the key issue? Is pro-life vs. pro-choice really the most appropriate rhetorical dichotomy in addressing what most people agree is a serious social ill? If a woman is forced into a decision between an abortion and having a child that she either doesn’t want or can’t care for, are we not already too late? Should our focus not instead be the reduction or elimination of unwanted pregnancy in the first place? After all, if women don’t become pregnant to begin with, they don’t have either abortions or children they can’t afford, and the whole issue of abortion all of a sudden largely settles itself.
Now, at this point I suspect that many conservative readers are sitting up in their chairs, screaming at their computer screens, “that’s right! So if women just don’t have sex…” Erm… No.
Of course, they are correct that celibacy is the surest form of birth control, but in a practical sense, simply preaching abstinence has largely proven to be a complete and abysmal failure as policy. Government sponsored, school sponsored, and/or church sponsored preaching is no match for simple human biology. (Don’t believe me? Just ask Sarah and Bristol Palin how effective they think an abstinence only approach is.) Once a pregnancy happens, the reality of the situation is whether a woman or girl chooses abortion or to carry an unexpected pregnancy to term, it is still a tragically traumatic and essentially unnecessary experience that either way is going to cost us.
“But people should exercise better self-control!” You cry. Okay… Maybe they should, but they don’t. The government should not be in the business of indulging in hypothetical “shoulda, coulda, wouldas” that might make us as individuals feel justified, but solve absolutely nothing. All one need do to demonstrate this total policy failure is to examine the states that have most ardently supported abstinence only approaches. They incidentally also have the highest unplanned pregnancy rates. Just telling people not to have sex has not solved the problem. However, it cannot be denied that the fact people don’t appear in aggregate to exercise monastic levels of self-control regarding sex, creates an undeniable social burden on the rest of society. It therefore behooves the US government to come up with a policy approach that ameliorates the situation, reduces misery and poverty for women and girls, and at the same time cuts the economic burden on the rest of us.
There is no question unplanned pregnancy remains a serious issue in the U.S. which has one of the highest unplanned pregnancy rates among all industrialized nations. Unwanted pregnancies are expensive, whatever the final decision proves to be in terms of how a woman chooses to deal with it. When the United States government is then forced into doling out billions to pay for these pregnancies, it then necessitates spending reductions in other agencies and programs, an increase in taxes, higher budget deficits, or some combination of all three. So, given this reality, the government cannot fail to consider what would be the most economically responsible thing to do. If it is also the morally upright thing to do, then so much the better. Therefore, should our goal not be to minimize both cost and misery?
If the answer to that question is yes, the obvious solution is universally available, free birth control. Now, conservatives at this point may experience reflexive and bellicose paroxysms of distain for this suggestion, but in reality it is the MOST conservative approach to the problem, and the justification is simple cost-benefit analysis. If we can agree (and pro-lifers and planned parenthood supporters alike do on this issue) that preventing unwanted pregnancies and thus also abortions is a good thing, the question then becomes, “what is the most cost effective way of doing that?”
There are plenty of conservatives who might protest that they don’t want to pay for some woman’s birth control, or even more inelegantly to pay for women to “have sex”, (although I think this particular view is exceedingly, poorly premised), but in any case, what is the alternative if you also want to prevent her from having an abortion or a child she cannot afford? I would imagine that there is pretty broad agreement in conservative circles that the government should not be paying for abortions, but it cannot be denied in an economic sense, it is worse still for the tax payer in the cases where the pro-lifers are successful and unexpected pregnancies are actually carried to term.
The Washington Post reported on March 3, 2015 that the US annually spends about $21 BILLION a year on unplanned pregnancies. If you break this number down, that includes $12,770 in prenatal care and postnatal care for the first 12 months as well as another $7,947 for care from months 13 – 60 for a total of $20,716 PER BIRTH. This does not then begin to factor in additional costs for EBT (formally known as food stamps), WIC, government housing, free and reduced school lunch, along with many other and varied forms of government assistance that both mother and child often qualify for, considering that a high percentage of children born as a result of unplanned pregnancy are born into families who subsist below the poverty level. The bottom line? You are already paying far more for one woman’s unplanned child than you would ever pay for dozens of women’s birth control.
In contrast to the cost of an unplanned pregnancy and birth, the average price of a birth control injection is roughly $50-$60. They last for three months and are necessary four times a year. Injections are preferable because they are not permanent. When a woman decides that she is ready to conceive, it is a relatively painless process that involves little more than patiently waiting, but unlike the birth control pill, helps women largely avoid accidental pregnancies through missed doses.
The above are not the only expenses to consider, however. If one looks only at teenage pregnancies for example (of which an astronomically high percentage are unplanned) there are even more costs involved. Women who have their first child in their teens are less likely to ever finish high school and much less likely to complete a college degree. They are more likely to work in minimum wage or low paying jobs or be unemployed. This then makes it much more likely that they will continue to be a net drain on the entitlement system for the duration of their lives. Children born into these families themselves are also much more likely to have unwanted pregnancies and continue the cycle of poverty. Conversely, women who have children later in life are much more likely to finish their educations, find lucrative jobs, earn an income that will allow them and their families to be self-sufficient, and become net contributors to the tax base instead of net takers. This represents not only enormous potential reductions in cost but also corresponding increases in revenue that make the overall positive economic impact of preventing these pregnancies exponential.
When you crunch all the numbers, examine all the potential benefits, and consider any drawbacks, the solution to the unplanned pregnancy crisis in the US should be clear. The average abortion can cost $1000 or more and to many, is morally reprehensible. Even tossing out the moral aspect all together, it is still a highly invasive surgical procedure that should be avoided if at all possible. An unexpected pregnancy carried to term can be astronomically expensive for the US tax payer. Free birth control would represent a cost to federal and state governments, yes, but a much reduced cost - exponentially cheaper than current policy.
The solution should be obvious. If you want to vastly reduce the number of abortions you must vastly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, which would also greatly reduce the cost of these pregnancies to the US tax payer. All women of child baring age should receive regular, free birth control injections unless they choose to opt out (for personal or religious reasons) either through schools or county health departments. The abortion rate would almost immediately drop by 90% or more and the nation would incur a much lower cost than what it currently pays in entitlements for unplanned children. The benefits to the country in terms of transforming net takers into tax payers would be economically huge and the reduction of misery and poverty among at-risk women and girls would be an enormous social good.
Pro-life? Pro-choice? If we are pro-universal birth control, that decision largely becomes irrelevant and everyone is better off.
There is perhaps no other issue in the American political conversation that is as polarizing and divisive as the debate concerning abortion. Does a woman’s right to decide what happens to her own body trump the right of the fetus to life? Should the unborn not be afforded the same rights and protections as any other living human being? There are no easy answers. The arguments go back and forth, seemingly forever; both sides adamant in their certitude that theirs is the good and righteous fight against unrelenting evil, without anything ever seeming to be settled. But what if there was a third option? What if the way that we’ve framed the whole abortion debate totally misses the point?
How about if instead we started the discussion with this question: Is an abortion a good thing? Throw out the moral indignation and righteous anger. Forget questions of whether or not abortion is morally acceptable or not and just answer that question first. Is it a good thing? Now, think carefully before giving answer. Some might argue that abortion is preferable to baring a child that a mother cannot afford. Some might argue that it is morally permissible under certain circumstances, even occasionally necessary, but I don’t think there is any rational person who could make any sort of coherent argument that it is “good”.
All questions of morality aside, an abortion is still a highly invasive, very expensive medical procedure. As with any such procedure the potential for complications like infection, scar tissue formation, sterility, and even death are very real possibilities. Therefore, given the choice, if one can avoid such an arduous and costly ordeal completely, would that not be the best choice?
I think most people would probably answer, “of course!” so the question then arises; Is prevention of abortion really the key issue? Is pro-life vs. pro-choice really the most appropriate rhetorical dichotomy in addressing what most people agree is a serious social ill? If a woman is forced into a decision between an abortion and having a child that she either doesn’t want or can’t care for, are we not already too late? Should our focus not instead be the reduction or elimination of unwanted pregnancy in the first place? After all, if women don’t become pregnant to begin with, they don’t have either abortions or children they can’t afford, and the whole issue of abortion all of a sudden largely settles itself.
Now, at this point I suspect that many conservative readers are sitting up in their chairs, screaming at their computer screens, “that’s right! So if women just don’t have sex…” Erm… No.
Of course, they are correct that celibacy is the surest form of birth control, but in a practical sense, simply preaching abstinence has largely proven to be a complete and abysmal failure as policy. Government sponsored, school sponsored, and/or church sponsored preaching is no match for simple human biology. (Don’t believe me? Just ask Sarah and Bristol Palin how effective they think an abstinence only approach is.) Once a pregnancy happens, the reality of the situation is whether a woman or girl chooses abortion or to carry an unexpected pregnancy to term, it is still a tragically traumatic and essentially unnecessary experience that either way is going to cost us.
“But people should exercise better self-control!” You cry. Okay… Maybe they should, but they don’t. The government should not be in the business of indulging in hypothetical “shoulda, coulda, wouldas” that might make us as individuals feel justified, but solve absolutely nothing. All one need do to demonstrate this total policy failure is to examine the states that have most ardently supported abstinence only approaches. They incidentally also have the highest unplanned pregnancy rates. Just telling people not to have sex has not solved the problem. However, it cannot be denied that the fact people don’t appear in aggregate to exercise monastic levels of self-control regarding sex, creates an undeniable social burden on the rest of society. It therefore behooves the US government to come up with a policy approach that ameliorates the situation, reduces misery and poverty for women and girls, and at the same time cuts the economic burden on the rest of us.
There is no question unplanned pregnancy remains a serious issue in the U.S. which has one of the highest unplanned pregnancy rates among all industrialized nations. Unwanted pregnancies are expensive, whatever the final decision proves to be in terms of how a woman chooses to deal with it. When the United States government is then forced into doling out billions to pay for these pregnancies, it then necessitates spending reductions in other agencies and programs, an increase in taxes, higher budget deficits, or some combination of all three. So, given this reality, the government cannot fail to consider what would be the most economically responsible thing to do. If it is also the morally upright thing to do, then so much the better. Therefore, should our goal not be to minimize both cost and misery?
If the answer to that question is yes, the obvious solution is universally available, free birth control. Now, conservatives at this point may experience reflexive and bellicose paroxysms of distain for this suggestion, but in reality it is the MOST conservative approach to the problem, and the justification is simple cost-benefit analysis. If we can agree (and pro-lifers and planned parenthood supporters alike do on this issue) that preventing unwanted pregnancies and thus also abortions is a good thing, the question then becomes, “what is the most cost effective way of doing that?”
There are plenty of conservatives who might protest that they don’t want to pay for some woman’s birth control, or even more inelegantly to pay for women to “have sex”, (although I think this particular view is exceedingly, poorly premised), but in any case, what is the alternative if you also want to prevent her from having an abortion or a child she cannot afford? I would imagine that there is pretty broad agreement in conservative circles that the government should not be paying for abortions, but it cannot be denied in an economic sense, it is worse still for the tax payer in the cases where the pro-lifers are successful and unexpected pregnancies are actually carried to term.
The Washington Post reported on March 3, 2015 that the US annually spends about $21 BILLION a year on unplanned pregnancies. If you break this number down, that includes $12,770 in prenatal care and postnatal care for the first 12 months as well as another $7,947 for care from months 13 – 60 for a total of $20,716 PER BIRTH. This does not then begin to factor in additional costs for EBT (formally known as food stamps), WIC, government housing, free and reduced school lunch, along with many other and varied forms of government assistance that both mother and child often qualify for, considering that a high percentage of children born as a result of unplanned pregnancy are born into families who subsist below the poverty level. The bottom line? You are already paying far more for one woman’s unplanned child than you would ever pay for dozens of women’s birth control.
In contrast to the cost of an unplanned pregnancy and birth, the average price of a birth control injection is roughly $50-$60. They last for three months and are necessary four times a year. Injections are preferable because they are not permanent. When a woman decides that she is ready to conceive, it is a relatively painless process that involves little more than patiently waiting, but unlike the birth control pill, helps women largely avoid accidental pregnancies through missed doses.
The above are not the only expenses to consider, however. If one looks only at teenage pregnancies for example (of which an astronomically high percentage are unplanned) there are even more costs involved. Women who have their first child in their teens are less likely to ever finish high school and much less likely to complete a college degree. They are more likely to work in minimum wage or low paying jobs or be unemployed. This then makes it much more likely that they will continue to be a net drain on the entitlement system for the duration of their lives. Children born into these families themselves are also much more likely to have unwanted pregnancies and continue the cycle of poverty. Conversely, women who have children later in life are much more likely to finish their educations, find lucrative jobs, earn an income that will allow them and their families to be self-sufficient, and become net contributors to the tax base instead of net takers. This represents not only enormous potential reductions in cost but also corresponding increases in revenue that make the overall positive economic impact of preventing these pregnancies exponential.
When you crunch all the numbers, examine all the potential benefits, and consider any drawbacks, the solution to the unplanned pregnancy crisis in the US should be clear. The average abortion can cost $1000 or more and to many, is morally reprehensible. Even tossing out the moral aspect all together, it is still a highly invasive surgical procedure that should be avoided if at all possible. An unexpected pregnancy carried to term can be astronomically expensive for the US tax payer. Free birth control would represent a cost to federal and state governments, yes, but a much reduced cost - exponentially cheaper than current policy.
The solution should be obvious. If you want to vastly reduce the number of abortions you must vastly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, which would also greatly reduce the cost of these pregnancies to the US tax payer. All women of child baring age should receive regular, free birth control injections unless they choose to opt out (for personal or religious reasons) either through schools or county health departments. The abortion rate would almost immediately drop by 90% or more and the nation would incur a much lower cost than what it currently pays in entitlements for unplanned children. The benefits to the country in terms of transforming net takers into tax payers would be economically huge and the reduction of misery and poverty among at-risk women and girls would be an enormous social good.
Pro-life? Pro-choice? If we are pro-universal birth control, that decision largely becomes irrelevant and everyone is better off.
