The Unintended Tax Consequences of Abortion Restrictions

[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.

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.

Surely if the "general public" is demanding that these helpless infants be given the "right to life" doesn't the same "general public" have an obligation to ensure that these helpless infants aren't neglected and left to starve to death?

The responsibility for having a child extends until they reach adulthood. If the "pro-life" legislation is responsible for these children being given "Life" then it has imposed a responsibility on the "general public" to ensure that they have "Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" too.

That is what is meant by the "unintended tax consequences" in the OP.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Thank you for being a responsible single parent.

The reference to "deadbeat dads" was only to illustrate a point. Yes, the term is offensive since most fathers do love and care for their children. However they are not immune to the economic rollercoaster and when they are laid off and out of work they are dragged into court for failing to pay their child support. For them it is a Lose-Lose situation unfortunately. Trying to extend this legal process into low income families is only going to provide work for lawyers. It won't solve the problem of ensuring that the fathers provide any child support.

 

[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.

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.

Given the current make up of the Supreme Court the question of whether or not these laws are "Constitutional" is not guaranteed. The purpose of these laws is to challenge RvW and see it overturned.

As far as the attempt at legislative "behavior modification" is concerned that has never worked in the past. The current speed limits on highways are ignored by the majority of drivers. Likewise the sex drive will will not be inhibited by passing a law that imposes the "penalty" of having to give birth to a "child" at what will probably end up being taxpayer expense.

 

[Noomi]

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.

The OP gets the problem. Ban abortion and this is the kind of problem you run into. Lifers are happy to dismiss all this, and worry about it later, but they need to consider it now.

 

[midcan5]

OT Just recently I had the wonderful experience of once again baby sitting a newborn. Even though I am probably more experienced in this area than most, I could not help but think of the poor mother father family and all the care and support a child requires now and for a long time. I was even a bit nervous as when our children were babies we laid them on their stomachs, so while burping wasn't working as advertised, I watched her closely as she seemed so content on her tummy. I'm one old very experienced brother and parent so this stuff is easy, but imagine the poor mother or family with small children, barely making ends meet, in a America today that thinks supporting people is wrong, and you just have to wonder what happened to our values. It would be different if those in need could get help. By the way I had a long discussion with this month old and suggested lots of good advice, but I could tell she wasn't listening and her mom is in for it.

 

[OODA_Loop]

OT Just recently I had the wonderful experience of once again baby sitting a newborn. Even though I am probably more experienced in this area than most, I could not help but think of the poor mother father family and all the care and support a child requires now and for a long time. It would be different if those in need could get help.

Parenting demands sacrifice.

 

[Cookie]

One could argue on a thread entitled, "Unintended Consequences of Pro-abortion Policies".

Yes, people will continue to have intercourse and yes pregnancies will continue to occur at the least auspicious time. Amazingly, the availability of abortions has NOT stopped exceptionally poor women and bad parents (either/or, not one and the same) from continuing to have babies.

In the end, I believe a WOMAN (not a child) has the right to make for herself the best medical decisions she can for her own health. I think that right starts to erode when the lives of her child/ren are at stake. We have an all too short history in this country of child protection (laws that were spawned by the ANIMAL protection movement). For far too long we have declared that parental rights are primary. While able parents should remain the ultimate arbiter of their child's lifestyle, the state does step in when parents (or anybody) is causing physical harm and abuse of that child. A fetus that can has developed to the point of being able to feel pain and, if born, could survive outside of the womb, needs to be protected by the state. Just like a woman can't legally kill her baby when it is 2 months old after the birth, a woman shouldn't be allowed to kill her baby 2 months before the birth.

And like millions of births around the world, just because you gave birth to the baby, that doesn't mean you are forced to raise it. Place it for adoption. Maternal instinct? I've seen women who have NONE even after the baby is born. It doesn't magically develop in the last few months of pregnancy either.

For those women who would like to keep and raise their baby, maybe abortion wasn't the right choice for them anyway. Isn't that what happened to "Roe"? I believe she ended up having the baby and raised it to adulthood.

 

[FA_Q2]

Given the current make up of the Supreme Court the question of whether or not these laws are "Constitutional" is not guaranteed. The purpose of these laws is to challenge RvW and see it overturned.

As far as the attempt at legislative "behavior modification" is concerned that has never worked in the past. The current speed limits on highways are ignored by the majority of drivers. Likewise the sex drive will will not be inhibited by passing a law that imposes the "penalty" of having to give birth to a "child" at what will probably end up being taxpayer expense.

What would make you say that. I don’t think that Roe is anywhere close to being overturned. I can’t fathom what makes you think that this court is even close to that. They may be considered ‘conservative’ but I don’t think anything shows that they would be willing to overturn that particular case. It is just left wing demagoguery that crates that fear.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Given the current make up of the Supreme Court the question of whether or not these laws are "Constitutional" is not guaranteed. The purpose of these laws is to challenge RvW and see it overturned.

As far as the attempt at legislative "behavior modification" is concerned that has never worked in the past. The current speed limits on highways are ignored by the majority of drivers. Likewise the sex drive will will not be inhibited by passing a law that imposes the "penalty" of having to give birth to a "child" at what will probably end up being taxpayer expense.

What would make you say that. I don’t think that Roe is anywhere close to being overturned. I can’t fathom what makes you think that this court is even close to that. They may be considered ‘conservative’ but I don’t think anything shows that they would be willing to overturn that particular case. It is just left wing demagoguery that crates that fear.

The deluge of anti-abortion legislation in GOP controlled states nationwide is a coordinated onslaught on RvW since they have failed in all prior attempts to deprive women of their rights.

 

[FA_Q2]

Given the current make up of the Supreme Court the question of whether or not these laws are "Constitutional" is not guaranteed. The purpose of these laws is to challenge RvW and see it overturned.

As far as the attempt at legislative "behavior modification" is concerned that has never worked in the past. The current speed limits on highways are ignored by the majority of drivers. Likewise the sex drive will will not be inhibited by passing a law that imposes the "penalty" of having to give birth to a "child" at what will probably end up being taxpayer expense.

What would make you say that. I don’t think that Roe is anywhere close to being overturned. I can’t fathom what makes you think that this court is even close to that. They may be considered ‘conservative’ but I don’t think anything shows that they would be willing to overturn that particular case. It is just left wing demagoguery that crates that fear.

The deluge of anti-abortion legislation in GOP controlled states nationwide is a coordinated onslaught on RvW since they have failed in all prior attempts to deprive women of their rights.

And? Your contention is that the court is close to overturning it though. I realize that the legislation in challenging or finding the limits of that ruling BUT the ruling itself is in zero danger.

If these laws go to the SCOTUS (I doubt that they will even get that far though to be honest) they will shoot them down.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What would make you say that. I don’t think that Roe is anywhere close to being overturned. I can’t fathom what makes you think that this court is even close to that. They may be considered ‘conservative’ but I don’t think anything shows that they would be willing to overturn that particular case. It is just left wing demagoguery that crates that fear.

The deluge of anti-abortion legislation in GOP controlled states nationwide is a coordinated onslaught on RvW since they have failed in all prior attempts to deprive women of their rights.

And? Your contention is that the court is close to overturning it though. I realize that the legislation in challenging or finding the limits of that ruling BUT the ruling itself is in zero danger.

If these laws go to the SCOTUS (I doubt that they will even get that far though to be honest) they will shoot them down.

Those laws are intended to get to the Supreme Court and here is what one justice says will happen to RvW;

Scalia: Roe v. Wade an Example of Precedent That Can be Reversed | LifeNews.com

Justice Antonin Scalia, in a new interview, says he understands and respects Supreme Court precedent but he also says the controversial Roe v. Wade case, that allowed virtually unlimited abortions, is an example of the kind of precedent the high court can and should overturn.

One prominent exception to that is Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling that legalized abortion. He does not consider that binding precedent, he said, because it was wrong, remains controversial and is an issue better left to legislators than judges.

What’s more, the court’s subsequent decisions on abortion are based on the judge-made theory of “substantive due process,” which guarantees certain fundamental rights like privacy. It’s “utterly idiotic,” Scalia said.

Scalia frequently talks about abortion and the Supreme Court. In June, he schooled CNN host Piers Morgan during an interview when he explained to Morgan how the Constitution does not include a right to abortion.

Scalia says the theory of substantive due process in the Roe v. Wade decision makes no legal sense.

“My Court in recent years has invented what is called ‘substantive due process’ by simply saying some liberties are so important that no process would suffice to take them away. That was the theory used in Roe v. Wade and it’s a theory that is simply a lie,” he said. “The world is divided into substance and procedure.”

 

[Circe]

Scalia says the theory of substantive due process in the Roe v. Wade decision makes no legal sense.

“My Court in recent years has invented what is called ‘substantive due process’ by simply saying some liberties are so important that no process would suffice to take them away. That was the theory used in Roe v. Wade and it’s a theory that is simply a lie,” he said. “The world is divided into substance and procedure.”

Yeah, they'll overthrow Roe v. Wade if they can. They work on it all the time. The idea that this is safe law somehow is ridiculous: look at all the state attacks going on against Roe v. Wade right now. And various would-be presidential candidates like Ryan, Perry, and Walker are leading them!

We have to be on our guard and fight back all the time.


At least till libertarianism comes in as a formal system and things calm down.

 

[Cookie]

When considering Roe v Wade, I think it is important that the SCOTUS decided that Roe did NOT have a right to an abortion - she had a right to privacy (she had to go to the State of TX for permission to get the abortion and it was denied because she didn't have a police report of rape.) That right was balance against the baby's right to life so the limit was set to the first trimester. They also voted in favor of a doctor's right to practice medicine without oppressive government intervention.

Nothing about current laws or proposed legislation is looking to overturn Roe v Wade.

However, anyone frequenting this board can see that our general right to privacy and a doctor's right to freely practice medicine IS being impinged on a regular basis.

It is subsequent court challenges to proposed restrictions that have created the huge mix of laws and restrictions we have now.

Just a case in point ... if you're going to argue Supreme Court decisions, please argue the correct ones.

 

[Dragonlady]

And? Your contention is that the court is close to overturning it though. I realize that the legislation in challenging or finding the limits of that ruling BUT the ruling itself is in zero danger.

If these laws go to the SCOTUS (I doubt that they will even get that far though to be honest) they will shoot them down.

The Religious Right truly believed that if elected, the Republican President (Romney) would have rammed through an Amendment to the Constitution to declare a fetus a "person" at the moment of conception, and with a right wing Supreme Court for at least a generation to come, (current judges and those likely to retire within the next 4 years), there would be no danger that such a Court would throw out the Amendment.

2011 was their time and in their hearts and their souls, they knew it, but they lost, and now we have a veritable onslaught of Republican legislation, designed to curtail women's rights, all in the name of protecting the unborn, and none of which will withstand a Constituation challenge. But such challenges take years to wend their way through the courts and in the interim, women suffer.

 

[Dragonlady]

Make that "poor women suffer" because the rich and the middle class have access and resources to travel.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Make that "poor women suffer" because the rich and the middle class have access and resources to travel.

Their "suffering" will become the taxpayers once they have to start paying for the food stamps, heathcare and education of those unwanted children.

 

[Dragonlady]

Their "suffering" will become the taxpayers once they have to start paying for the food stamps, heathcare and education of those unwanted children.

And the costs of drug abuse and incarceration since studies on prison inmates show a disproportionately large number of both addicts and inmates are unwanted children.

It has always eluded me how conservatives can care so passionately about the so-called "right to life" of a fetus, and yet so little about the living, breathing, human child that fetus will become. And will devalue that life even more if that child is not white.

 

[FA_Q2]

And? Your contention is that the court is close to overturning it though. I realize that the legislation in challenging or finding the limits of that ruling BUT the ruling itself is in zero danger.

If these laws go to the SCOTUS (I doubt that they will even get that far though to be honest) they will shoot them down.

The Religious Right truly believed that if elected, the Republican President (Romney) would have rammed through an Amendment to the Constitution to declare a fetus a "person" at the moment of conception, and with a right wing Supreme Court for at least a generation to come, (current judges and those likely to retire within the next 4 years), there would be no danger that such a Court would throw out the Amendment.

2011 was their time and in their hearts and their souls, they knew it, but they lost, and now we have a veritable onslaught of Republican legislation, designed to curtail women's rights, all in the name of protecting the unborn, and none of which will withstand a Constituation challenge. But such challenges take years to wend their way through the courts and in the interim, women suffer.

The RR might believe that but such is not going to happen. It is hugely unpopular to begin with and essentially impossible to pass even a federal law let alone a constitutional amendment to make that happen.

What happened when the right took over THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT? What ground breaking abortion law was passed? How about that one that was introduced but failed? That’s right, nothing happened at all when the right could have walked whatever they wanted to right through. THAT is how convicted the right is to abortion reform.

Their "suffering" will become the taxpayers once they have to start paying for the food stamps, heathcare and education of those unwanted children.

And the costs of drug abuse and incarceration since studies on prison inmates show a disproportionately large number of both addicts and inmates are unwanted children.

It has always eluded me how conservatives can care so passionately about the so-called "right to life" of a fetus, and yet so little about the living, breathing, human child that fetus will become. And will devalue that life even more if that child is not white.

BS pure partisan hackery here. You have brought in race when that has zero barring on the abortion debate and the rest is utter bullshit.

I thought you wanted to be taken seriously; why should anyone bother when you are going to post drivel like this?

 

[Dragonlady]

And the costs of drug abuse and incarceration since studies on prison inmates show a disproportionately large number of both addicts and inmates are unwanted children.

It has always eluded me how conservatives can care so passionately about the so-called "right to life" of a fetus, and yet so little about the living, breathing, human child that fetus will become. And will devalue that life even more if that child is not white.

BS pure partisan hackery here. You have brought in race when that has zero barring on the abortion debate and the rest is utter bullshit.

I thought you wanted to be taken seriously; why should anyone bother when you are going to post drivel like this?

I comment on what I see here and I see a lot of dismissal of black problems as being irrelevant to those of the US. I see people angry because a black man is president. I see people who dismiss inner city problems as "black problems".

Racism is a cancer in the US.

 

[Katzndogz]

Black problems are largely self inflicted. People are angry not because a black man is president but an utter fool is president. Inner city problems like black problems are largely self inflicted.

The excuse of racism is the cancer in the US.