The Unintended Tax Consequences of Abortion Restrictions

[Derideo_Te]

In order to not deflect from any of the other abortion threads I am starting this one to deal with the facts and figures rather than the morality of abortion.

First let's put the facts on the table as provided by the Guttmacher Institute;

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

INCIDENCE OF ABORTION

• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]
• Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 67% among blacks and 53% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] • In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]
• Each year, two percent of women aged 15–44 have an abortion. Half have had at least one previous abortion.[2,3]

• Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).[6]
• Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.* [6]

So if 40% of unintended pregnancies result in 1.2 million abortions that means that there are about 3 million unintended pregnancies every year.

69% of those 1.2 million abortions are for women earning less than twice the Federal poverty level. (42 + 27 = 69)

5 states have enacted laws making it much more difficult to obtain an abortion and TX is about to become the 6th state. So given that low income women probably don't have financial resources to travel out of state they are probably going to end up giving birth instead. As a rough estimate that means that 7% of the current rate of abortions will not be performed and this will result in more live births.

So those 5 states can anticipate an increase of 84,000 additional unwanted children into low income families each and every year from now on.

So what does this mean to the states themselves?

From an infrastructure perspective it will mean that there will be an increase in the number of ER visits and/or enrollments into SCHIP. This will be followed by an increase in demands on the school districts. These won't simply be more classrooms and teachers but also more janitors, counselors, cafeterias, supplies, etc, etc.

Once the eldest of these "pro-life" children graduate from high school (by now there are 1.5 million of them and counting) they will need jobs. Without jobs there will probably be an increase in crime rates. Increased crime leads to more police, courts and prisons.

So where is the money coming from to pay for all of these increased costs in these 5 states?

Who is going to shoulder the "pro-life" tax burden?

Please remember that this is not a question of the "morality" regarding abortions but the instead the very real financial consequences of this legislation. In essence this is an "unfunded mandate" that is being imposed upon the taxpayers of these states.

How willing are the taxpayers to pay the price for these policies?

But wait, there's more!

Given that these children are all born into low income families there will be Federal Welfare in the form of food stamp programs. This means that all taxpayers will be paying for these "pro-life" policies.

The current federal spending levels are already a problem but these "pro-life" policies are just going to increase the demand on these programs.

So there are very real unintended tax consequences that stem from restricting abortions. They will result in increased government spending at both state and federal levels. The argument can be made that you cannot put a price on a human life. However if government spending needs to be cut are taxpayers going to literally take the food out of the mouths of the babes that some have insisted must be given life?

This is a conundrum that deserves a fair and honest debate.

Please provide your opinions and feedback. Thank you.

 

[PaulS1950]

We could always back out of supporting unwed mothers with tax money and let the families and/or fathers support them. Then we wouldn't be paying for the abortion or the children.

 

[Derideo_Te]

We could always back out of supporting unwed mothers with tax money and let the families and/or fathers support them. Then we wouldn't be paying for the abortion or the children.

WADR Paul, that option has not been 100% successful even with middle class families. The courts are clogged with cases against "deadbeat dads" who are not keeping up with their child support payments.

The legal costs of enforcing this amongst low income families is probably far greater than the cost of providing the food stamps in the first place since most of them are going to need subsidized legal aid. It is unrealistic to expect that they are going to be able to afford years of legal fees on top of the cost of the birth and raising a child.

 

[PaulS1950]

WADR Paul, that option has not been 100% successful even with middle class families. The courts are clogged with cases against "deadbeat dads" who are not keeping up with their child support payments.

The legal costs of enforcing this amongst low income families is probably far greater than the cost of providing the food stamps in the first place since most of them are going to need subsidized legal aid. It is unrealistic to expect that they are going to be able to afford years of legal fees on top of the cost of the birth and raising a child.

I don't know what WADR is but I do know that until placing people on assistance families took care of the issues associated with single motherhood and "dead beat dads". Why should the courts even be involved?

 

[Katzndogz]

If we accommodated the rise in population by limitations on immigration the problems would be solved. After all, don't we need immigrants because there is no future workforce, nor future tax payers?

Supporting children is a matter of social construction. We have a population largely of people who believe they have no responsibility. Having children has no connection to anything they did. It is something done to them. The man that has 22 children by eleven women doesn't make the connection between anything he did to those children. They have all been unfairly imposed on him. There is a right to unfettered, irresponsible sex. It might take a generation or more to restore a sense of responsiblity and accountability to the feckless. Until then, the ban on same sex adoptions in many countries has been extended to all foreign adoptions. Fill the void. Adopt the children out within and without the United States until women get the idea that having a child is not career advancement.

 

[Derideo_Te]

WADR Paul, that option has not been 100% successful even with middle class families. The courts are clogged with cases against "deadbeat dads" who are not keeping up with their child support payments.

The legal costs of enforcing this amongst low income families is probably far greater than the cost of providing the food stamps in the first place since most of them are going to need subsidized legal aid. It is unrealistic to expect that they are going to be able to afford years of legal fees on top of the cost of the birth and raising a child.

I don't know what WADR is but I do know that until placing people on assistance families took care of the issues associated with single motherhood and "dead beat dads". Why should the courts even be involved?

WADR = With All Due Respect.

The problem with what you are advocating was the same one that faced this nation after the 1929 Great Depression. Entire families were wiped out and no longer had any resources to deal with "single motherhood", "deadbeat dads" and the elderly who could no longer work. There weren't any jobs and so they went from middle class to abject poverty virtually overnight.

That was when the concept of a "social safety net" was introduced into this nation and to it's credit it has kept poverty from reaching 3rd world levels. In the 3rd world there are no "social safety nets" and "single mothers" are forced to rely on "families" who are just as destitute as they are. Pulling the plug on the social safety net will send this nation hurtling down that path.

Are you advocating that not only must there be severe restrictions on abortion but that an unintended pregnancy is a one way ticket into a life of poverty and despair? The only alternative would be to "guarantee work" for these "dads" and garnish their wages for their "families". Isn't that an even worse "solution" than just providing the food stamps?

 

[Cookie]

My husband and I got married during the height of the tax law where two-income married couples had a higher tax liability than if they remained single. We discussed the decision with our tax accountant. She replied:

"Never base a moral or value-based decision on tax consequences. Do the right thing and we'll work out the taxes later."

35 states already have restricted abortions to less than 20 weeks and passed laws on other aspects such as parental notification. A huge portion of the women in the US already don't have access to a convenient abortion clinic. I forget the statistic but many states only have one clinic. In summary, we're already experiencing the affects of limited abortion access. A few more states aren't going to significantly shift the numbers.

I contend that some of those "low income" women, especially the very young ones will allow the grandparents to raise the child, at least for a time. The number of relative-caregivers is increasing dramatically in this country. Some of those live births will also result in adoption.

From the same study, BTW. Half of all the women who receive abortions weren't even on birth control and another huge percentage weren't using birth control consistently. I say doctors and Planned Parenthood could be doing a much better job at educating women AND MEN about the consequences of unprotected intercourse.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If we accommodated the rise in population by limitations on immigration the problems would be solved. After all, don't we need immigrants because there is no future workforce, nor future tax payers?

Supporting children is a matter of social construction. We have a population largely of people who believe they have no responsibility. Having children has no connection to anything they did. It is something done to them. The man that has 22 children by eleven women doesn't make the connection between anything he did to those children. They have all been unfairly imposed on him. There is a right to unfettered, irresponsible sex. It might take a generation or more to restore a sense of responsiblity and accountability to the feckless. Until then, the ban on same sex adoptions in many countries has been extended to all foreign adoptions. Fill the void. Adopt the children out within and without the United States until women get the idea that having a child is not career advancement.

Your point is taken. Assuming that you can find 84,000 pairs of adoptive parents per year that might work. However you are still faced with the problem of convincing these women to put their children up for adoption. You cannot force people to give up their children unless that is the next phase for the "pro-life" legislative agenda. Will the birth mother be means tested to see if she can pay for the delivery costs and prove that she provide for the child otherwise she must surrender her child for adoption?

 

[Trajan]

In order to not deflect from any of the other abortion threads I am starting this one to deal with the facts and figures rather than the morality of abortion.

First let's put the facts on the table as provided by the Guttmacher Institute;

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

INCIDENCE OF ABORTION

• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]
• Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 67% among blacks and 53% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] • In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]
• Each year, two percent of women aged 15–44 have an abortion. Half have had at least one previous abortion.[2,3]

• Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).[6]
• Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.* [6]

So if 40% of unintended pregnancies result in 1.2 million abortions that means that there are about 3 million unintended pregnancies every year.

69% of those 1.2 million abortions are for women earning less than twice the Federal poverty level. (42 + 27 = 69)

5 states have enacted laws making it much more difficult to obtain an abortion and TX is about to become the 6th state. So given that low income women probably don't have financial resources to travel out of state they are probably going to end up giving birth instead. As a rough estimate that means that 7% of the current rate of abortions will not be performed and this will result in more live births.

So those 5 states can anticipate an increase of 84,000 additional unwanted children into low income families each and every year from now on.

So what does this mean to the states themselves?

From an infrastructure perspective it will mean that there will be an increase in the number of ER visits and/or enrollments into SCHIP. This will be followed by an increase in demands on the school districts. These won't simply be more classrooms and teachers but also more janitors, counselors, cafeterias, supplies, etc, etc.

Once the eldest of these "pro-life" children graduate from high school (by now there are 1.5 million of them and counting) they will need jobs. Without jobs there will probably be an increase in crime rates. Increased crime leads to more police, courts and prisons.

So where is the money coming from to pay for all of these increased costs in these 5 states?

Who is going to shoulder the "pro-life" tax burden?

Please remember that this is not a question of the "morality" regarding abortions but the instead the very real financial consequences of this legislation. In essence this is an "unfunded mandate" that is being imposed upon the taxpayers of these states.

How willing are the taxpayers to pay the price for these policies?

But wait, there's more!

Given that these children are all born into low income families there will be Federal Welfare in the form of food stamp programs. This means that all taxpayers will be paying for these "pro-life" policies.

The current federal spending levels are already a problem but these "pro-life" policies are just going to increase the demand on these programs.

So there are very real unintended tax consequences that stem from restricting abortions. They will result in increased government spending at both state and federal levels. The argument can be made that you cannot put a price on a human life. However if government spending needs to be cut are taxpayers going to literally take the food out of the mouths of the babes that some have insisted must be given life?

This is a conundrum that deserves a fair and honest debate.

Please provide your opinions and feedback. Thank you.

In order to not deflect from any of the other abortion threads I am starting this one to deal with the facts and figures rather than the morality of abortion.

I don't see the point in arguing this in the above context, sorry. *shrugs* We can reduce almost every human exchange/condition/action via dollars and cents to a mechanical quotient, inevitably the argument will always come back to- what do we see worthy as humans, as beneficial to the collective via individual bias , its an ultimately exhausting, cyclical debate. We could just get on the Malthusian catastrophe bandwagon and save the time...

 

[Cookie]

You wrote: However you are still faced with the problem of convincing these women to put their children up for adoption.

That is an inaccurate premise. Look at the same study you quoted. Among the reasons given for getting the abortion, a majority of women stated that they were over-whelmed by the prospect of parenting responsibilities or they already had children to support and couldn't afford more. I say these women are already highly motivated to seek adoption as an alternative if abortion wasn't available.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In order to not deflect from any of the other abortion threads I am starting this one to deal with the facts and figures rather than the morality of abortion.

First let's put the facts on the table as provided by the Guttmacher Institute;

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

INCIDENCE OF ABORTION

• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]
• Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 67% among blacks and 53% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] • In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]
• Each year, two percent of women aged 15–44 have an abortion. Half have had at least one previous abortion.[2,3]

• Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).[6]
• Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.* [6]

So if 40% of unintended pregnancies result in 1.2 million abortions that means that there are about 3 million unintended pregnancies every year.

69% of those 1.2 million abortions are for women earning less than twice the Federal poverty level. (42 + 27 = 69)

5 states have enacted laws making it much more difficult to obtain an abortion and TX is about to become the 6th state. So given that low income women probably don't have financial resources to travel out of state they are probably going to end up giving birth instead. As a rough estimate that means that 7% of the current rate of abortions will not be performed and this will result in more live births.

So those 5 states can anticipate an increase of 84,000 additional unwanted children into low income families each and every year from now on.

So what does this mean to the states themselves?

From an infrastructure perspective it will mean that there will be an increase in the number of ER visits and/or enrollments into SCHIP. This will be followed by an increase in demands on the school districts. These won't simply be more classrooms and teachers but also more janitors, counselors, cafeterias, supplies, etc, etc.

Once the eldest of these "pro-life" children graduate from high school (by now there are 1.5 million of them and counting) they will need jobs. Without jobs there will probably be an increase in crime rates. Increased crime leads to more police, courts and prisons.

So where is the money coming from to pay for all of these increased costs in these 5 states?

Who is going to shoulder the "pro-life" tax burden?

Please remember that this is not a question of the "morality" regarding abortions but the instead the very real financial consequences of this legislation. In essence this is an "unfunded mandate" that is being imposed upon the taxpayers of these states.

How willing are the taxpayers to pay the price for these policies?

But wait, there's more!

Given that these children are all born into low income families there will be Federal Welfare in the form of food stamp programs. This means that all taxpayers will be paying for these "pro-life" policies.

The current federal spending levels are already a problem but these "pro-life" policies are just going to increase the demand on these programs.

So there are very real unintended tax consequences that stem from restricting abortions. They will result in increased government spending at both state and federal levels. The argument can be made that you cannot put a price on a human life. However if government spending needs to be cut are taxpayers going to literally take the food out of the mouths of the babes that some have insisted must be given life?

This is a conundrum that deserves a fair and honest debate.

Please provide your opinions and feedback. Thank you.

In order to not deflect from any of the other abortion threads I am starting this one to deal with the facts and figures rather than the morality of abortion.

I don't see the point in arguing this in the above context, sorry. *shrugs* We can reduce almost every human exchange/condition/action via dollars and cents to a mechanical quotient, inevitably the argument will always come back to- what do we see worthy as humans, as beneficial to the collective via individual bias , its an ultimately exhausting, cyclical debate. We could just get on the Malthusian catastrophe bandwagon and save the time...

XXXXXXXXXX

Yes, there is the aspect of what is a life worth but right now we have a serious government spending crisis looming and the impact of this abortion legislation does have an impact on how the spending is going to be resolved. We need to understand the decisions we are about to take in the context of how they will impact the lives of ordinary people.

 

[Katzndogz]

If we accommodated the rise in population by limitations on immigration the problems would be solved. After all, don't we need immigrants because there is no future workforce, nor future tax payers?

Supporting children is a matter of social construction. We have a population largely of people who believe they have no responsibility. Having children has no connection to anything they did. It is something done to them. The man that has 22 children by eleven women doesn't make the connection between anything he did to those children. They have all been unfairly imposed on him. There is a right to unfettered, irresponsible sex. It might take a generation or more to restore a sense of responsiblity and accountability to the feckless. Until then, the ban on same sex adoptions in many countries has been extended to all foreign adoptions. Fill the void. Adopt the children out within and without the United States until women get the idea that having a child is not career advancement.

Your point is taken. Assuming that you can find 84,000 pairs of adoptive parents per year that might work. However you are still faced with the problem of convincing these women to put their children up for adoption. You cannot force people to give up their children unless that is the next phase for the "pro-life" legislative agenda. Will the birth mother be means tested to see if she can pay for the delivery costs and prove that she provide for the child otherwise she must surrender her child for adoption?

Stop paying welfare to women based on how many children they have. Russia's had no problem at all finding homes for unwanted children. When they stopped foreign adoptions based on the adopting countries same sex marriage laws, they did it in the US and in France. Finding 84,000 adoptive homes around the world shouldn't be much of a problem.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You wrote: However you are still faced with the problem of convincing these women to put their children up for adoption.

That is an inaccurate premise. Look at the same study you quoted. Among the reasons given for getting the abortion, a majority of women stated that they were over-whelmed by the prospect of parenting responsibilities or they already had children to support and couldn't afford more. I say these women are already highly motivated to seek adoption as an alternative if abortion wasn't available.

That is correct, Cookie. However carrying a fetus for 9 months causes a degree of bonding and the mothering instinct is strong. (Not intending to be disparaging here, just don't know a better way to put it.) So while you are correct that there are some who are motivated to give their children up for adoption there will be others who will have developed strong maternal feelings and not want to go that route. Those are the women that will still need to be convinced as to what is in the best interests of themselves and their child. Bear in mind that there is already a growing lobby that is opposed to the adoption of native American children. They might see this as an opportunity to gain more recognition if they see a movement to coerce low income women to put their children up for adoption.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If we accommodated the rise in population by limitations on immigration the problems would be solved. After all, don't we need immigrants because there is no future workforce, nor future tax payers?

Supporting children is a matter of social construction. We have a population largely of people who believe they have no responsibility. Having children has no connection to anything they did. It is something done to them. The man that has 22 children by eleven women doesn't make the connection between anything he did to those children. They have all been unfairly imposed on him. There is a right to unfettered, irresponsible sex. It might take a generation or more to restore a sense of responsiblity and accountability to the feckless. Until then, the ban on same sex adoptions in many countries has been extended to all foreign adoptions. Fill the void. Adopt the children out within and without the United States until women get the idea that having a child is not career advancement.

Your point is taken. Assuming that you can find 84,000 pairs of adoptive parents per year that might work. However you are still faced with the problem of convincing these women to put their children up for adoption. You cannot force people to give up their children unless that is the next phase for the "pro-life" legislative agenda. Will the birth mother be means tested to see if she can pay for the delivery costs and prove that she provide for the child otherwise she must surrender her child for adoption?

Stop paying welfare to women based on how many children they have. Russia's had no problem at all finding homes for unwanted children. When they stopped foreign adoptions based on the adopting countries same sex marriage laws, they did it in the US and in France. Finding 84,000 adoptive homes around the world shouldn't be much of a problem.

If I recall correctly that was already part of the welfare reforms of the 1990's.

The problem with allowing foreign adoptions is that it might be abused for the purposes of gaining American citizenship. Since these children were born Americans at 18 they can return as citizens. This opens up a whole host of potential immigration issues.

 

[PaulS1950]

America is the most charitable nation in the world yet we rely on the government collected taxes to support our citizens.

Maybe its time we all recognized that we need to fix the USA before we try to feed and clothe the worlds poor and hungry.

 

[Derideo_Te]

America is the most charitable nation in the world yet we rely on the government collected taxes to support our citizens.

Maybe its time we all recognized that we need to fix the USA before we try to feed and clothe the worlds poor and hungry.

Charity does begin at home. Unfortunately we live in a period of self perceived entitlement that is as pervasive amongst the 1% as it is at all other levels of society. I recall Suze Orman answering a question about paying taxes on the sale of a 2nd property. She said something to the effect that those taxes are a small price to pay for the the opportunity to make that profit.

If we are going to have policies that mean there will be more children around then we need to be willing to do what is right by them as far as food, shelter, education and opportunity are concerned. We owe them their birthright and should be unselfish when it comes to providing it.

 

[Katzndogz]

America is the most charitable nation in the world yet we rely on the government collected taxes to support our citizens.

Maybe its time we all recognized that we need to fix the USA before we try to feed and clothe the worlds poor and hungry.

Charity does begin at home. Unfortunately we live in a period of self perceived entitlement that is as pervasive amongst the 1% as it is at all other levels of society. I recall Suze Orman answering a question about paying taxes on the sale of a 2nd property. She said something to the effect that those taxes are a small price to pay for the the opportunity to make that profit.

If we are going to have policies that mean there will be more children around then we need to be willing to do what is right by them as far as food, shelter, education and opportunity are concerned. We owe them their birthright and should be unselfish when it comes to providing it.

There should rightly be no obligation of the general public to feed and care for any child not a ward of the state. There is no birthright to food, shelter or education beyond that already prescribed by law. The public owes nothing to anyone.

 

[sealadaigh]

just for the record. i raised my son by myself and did not received public assistance, was inelligble at the time for any federal or state programs designed to aid single parents, and did not even receive the $25.00/month in child support awarded to me by the courts.

i was a single father and all this "deadbeat dad" crap i find extraordinarily offensive.

 

[Circe]

I am surprised there aren't any references here to figures that are usually brought up in this context: that the more abortions in the lower classes, the lower the crime rate.

I remember when people regularly attributed the big drop in violent crime to Roe v. Wade -- crime did drop about 16 years after that law went into effect and for a long time. The idea was that women in the ghettos got abortions instead of carrying those fetuses to term, and so they didn't grow up to be gang members and criminals.

I agree with that. It's obvious, really. Of course if lower class women have abortions and lower class boys commit by far the most violent crimes, there will be less crime if they aren't around!

In addition to the less-crime benefit, the whole world has a dire overpopulation problem and even in this country we feel the constant pressure of more and more and more people.

WHATEVER IT TAKES to reduce world population peacefully, everywhere, should be supported.

Otherwise the Reverend Malthus will do it for us.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In order to not deflect from any of the other abortion threads I am starting this one to deal with the facts and figures rather than the morality of abortion.

First let's put the facts on the table as provided by the Guttmacher Institute;

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

INCIDENCE OF ABORTION

• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]
• Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 67% among blacks and 53% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] • In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]
• Each year, two percent of women aged 15–44 have an abortion. Half have had at least one previous abortion.[2,3]

• Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).[6]
• Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.* [6]

So if 40% of unintended pregnancies result in 1.2 million abortions that means that there are about 3 million unintended pregnancies every year.

69% of those 1.2 million abortions are for women earning less than twice the Federal poverty level. (42 + 27 = 69)

5 states have enacted laws making it much more difficult to obtain an abortion and TX is about to become the 6th state. So given that low income women probably don't have financial resources to travel out of state they are probably going to end up giving birth instead. As a rough estimate that means that 7% of the current rate of abortions will not be performed and this will result in more live births.

So those 5 states can anticipate an increase of 84,000 additional unwanted children into low income families each and every year from now on.

So what does this mean to the states themselves?

From an infrastructure perspective it will mean that there will be an increase in the number of ER visits and/or enrollments into SCHIP. This will be followed by an increase in demands on the school districts. These won't simply be more classrooms and teachers but also more janitors, counselors, cafeterias, supplies, etc, etc.

Once the eldest of these "pro-life" children graduate from high school (by now there are 1.5 million of them and counting) they will need jobs. Without jobs there will probably be an increase in crime rates. Increased crime leads to more police, courts and prisons.

So where is the money coming from to pay for all of these increased costs in these 5 states?

Who is going to shoulder the "pro-life" tax burden?

Please remember that this is not a question of the "morality" regarding abortions but the instead the very real financial consequences of this legislation. In essence this is an "unfunded mandate" that is being imposed upon the taxpayers of these states.

How willing are the taxpayers to pay the price for these policies?

But wait, there's more!

Given that these children are all born into low income families there will be Federal Welfare in the form of food stamp programs. This means that all taxpayers will be paying for these "pro-life" policies.

The current federal spending levels are already a problem but these "pro-life" policies are just going to increase the demand on these programs.

So there are very real unintended tax consequences that stem from restricting abortions. They will result in increased government spending at both state and federal levels. The argument can be made that you cannot put a price on a human life. However if government spending needs to be cut are taxpayers going to literally take the food out of the mouths of the babes that some have insisted must be given life?

This is a conundrum that deserves a fair and honest debate.

Please provide your opinions and feedback. Thank you.

These laws are based on the inane ‘theory’ that the new restrictions will act as a ‘deterrent,’ compelling ‘sexually active’ women to either ‘take precautions’ or cease being sexually active to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

‘Poor women’ shouldn’t be having children, anyway.

The ‘theory’ is predicated on the fallacy that the more accessible abortion services, the greater the likelihood women will ‘behave irresponsibility.’

Consequently, a social conservative will ‘argue,’ your extrapolation as to an increase in the number of unwanted children is not valid.

Needless to say that these new laws are likely un-Constitutional and will in no way address the problems of unwanted pregnancy and abortion is of no matter to most conservatives.