Monday, December 3, 2012

Does Legalized Abortion Reduce Welfare Costs for Poor Women?

by Brian Clowes, Ph.D. | Washington, DC | | 12/3/12 11:30 AM

Supporters of the Culture of Death tend to lack foresight, and do not seem to possess even a rudimentary understanding of human nature. These defects inevitably lead to many cases of the “law of unintended consequences.”1

One good example of this principle is the ongoing effort by population control groups to flood Africa with condoms in an attempt to stem the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Condom manufacturers refuse to publicize their high failure rate, however, and so African nations where more condoms are used have much higher rates of HIV/AIDS than those nations whose people widely reject their use.2

Another example of this lack of foresight is the claim that, when the State pays for a poor woman’s abortion, it saves a lot of money by avoiding the costs of a delivery and another child added to the welfare system. In fact, this is one of the most persuasive arguments offered by pro‑abortionists in support of Medicaid funding of abortion.

In support of this belief, pro-abortionists grossly exaggerate the costs incurred by a child on welfare. They began using this tactic in their battle against the Hyde Amendment, which banned most federal funding of abortion. Senator Charles H. Percy (R‑Ill.) testified, “If we can avoid a $100,000 cost for a $200 [abortion] investment ― and make a humanitarian investment at the same time ― what sense does it make to say, `We cannot afford $200 for this expenditure [for an abortion]?’”


No comments:

Post a Comment