The Unintended Tax Consequences of Abortion Restrictions

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.

It has always been one of the great hypocrisies of the "pro-life" movement that they place a higher premium on the life of the fetus than that of the woman or her child after birth. Before birth the fetus is some holy "gift from God" that must be protected at all costs but after birth it is just another taxpayer burden that should get a minimum wage job.
 
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.

Are you trying to use a straw man argument to defend abortion on demand?
 
Are you trying to use a straw man argument to defend abortion on demand?

He IS. The reality is there is no burden on a taxpayer, since unwanted children can ALWAYS be placed for adoption - with the amount of people waiting YEARS in lines to get a baby for adoption it is obvious that there won't be any difficulties with placing the kids in families at all. But the social services which take care of those children would have to be changed as well - there is abundant corruption and pure evil in those circles.
 
Are you trying to use a straw man argument to defend abortion on demand?

He IS. The reality is there is no burden on a taxpayer, since unwanted children can ALWAYS be placed for adoption - with the amount of people waiting YEARS in lines to get a baby for adoption it is obvious that there won't be any difficulties with placing the kids in families at all. But the social services which take care of those children would have to be changed as well - there is abundant corruption and pure evil in those circles.

Unwanted children cannot just be put up for adoption. There is a shortage of healthy white babies being placed for adoption, and a great demand for them, but children of other races, not so much. There are enough problems finding foster homes for children who cannot live with their parents, adding a million plus unwanted babies to the system would overwhelm it.
 
Are you trying to use a straw man argument to defend abortion on demand?

He IS. The reality is there is no burden on a taxpayer, since unwanted children can ALWAYS be placed for adoption - with the amount of people waiting YEARS in lines to get a baby for adoption it is obvious that there won't be any difficulties with placing the kids in families at all. But the social services which take care of those children would have to be changed as well - there is abundant corruption and pure evil in those circles.

Unwanted children cannot just be put up for adoption. There is a shortage of healthy white babies being placed for adoption, and a great demand for them, but children of other races, not so much. There are enough problems finding foster homes for children who cannot live with their parents, adding a million plus unwanted babies to the system would overwhelm it.

With the sequester cutting funding to government programs across the board they would be overwhelmed with a mere fraction of that number of additional babies. What is even worse is that it won't be a one time event either. These babies won't stop coming. All of the babies not adopted within a year are going to be competing with all of the newborns. It snowballs very quickly.
 
Are you trying to use a straw man argument to defend abortion on demand?

He IS. The reality is there is no burden on a taxpayer, since unwanted children can ALWAYS be placed for adoption - with the amount of people waiting YEARS in lines to get a baby for adoption it is obvious that there won't be any difficulties with placing the kids in families at all. But the social services which take care of those children would have to be changed as well - there is abundant corruption and pure evil in those circles.

Unwanted children cannot just be put up for adoption. There is a shortage of healthy white babies being placed for adoption, and a great demand for them, but children of other races, not so much. There are enough problems finding foster homes for children who cannot live with their parents, adding a million plus unwanted babies to the system would overwhelm it.

there is no such things "unwanted races". ALL newborns are wanted, no matter what race.
There is a lot of corruption though inside the social services and for a white couple to adopt a black newborn is twice as hard as to adopt a white one.
the social services would rather throw the baby into any foster home, no matter how unqualified, but NOT give her up for adoption to white people.
Fostering kids is a business of milking up the taxpayer.

You are just plain ignorant on the issue.
 
Last edited:
there is no such things "unwanted races". ALL newborns are wanted, no matter what race.
There is a lot of corruption though inside the social services and for a white couple to adopt a black newborn is twice as hard as to adopt a white one.
the social services would rather throw the baby into any foster home, no matter how unqualified, but NOT give her up for adoption to white people.
Fostering kids is a business of milking up the taxpayer.

You are just plain ignorant on the issue.

I am hardly ignorant on the issue.

Children are placed in foster care because they have parents who, it is hoped, that they will be reunited with. Some children are in care because of temporary family problems, and others because of abuse. Many of these children are so damaged, they are poor candidates for adoption, but many others children are re-united with their parents.

As a former foster parent, I am disgusted that you think people who foster are only doing so to milk the taxpayer. Your ignorance is astounding.
 
Are you trying to use a straw man argument to defend abortion on demand?

He IS. The reality is there is no burden on a taxpayer, since unwanted children can ALWAYS be placed for adoption - with the amount of people waiting YEARS in lines to get a baby for adoption it is obvious that there won't be any difficulties with placing the kids in families at all. But the social services which take care of those children would have to be changed as well - there is abundant corruption and pure evil in those circles.

Unwanted children cannot just be put up for adoption. There is a shortage of healthy white babies being placed for adoption, and a great demand for them, but children of other races, not so much. There are enough problems finding foster homes for children who cannot live with their parents, adding a million plus unwanted babies to the system would overwhelm it.

How do you explain this?

Hundreds answer church's Facebook plea to adopt baby with Down Syndrome | Fox News

Twenty four hours to find adoptive parents for a handicapped child, hundreds of responses.
 
Hundreds answer church's Facebook plea to adopt baby with Down Syndrome | Fox News[/url]

Twenty four hours to find adoptive parents for a handicapped child, hundreds of responses.

You've just proven my point that the religious right care more for the unborn child than for living breathing children:

From the Adopt US Kids website:

http://www.adoptuskids.org/meet-the-children

Why aren't these people volunteering to adopt one of these kids:

More than 250,000 children in the U.S. enter the foster care system every year. While more than half of these children will return to their parents, the remainder will stay in the system. Most of these children are living with foster families, but some also live in group facilities.

That's over 100,000 children per year who are available for adoption, and yet:

Each year more than 20,000 children age out of the foster care without being adopted. Today there are 104,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted ranging in age from less than a year old to 21.

So these 1000 families from around the world are willing to adopt an unborn Downs Syndrome baby, but there are 104,000 children waiting for adoption in the US right now, and every year 20,000 children age out of the system without being adopted.

Like I said, the relgious right cares more about the unborn than those already living.
 
Last edited:
there is no such things "unwanted races". ALL newborns are wanted, no matter what race.
There is a lot of corruption though inside the social services and for a white couple to adopt a black newborn is twice as hard as to adopt a white one.
the social services would rather throw the baby into any foster home, no matter how unqualified, but NOT give her up for adoption to white people.
Fostering kids is a business of milking up the taxpayer.

You are just plain ignorant on the issue.

I am hardly ignorant on the issue.

Children are placed in foster care because they have parents who, it is hoped, that they will be reunited with. Some children are in care because of temporary family problems, and others because of abuse. Many of these children are so damaged, they are poor candidates for adoption, but many others children are re-united with their parents.

As a former foster parent, I am disgusted that you think people who foster are only doing so to milk the taxpayer. Your ignorance is astounding.

and I am disgusted that you tend to push your own agenda and from a different country on the citizens of this country.
Mind your own business in Canada.
We will mind ours in the US.
And address our corruption and milking the taxpayer by corrupted social services which you have zero information about. being from Canada.
 
Hundreds answer church's Facebook plea to adopt baby with Down Syndrome | Fox News[/url]

Twenty four hours to find adoptive parents for a handicapped child, hundreds of responses.

You've just proven my point that the religious right care more for the unborn child than for living breathing children:

From the Adopt US Kids website:

Meet the Children - AdoptUSKids

Why aren't these people volunteering to adopt one of these kids:

More than 250,000 children in the U.S. enter the foster care system every year. While more than half of these children will return to their parents, the remainder will stay in the system. Most of these children are living with foster families, but some also live in group facilities.
That's over 100,000 children per year who are available for adoption, and yet:

Each year more than 20,000 children age out of the foster care without being adopted. Today there are 104,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted ranging in age from less than a year old to 21.
So these 1000 families from around the world are willing to adopt an unborn Downs Syndrome baby, but there are 104,000 children waiting for adoption in the US right now, and every year 20,000 children age out of the system without being adopted.

Like I said, the relgious right cares more about the unborn than those already living.

I proved your point that no one would adopt a special needs child?
 
I proved your point that no one would adopt a special needs child?

I never said that no one would adopt a special needs child. I said that people wanted to adopt healthy white babies. I didn't even mention special needs children.

YOU are the only person who raised this issue.

That baby had downs syndrome, and people were lining up to adopt it. The baby clearly is not healthy, and you don't even know what color they are.
 
The Corrupt Business of Child Protection Services | How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children

this is just ONE out of thousands of examples of horrid corruption in the "child protection" services

When the case finally came to court it was made evident by one of the foster parent’s children that the foster parents had, at any given time, 18 foster children and that the foster mother had an inappropriate relationship with a caseworker.

So if STATE run Child Protection Services are so appalling why would anyone be in favor of ensuring that there will be even greater numbers of unwanted children placed into those systems when abortion restrictions result in tens of thousands more unwanted births?
 
there is no such things "unwanted races". ALL newborns are wanted, no matter what race.
There is a lot of corruption though inside the social services and for a white couple to adopt a black newborn is twice as hard as to adopt a white one.
the social services would rather throw the baby into any foster home, no matter how unqualified, but NOT give her up for adoption to white people.
Fostering kids is a business of milking up the taxpayer.

You are just plain ignorant on the issue.

I am hardly ignorant on the issue.

Children are placed in foster care because they have parents who, it is hoped, that they will be reunited with. Some children are in care because of temporary family problems, and others because of abuse. Many of these children are so damaged, they are poor candidates for adoption, but many others children are re-united with their parents.

As a former foster parent, I am disgusted that you think people who foster are only doing so to milk the taxpayer. Your ignorance is astounding.

and I am disgusted that you tend to push your own agenda and from a different country on the citizens of this country.
Mind your own business in Canada.
We will mind ours in the US.
And address our corruption and milking the taxpayer by corrupted social services which you have zero information about. being from Canada.

The internet does not stop at the US border. Anyone, anywhere can see the same information. Furthermore how do you know that DL is not an American citizen living in Canada? The USA has been imposing it's "agenda" by force of arms on other countries for over a decade now. Part of that "agenda" is to provide "free speech" rights to the citizens of those nations. So why do you complain when someone else in the world decides to exercise those rights? Do you believe that this nation is above criticism and can do no wrong?
 
What if just half of those kids got an education and contributed to society?

Look at the unemployment rate for unskilled versus educated. This country is STARVING for educated, skilled workers.




Abortion needs to be available as a safe, legal, affordable option to be agonized over, not as an industry. Tax ramifications be damned.




Education is the keys to the star ship.
 
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?


'Cause shot-gun weddings rarely end well?


Welcome to the 21st Century.
 
What if just half of those kids got an education and contributed to society?

Look at the unemployment rate for unskilled versus educated. This country is STARVING for educated, skilled workers.




Abortion needs to be available as a safe, legal, affordable option to be agonized over, not as an industry. Tax ramifications be damned.




Education is the keys to the star ship.

Abortion should be safe, legal, affordable and rare. To get to that point you are right that we need an educated, skilled workforce because well educated people know how and when to use contraceptives.
 
I am hardly ignorant on the issue.

Children are placed in foster care because they have parents who, it is hoped, that they will be reunited with. Some children are in care because of temporary family problems, and others because of abuse. Many of these children are so damaged, they are poor candidates for adoption, but many others children are re-united with their parents.

As a former foster parent, I am disgusted that you think people who foster are only doing so to milk the taxpayer. Your ignorance is astounding.

and I am disgusted that you tend to push your own agenda and from a different country on the citizens of this country.
Mind your own business in Canada.
We will mind ours in the US.
And address our corruption and milking the taxpayer by corrupted social services which you have zero information about. being from Canada.

The internet does not stop at the US border. Anyone, anywhere can see the same information. Furthermore how do you know that DL is not an American citizen living in Canada? The USA has been imposing it's "agenda" by force of arms on other countries for over a decade now. Part of that "agenda" is to provide "free speech" rights to the citizens of those nations. So why do you complain when someone else in the world decides to exercise those rights? Do you believe that this nation is above criticism and can do no wrong?

she is not. she told that herself on the other thread.

and she knows nothing about the corrupt child services in this country.

so no need of her Canadian agenda here :D
 

Forum List

Back
Top