Aborting the Cost of Anti-Abortion

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization on sexual and reproductive health issues, state and federal tax dollars paid $89 million for 177,404 abortions in 2006.

“Already this year tens of thousands of Americans have asked Congress to respect the consciences of taxpayers and stop the abortion bailout,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, in early May. “As Congress begins the new appropriations process, it would do well to heed the voices of constituents and stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry.”

She added, “Common sense dictates one truism: we won’t find reductions in abortion as long as we continue to subsidize and promote it at taxpayers’ expense.”

Talking about subsidizing: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy reported that teen childbearing in the U.S. cost taxpayers over $9.1B in 2004; the breakdown includes $1.9B for health care, $2.3B for child welfare, $2.1B for incarceration and $2.9B in a lifetime of lower wages/less tax revenue. The accumulative estimated costs from 1991 to 2004 are estimated to have been $161B.

A child born to a teen mother who has not finished high school and is not married is nine times more likely to be poorer than a child born to a married adult who finished high school.

Babies born to teens are at an increased risk of low-birth weight and immediate health problems, including mental retardation, blindness, and deafness, plus respiratory distress syndrome and intestinal problems. American taxpayers bear these Welfare costs.

An example of the tax liability incurred with premature childbirth is the case of 33-year old Octomomma Nadya Suleman who is less responsible that any pregnant teen. Already receiving public assistance funds of $490/month in food stamps and an estimated $793 per month each in Social Security disability payments for three of the six existing children (a total of $2,379), the eight children born this past January cost California taxpayers another big bundle for her joys.

Although the actual medical costs haven’t been disclosed, in 2006 the average cost for a California hospital stay was $164,273 per baby, or $1.3M total, according to the Dept. of Health and Human Services. Unless she is more responsible in childrearing than she was in childbearing, the expenses will keep breeding on an already financially burdened California for the next 18 years.

With all 14 children conceived via in-vitro fertilization, it sure seems Nadya has been consistently playing the Welfare game – and California taxpayers aren’t very happy about it. “It's my opinion that a woman's right to reproduce should be limited to a number which the parents can pay for," Charles Murray wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Daily News. "Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?”
(Did he suggest cap and trade?)

Indeed, Charles. If intent on preserving the life of unplanned, unwanted and unborn fetuses, then anti-abortion groups, religious organizations and the charity of supportive citizens should bear the inherent financial burdens. Right is right, and the safety of the children would be better placed with the oversight of those who would guarantee them proper diet, housing, clothing and an environment to ensure they grow up as productive members of society.

If not for the dedication and determination of pro-life advocates, the fetuses will continue to be born into poverty, faced with malnutrition, sexual abuse and disadvantages in learning, putting them on paths that will most likely find their grandchildren in the same harrowing existences.

According to 2001 stats from The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 40% pregnancies of white women were unplanned, 54% among Hispanics and 69% among blacks. We all know the conditions that await the lives of inner-city youths. Welcome to the real world, all you unwanted kids, thanks to anti-abortion advocates. The more the merrier?

Abstinence? Although we’re an intelligent lot, we’re still mammals with animal instincts inclined to satisfy rapture’s calling. Studies have shown that men think about sex every 52 seconds; women perhaps once a day, suggesting it’s the woman’s choice to accept the risk of pregnancy – outside of rape.

The average yearly cost incurred with each child born to a mother aged 17 and younger is $4,080 to the American taxpayer. In addition to the Standard Deduction, and with no need to file Schedule A, at the very least I should be able to claim this as a charitable deduction on Form 1040.

If not, the next poll should include the question, “On the issue of abortion, are you willing to provide $4,080, or more, in yearly taxes in support of making abortion illegal? Your answer is binding.”

A follow-up question could be, “Keeping in mind that you cannot change your previous answer, do you consider yourself a member of the Moral Majority?”



[Please, read the next blog entry 'BroncoBett Aborts Ron Rae' for a reader comment.]

BroncoBett Aborts Ron Rae

The following is a reader response to blog entry 'Aborting the Cost of Anti-Abortion' as it was printed in Hernando Today.



LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

As a former columnist at Hernando Today it was my understanding that perhaps the first rule of thumb was to do proper research and assure the accuracy of statements published under my byline. Assuming this applies to conservative columnists as well as progressives, I must question the column by Ron Rae which appeared in Hernando Today on Sunday, June 14, 2009.

First, Ron’s claim that he is “not necessarily a Republican” is questionable since he mentions no Republican whose age is perhaps too advanced. He mentions Sen. Robert Byrd (D) W. V. as the oldest member at age 91. He next states “There are five other Democrats in the Senate who are 83 or older..” when actually only 3 are in that age group: Frank Lautenberg, N.J. (age 85), Daniel Inouye, Hawaii (age 84), and Daniel Akaha, Hawaii (age 84). He claims that term limits will give us a younger House and Senate, but that would depend upon at what age the candidates were first elected, would it not? So then, is this an issue of term limits or really an issue of age restrictions for candidates?

His real problem seems to be that he is a Republican who thought it was fine when the GOP had total control of the Executive and Legislative branches of our government for 8 long and devastating years, but now demands a bi-partisanship that was never extended to Democrats for that 8 year span. Incidentally, fast approaching the age limit(s) Ron is objecting to are following Republican Senators : Jim Bunning, Kentucky (age 77), Richard Lugar, Indiana (age 77), Chuck Grassley, Iowa (age 75), Robert Foster Bennett, Utah (age 75), and Richard Shelby, Alabama (age 75). Is Ron saying that none of these Republicans should be allowed to run for re-election because they would still be serving when they were in the over 80 age group?

Apparently, Republicans who have become the “party of no” are desperately trying to eliminate Democrats from the Senate with nothing but scare tactics, lies and innuendoes, with nary a responsible idea or plan to offer except more of what got us where we are today. Funny that Hernando Today, which appears if not 100% right wing, certainly comes really close to that figure, has had to go to 5-day publishing instead of 7 and seems to be losing some staff members of long standing.Apparently, all a right winger has to do is claim that he is "not necessarily a Republican" and try to pass himself off as what...an Independant? Anyone think that this “newspaper” might be losing readership due to its lack of fairness and accountability?

Frances Earl
177 Rusk CircleSpring Hill, FL 34606
(352) 688-5993
http://us.mc1101.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=fearl@tampabay.rr.com