The Montana legislature is working on bills that will restrict abortion access here in Montana and I fully expect our newly minted Republican Governor will sign them into law. There is, of course, the possibility that these laws will be challenged in the courts along with those in other states hoping to restrict abortion. The ultimate goal of all of these state laws is to have them percolate their way up to the Supreme Court in the hopes that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. This got me to thinking more about this whole issue.
Many polls show that something on the order of 70 percent of Americans are in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade intact. So, we are in situation where 30 percent of the population is trying to dictate policy for the majority. This is essentially how the 18th Amendment to the Constitution came into existence. A very vocal minority of anti-alcohol voters convinced enough politicians to vote for the 18th Amendment and it became the law of the land. Of course, that gave rise to bootlegging, criminal enterprises, speakeasies and, in short, it was a disaster which led to the adoption of the 21st amendment which repealed prohibition. We are headed down that same path with all of these anti-abortion laws. Not to mention the huge expenditure of tax dollars to continuously litigate this issue in spite of overwhelming support of Roe v. Wade by a majority of Americans.
Frankly, I don’t think we are asking the correct question about this issue. The entire focus seems to revolve around the simple question, “Do you support a woman’s right to have access to abortion?” That is pretty much a yes or no question. It’s easy to state you are ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’. However, I think the more relevant question and one that is much more difficult to answer, particularly for those who are against abortion is, “What does the world look like if Roe v. Wade is overturned?” The problem as I see it is that, just like the anti-alcohol crowd, the anti-abortion advocates do not have a workable end game in mind. And without a realistic, workable end game in mind, the results will likely suffer from the ‘law of unintended consequences’ and be a veritable disaster.
So, just as a thought exercise, let’s assume that next year, Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court. Abortion becomes illegal and doctors who perform abortions will be subject to criminal prosecution. That will become our new reality. That means that every woman who becomes pregnant will be forced to carry that baby to term.
It is unreasonable to believe that people will stop having sex. That assumption has proven incorrect for thousands of years. Hormones will win. It is equally as unreasonable to assume that everyone will have protected sex or use appropriate birth control, which means there will continue to be accidental pregnancies. Women will be forced to carry these babies to term regardless of their situation – married or single, rich or poor, Christian or not, insured or not. Estimates put the number of abortions in the US at around 500,000 plus or minus. About 140,000 children are adopted in the US every year.1 That is a pretty big disparity. So, the question is, “What happens to all of these babies that must be carried to term?”
It is unrealistic to think that adoptions will increase by 300,000/per year. That’s just not reality. So, what happens to these babies? Where do they go? Who takes care of them? For rich and upper middle-class families, taking care of one more baby is generally not a huge problem. For poor women who are already struggling, it’s a huge problem. Generally, a lot of the same people who want to restrict access to abortion are the same people who want to cut programs like food stamps and welfare. I’m just not sure what the end game looks like here.
Likewise, a lot of wealthy and upper middle-class families will have sufficient health care insurance so a stay in a hospital for another child birth won’t be that big a deal. A lot of poor women and even many lower middle-class families in America do not have sufficient insurance coverage to cover a hospital stay for child birth. So, who pays the bills for all of these hospital stays for all of these child births? Again, I’m just not sure what the end game looks like here.
I actually looked at the National Right to Life website and a couple of other ‘pro-life’ websites and I saw a lot of information pleading for supporters to ‘save babies,’ but I couldn’t’ find anything to discuss the issue of ‘what happens after Roe v. Wade is overturned’. There is a reason for that. That is because it is the far more difficult question to answer and the fact is, there is no end game that will stand up to a critical analysis of the data.
People will not stop having sex. There will continue to be unplanned and accidental pregnancies. It is not realistic to assume there will be a quantum increase in annual adoptions over the current rate. Since we live in a country without universal health coverage, someone will have to pay for the medical care associated with having all of these pregnancies carried to term. And just as a point of fact, an abortion is far less expensive than a hospital stay and associated care for the birth of a child. Those are just plain simple truths. Ignoring them will not make them go away. To paraphrase something I heard from Neal DeGrasse Tyson, “Just because you don’t believe facts doesn’t make them any less true.”
No one wants abortions. However, unless and until the pro-life proponents can articulate a reasonable, workable, post Roe v. Wade end game that is based upon facts and data that are sufficient enough to convince the 70 percent of Americans that do not want to restrict access to abortion that there is an alternative, the current movement is nothing more than propaganda based upon emotion. And as such, it will follow the same disastrous path as prohibition.
As with so many of the complex issues facing our country and our world today, it is important to ask the right questions in order to develop workable solutions. The question, “Are you for or against abortion?” is the wrong question. The more appropriate question is, “What are all of the societal ramifications if abortions are outlawed and how will we deal with them?” The first question can be answered simply based upon an emotional gut response. A defendable, rational answer to the second question is a lot harder and probably a lot less satisfying to the pro-life movement. Perhaps some day we will get to a place where we can use facts and data grounded in reality to make informed policy decisions – we obviously are not there yet.