Economic Consequences of Roe V. Wade Overturned

[waiting for hope]

Hello All –

This is my first big post as a newbie, so please be gentle….

As a strong believer in a woman’s right to choose whether or not to abort an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy and with the growing fear of Roe V. Wade being overturned, I pose a question. Has any group or organization done a study on the social and economical impact on this country if Roe V. Wade was overturned and predicted states criminalized abortion?

The latest numbers from the US Department of Agriculture’s Expenditures on Children by Families report
(http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Crc/crc2004.pdf) gives the following:

Single parent cost of raising a child at $127,470.00 (0-17 yrs of age) with an income of less than $41,700 with the average at $17,500. That breaks down to roughly $7500.00 a year for 17 years. With the average pre-tax income of $17,500, that leaves about a $10,000 pre-tax income a year to clothe, feed and provide housing and transportation for herself. I am a pretty frugal individual but I don’t know of anyone who can support themselves on less than $10,000 a year without government assistance. The same report had a total child Health Care cost estimated at $8430.00 – this number for obvious reasons needs to be seriously inflated. There is an estimated number of 1.4 million abortions per year performed between the years 1973 and 2000 (http://www.the-tidings.com/2005/0128/signs.htm This info is from a Southern Californian Catholic publication).

So, what programs would be effected? These are the few that I could think of:

USDA WIC Program (most states have waiting lists already for this program)
USDA Food Stamp Program
Individual State Social, Family and Human Services offices:

Subsidized Child Care

Subsidized Housing

State Adoption Agencies

State Foster Care Programs

Child Abuse & Protective Services

Child Support Enforcement
Medicaid/Medicare
Federal Welfare Programs
(I found this compelling - Welfare: The Single Mother's Nightmare http://www.aug.edu/fenglish/choice_voice/essays/welfare.htm)

The cost of having an estimated 1.3 million additional (1.4 million X 48.20% {http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html} of women below an income of 30,000 X 2 – including new baby) participants into all Social Services Programs: i.e. staffing payroll, taxes, benefits, workplace costs, etc.

Is it safe to say that if a report outlining the cost to the government if the decision to take away Roe V Wade would wake up the anti-choice faction if it were to hit them in their bank accounts? It has always been my understanding that one of the Republican Party’s platforms has been for less government. It’s staggering to think of the percentage of that 1.4 million that will need some or a large amount of assistance from both state and federal programs. Not all women who have an unwanted pregnancy are going to be without an outside, private support system but half of the women in this country today state that reason why they have an abortion is that they do not want to be a single parent or they are having problems with their husband or partner (http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html). Now just imagine the cost to our state and federal systems and compare it to the funding needed to rebuild New Orleans and to have that dollar amount continue every year FOREVER.

Will that ranting religious zealot protesting outside a legitimate women’s clinic who thinks that a first trimester abortion is murder going to eagerly and without protest help financially take care of a stranger’s baby? I think not – and it just sickens me that all of the holier than thou anti-choice proponents feel that they can mandate their beliefs onto the public. They do not give a single thought to the years of child-rearing after birth and that a woman who would choose an abortion knows what is best for her, physically, emotionally, socially and economically, by making that choice. If a woman does not’t believe in abortion, then for pity’s sake, don’t have one! And please forgive me by not mentioning men in this decision but until they can conceive and carry a child, I firmly believe that it’s a Woman’s Right to Choose.

If anyone knows of a study that has been done to highlight the consequences, please let me know for I would like to send it to every federally elected official in this country and if no such report has been made, can we raise enough stink to get one done? They way I see it, if Roe V Wade is overturned and abortion is turned illegal, the anti-choice supporters have two choices, either help support the already overburdened state and federal programs that provide assistance, or cut the funding – the latter will only increase the gap between the two Americas and further damage our image to the rest of the world. Since logic reasoning can’t get through to those arrogant elitists, perhaps the prospect paying through the nose will.

I realize that the numbers I have presented here may be over inflated by the fact that if a woman wants an abortion bad enough, she will find any method to receive it – and the access to quality and reliable birth control - are discussions for another day.

[opihimoimoi]

1. Hey, Hope, Ya done good, eerrrr, Excellent...Welcome to DU

Sending Wine and Roses.

Opi

[noonwitch]

2. I don't get into arguments like that

People who are truly pro-life and not just acting that way for political gain would never put a price tag on their beliefs.

My argument is that the rights of a living, breathing woman should always supercede the rights of a potential life inside her. The other side is free to try to convince women not to have abortions and to offer alternatives, but the law should always favor the woman.

[roseBudd]

3. I think this is a good point. Arguing with a fundie coworker over Schiavo

he shut up when I pointed out she cost $100,000 a year and was on Medicaid and was he willing to pay more taxes. I already knew this fundie doesn't believe in SS, Medicare or Medicaid and has staed he believes his grandmother will die at home and never need a nursing home.

[B3Nut]

5. That's just it though...

...the fundies (and I used to be one) don't want any social programs, no aid, no nothing; yet they want to force a woman who is pregnant to have the baby. What if she can't afford it? Sure, it can be argued that she shouldn't have gotten into that situation but what use it is making that argument after the woman is pregnant? You're going to make her have the kid but won't lift a damned finger to help? Hypocrisy!

I don't care for abortion much, but unfortunately it's sometimes the only option. And making it illegal isn't going to help, I think it would only make matters much, much worse. Seems the abortion rates were lower under Clinton's administration than they are under the "pro-life" Bush regime. Figures.

Todd in Beerbratistan

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Welcome to DU! I once saw an article on the 'savings' to society

that had been reaped by legal abortions. It looked at the total number of abortions from 1973 and computed what would have been necessary expenses if all had been live births. It included the cost of schools, teachers, child care, medical clinics & hospitals, roads, housing, and all types of assistance, and also prisons and impact on crime and the courts. I just have no idea where I saw it...think it was on some pro-choice site.

I'm an old-time supporter of 'zero population' which urged people to only reproduce themselves to stabilize population growth. I look around this small city I came to 14 years ago and am horrified at the sprawl and growth that has occurred. I know it is happening across the country and it saddens me. I can only image the impact that another 30 million people coming of age would have made!

I find anti-abortionists out of touch with reality. Where do they think the world will find the space, money, or food and water for every fertilized egg?

Anyway, all they will find if Roe vs. Wade is overturned is a return to 'illegal' abortion. Abortion has existed for thousands of years and elimination of 'safe' abortions will only cause more misery. But I think that is what their goal really is.

Good post!!

[waiting for hope]

6. Thanks for the welcome....

I have looked all over the internet for some kind of comprehensive report reflecting the cost impact to the government but all I get for the first couple of pages of web hits are "pro-life" (uuggh, hate that moniker :mad:) groups complaining of Medicaid funding to aid poverty stricken women...go figure.