I told you so!

[OKgrannie]

If you want to reduce abortion numbers, you have got to spend money. Now if you just want to punish women, just criminalize abortion, or regulate it to death.


Political Perceptions : Can Social Spending Reduce Abortion?

"Smack into the middle of this debate comes a new study commissioned by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a progressive and antiabortion group. Conducted by political science professors at Penn State and Georgetown, the study concludes that government social spending and economic conditions have a greater affect on abortion rates than restrictions like parental consent laws....
They found:

* States that spent more on welfare — or cut welfare more slowly — had many fewer abortions. The authors estimate that if every state increased spending on welfare by $1,350 per person living in poverty, there would be a 20% reduction of abortion.

* States that spend more generously on aid to women, infants and children (WIC) had lower abortion rates. They estimate that if states were to increase spending on WIC we could see up to a 37% lower abortion rate.

* During the welfare reform of the 1990s, some states instituted “family cap” policies that would not pay welfare benefits for children born to women already receiving welfare. States that did not have a family cap — and kept providing welfare even after new children were born — had about a 15% lower abortion rate than states with a family cap. The authors estimate that getting rid of the family caps would result in 150,000 fewer abortions.

* States that had higher male employment had a 29% lower abortion rate.

The authors noted that other surveys have indicated that women often cite economic factors for having an abortion. They concluded therefore that women who had more economic help — either from the government or a wage-earning spouse — felt less pressured to have abortions.

These findings, they conclude, indicate that “pro-family policies reduce abortions.”

What Doesn’t Work

They also found that many of the steps favored by pro-life groups and Republicans have not been effective at reducing the number of abortions. For instance, laws requiring parental consent for minors having abortions had no measurable affect on abortion rates, and laws against late-term abortion had a statistically insignificant impact."

 

[American]

If you want to reduce abortion numbers, you have got to spend money. Now if you just want to punish women, just criminalize abortion, or regulate it to death.


Political Perceptions : Can Social Spending Reduce Abortion?

"Smack into the middle of this debate comes a new study commissioned by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a progressive and antiabortion group. Conducted by political science professors at Penn State and Georgetown, the study concludes that government social spending and economic conditions have a greater affect on abortion rates than restrictions like parental consent laws....
They found:

* States that spent more on welfare — or cut welfare more slowly — had many fewer abortions. The authors estimate that if every state increased spending on welfare by $1,350 per person living in poverty, there would be a 20% reduction of abortion.

* States that spend more generously on aid to women, infants and children (WIC) had lower abortion rates. They estimate that if states were to increase spending on WIC we could see up to a 37% lower abortion rate.

* During the welfare reform of the 1990s, some states instituted “family cap” policies that would not pay welfare benefits for children born to women already receiving welfare. States that did not have a family cap — and kept providing welfare even after new children were born — had about a 15% lower abortion rate than states with a family cap. The authors estimate that getting rid of the family caps would result in 150,000 fewer abortions.

* States that had higher male employment had a 29% lower abortion rate.

The authors noted that other surveys have indicated that women often cite economic factors for having an abortion. They concluded therefore that women who had more economic help — either from the government or a wage-earning spouse — felt less pressured to have abortions.

These findings, they conclude, indicate that “pro-family policies reduce abortions.”

What Doesn’t Work

They also found that many of the steps favored by pro-life groups and Republicans have not been effective at reducing the number of abortions. For instance, laws requiring parental consent for minors having abortions had no measurable affect on abortion rates, and laws against late-term abortion had a statistically insignificant impact."

More money hmmmm?

This isn't abortion, it's extortion!

 

[Scucca]

For instance, laws requiring parental consent for minors having abortions had no measurable affect on abortion rates, and laws against late-term abortion had a statistically insignificant impact."

I think we should be careful with rejecting the idea that abortion restrictions have no significant effects. For example, Medoff (2008, The Response of Abortion Demand to Changes in Abortion Costs, Social Indicators Research, Vol 87, pp 329-346) does find that parental involvement laws reduce abortion demand.

We certainly should focus on how minor these effects are, relative to the policies we know are successful.

 

[kamino]

paying people for having children? I do not think that our economy can handle that. Sure we might not have a problem right away but after generations of a policy like this... It seems like we would be paying people for being alive, what's the point in getting a job? I do not think I would be to happy with my tax dollors going to this.

 

[Scucca]

paying people for having children? I do not think that our economy can handle that.

The problem is that your economy produces such severe income inequalities (which aren't consistent with supply and demand criteria in the labour market). Of course you wouldn't necessarily have to use welfare to reduce the problems created. Socialism would also achieve it!

 

[kamino]

The problem is that your economy produces such severe income inequalities (which aren't consistent with supply and demand criteria in the labour market).

Agreed

Of course you wouldn't necessarily have to use welfare to reduce the problems created.

I would hope not.

Socialism would also achieve it!

Ummmm, no.

 

[Scucca]

Ummmm, no.

The alternative that you'd recommend?

 

[Jerry]

Parental consent laws were meant to reduce abortion?

I support those laws but not out of some sence that abortion will go down as a result.

They concluded therefore that women who had more economic help — either from the government or a wage-earning spouse — felt less pressured to have abortions.

My avatar, Dave Ramsey, makes a very similar argument regarding the motivations for divorce.

It all comes back to money in the pocket.

 

[Scucca]

Parental consent laws were ment to reduce abortion?

Abortion restrictions are certainly about attempting to reduce abortion demand. Why would you think otherwise?

 

[Jerry]

Abortion restrictions are certainly about attempting to reduce abortion demand. Why would you think otherwise?

I was editing when you posted.

 

[Jerry]

I support parental consent laws because the minor child is the legal responsibility of her parents. At the very least, at least one parent should be notified about the abortion or any other medical procedure of any kind, nature or manor performed upon their minor child.

It ever occurred to me that folks would pursue parental consent laws in an effort to reduce abortion because I have no idea how such a law would reduce abortion.

 

[Jerry]

It's worthy of note that the study did not state that "Social Spending" was the reducer of abortion, as the title in the OP spins it, but that it was the woman having financial security which was the reducer of abortion.

"Social Spending" is one of many ways to give economic security, or at least the feeling of economic security. "Social Spending" is not the only, the main, or even the most effective means of real, permanent economic security.

But the OP would have you believe Social Spending were the Bee's Knees.

 

[Scucca]

It ever occurred to me that folks would pursue parental consent laws in an effort to reduce abortion because I have no idea how such a law would reduce abortion.

That surprises me. Have a look at abortion rates per age. Parental controls have been an attempt to prohibit abortions through the back door and were certainly about reducing demand.

 

[Scucca]

But the OP would have you believe Social Spending were the Bee's Knees.

Bee's knees? Its just a feature of capitalist societies. I don't like it myself. It grieves me to see capitalism feeding off high poverty rates

 

[Jerry]

That surprises me. Have a look at abortion rates per age. Parental controls have been an attempt to prohibit abortions through the back door and were certainly about reducing demand.

Well, I concede that that may be the case for the typical supporter. I can only speek for myself when it come to perceptions, so I'm apparently an exception to the rule.

So many things are related to economic health that it makes perfect sense that the key to reducing abortion is to create economic security.

 

[Arcana XV]

I support parental consent laws because the minor child is the legal responsibility of her parents. At the very least, at least one parent should be notified about the abortion or any other medical procedure of any kind, nature or manor performed upon their minor child.

I agree to a point: the age of consent. If they're legally old enough to decide to become sexually active, they're old enough to decide whether or not to terminate the resulting pregnancy.

It ever occurred to me that folks would pursue parental consent laws in an effort to reduce abortion because I have no idea how such a law would reduce abortion.

I think the idea is that many parents would refuse to allow the abortion out of religious and/or moral reasons, therefore reducing the number of abortions at least in the underage bracket.

 

[Scucca]

So many things are related to economic health that it makes perfect sense that the key to reducing abortion is to create economic security.

How far would you go with economic security? Is it the case of acknowledging the effect, but- for other reasons- supporting alternative policy?

 

[Jerry]

I agree to a point: the age of consent. If they're legally old enough to decide to become sexually active, they're old enough to decide whether or not to terminate the resulting pregnancy.

Oh now there you go expecting the law to be logically consistent. We can't have any of that

I think the idea is that many parents would refuse to allow the abortion out of religious and/or moral reasons, therefore reducing the number of abortions at least in the underage bracket.

So let me ask you: did parental consent laws fail to reduce abortion because parents regularly consented, or because the minor child found a way to have the abortion without their consent?

 

[Jerry]

How far would you go with economic security? Is it the case of acknowledging the effect, but- for other reasons- supporting alternative policy?

I'm not sure what you're asking me....how liberal would I go in any given direction?

In general it is my opinion that while we provide a safety net, a stop-gap, that we typically empower people to earn and keep their own capitol.
If we're going to just hand out money then let's eliminate a large chunk of government in the process by simply writing a check instead of making social security/health care/food stamps/housing assistance/etc.

As an Evil Conservative I am legally required to issue a reasonable opinion which can be easily misinterpreted as imposing my judgment upon others by force, and so here it is:

Giving some thought to the conclusions of this study I believe I see a behavioral consequence of Liberal Feminism and the resulting sexual objectification of women. By not requiring men to commit to them, women deny themselves the economic security of what the study calls “…a wage-earning spouse…”, and must therefore turn to the other source of economic security identified by the study: the government. It’s no coincidence that the rise of social programs which hand out money and related benefits increased in earnest with the 19th amendment; women finally had the power to replace their husband with another provider. With a woman VP we can expect these programs to be expanded in cost even if reduced in number, but I digress.

The more women turn away from marriage the more power the government will have over them. Far from liberation, they will find only the fate of every democratic society: slavery.

 

[Scucca]

I'm not sure what you're asking me....how liberal would I go in any given direction?

Effectively this thread suggests that if you are to be anti-abortion you will have to also be pro-redistribution. The number of morality coercers that hide from the evidence only illustrates that minimising abortion demand is not really their objective.

The more women turn away from marriage the more power the government will have over them.

Your approach leads to a couple of issues that need consideration. First, you have made no reference to marriage and its impact on the wage potential of the female. On one side, we have orthodox economics that suggests there are wage gains to be had: given male income, they are able to set a higher reservation wage and acquire a higher wage. On the other, we have feminist analysis that refers to male household domination which impinges on female labour market careers (e.g. geographic mobility according to male demands, such that female careers are hampered). Second, feminism has been crucial in lowering discrimination and therefore widening labour market opportunities (and reducing the need for government to 'subsidise' the profiteering of the discriminator). Third, whilst traditional marriage may have declined in attractiveness, we still have dual income households. Indeed, given income inequality problems (and that is the problem you avoid), the rational male/female will search for a partner with earning potential.

 

[Jerry]

Effectively this thread suggests that if you are to be anti-abortion you will have to also be pro-redistribution. The number of morality coercers that hide from the evidence only illustrates that minimising abortion demand is not really their objective.


Your approach leads to a couple of issues that need consideration. First, you have made no reference to marriage and its impact on the wage potential of the female. On one side, we have orthodox economics that suggests there are wage gains to be had: given male income, they are able to set a higher reservation wage and acquire a higher wage. On the other, we have feminist analysis that refers to male household domination which impinges on female labour market careers (e.g. geographic mobility according to male demands, such that female careers are hampered). Second, feminism has been crucial in lowering discrimination and therefore widening labour market opportunities (and reducing the need for government to 'subsidise' the profiteering of the discriminator). Third, whilst traditional marriage may have declined in attractiveness, we still have dual income households. Indeed, given income inequality problems (and that is the problem you avoid), the rational male/female will search for a partner with earning potential.

Just a quick shot from the hip before I set out to run some errands:

Genuine feminism, not Liberal Feminism, has made outstanding accomplishments in reducing gender discrimination in the work force. I won't ever deny that.

My main thought on wage differences as they stand today regard how much money a woman costs a company as compared to how much money a man costs a company. The total cost, I'm guessing here, for a woman is greater then the total cost of a man. This is because men can't get pregnant and be physically incapable of working. Men can't get pregnant and increase the company's side of the medical premiums. I suspect that women take more family-related personal leave. If these things are true then it would make sense for a company to try to compensate for the additional costs a woman would incur by reducing her salary. I’m not saying that it right, I’m just saying that that may be what’s happening.

I don't have data in front of me at the moment and again this is nothing more than a shot from the hip. I could be off-the-planet wrong about this, but I thought I would put it out there for consideration.

 

[OKgrannie]

Giving some thought to the conclusions of this study I believe I see a behavioral consequence of Liberal Feminism and the resulting sexual objectification of women. By not requiring men to commit to them, women deny themselves the economic security of what the study calls “…a wage-earning spouse…”, and must therefore turn to the other source of economic security identified by the study: the government. It’s no coincidence that the rise of social programs which hand out money and related benefits increased in earnest with the 19th amendment; women finally had the power to replace their husband with another provider. With a woman VP we can expect these programs to be expanded in cost even if reduced in number, but I digress.

The more women turn away from marriage the more power the government will have over them. Far from liberation, they will find only the fate of every democratic society: slavery.

The object of feminism is to eliminate the sexual objectification of women. It has never been possible for women to "require" men to commit to them. Men and women have always changed their minds or found additional others to commit to on the side. Feminism has enabled women to enter the market place, encouraged women to acquire marketable skills, and thus lessened the dependence on male financial support and also government support. I don't see that women are turning away from marriage at all, but it is a choice for them now rather than a means of financial support. Isn't that better for men as well?

The problem, in regard to abortion, is that women are having babies before they become financially independent, and that many times leaves them trapped, unable to acquire the necessary education to become financially independent.

 

[Scucca]

My main thought on wage differences as they stand today regard how much money a woman costs a company as compared to how much money a man costs a company.

Your argument should really be focusing on overall labour costs (particularly as you'd have to control for differences in all medical conditions) and how they differ between gender. Statistical discrimination (where firms take into account group characteristics such as the perceived costs from female pregnancy) suggests that firms will pay women less because they are likely to be more mobile (due to family demands). Its job turnover costs that are the real curse for the firm (particularly in terms of needing to training replacement costs). Unfortunately the theory just does not work! Male and females exhibit similar turnover rates.

I could be off-the-planet wrong about this, but I thought I would put it out there for consideration.

I know of no evidence to support your view. As I said, even if hypothetically you have a point, there are bigger labour market costs that dominate the discrimination literature.

You'd also be suggesting that, as abortion rates increase, gender wage differentials fall.

 

[Voidwar]

Effectively this thread suggests that if you are to be anti-abortion you will have to also be pro-redistribution.

It absolutely does not.

Even if more alms correlates with fewer procedures, one can easily be against legal abortion and still be against the welfare state.

The Taxpayer does not need to submit to the extortion of a welfare recipient's belly bump.

btw, I'm pro-choice myself, but I had to point out your false dichotomy.

 

[Scucca]

btw, I'm pro-choice myself

And that isn't interesting!

The sensible amongst the pro-choice and anti-choice groups will have one common goal: the minimisation of abortion demand. The available empirical evidence shows that abortion restrictions do not deliver that minimisation. Economic inequalities are much more important and therefore should dominate the discussion