Last Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the “Protect Life Act.” By doing so, they limited the subsidies that health care previously provided for abortion costs. The religious, personal health and economic aspects of the bill are now facing each other head on. The House showed an overwhelming support for the bill, while Obama and others, concerned with job opportunity and women’s health, took a solid stand against it.

House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi publicly expressed her disgust with the passage of the bill. “[House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer] made a point and I want to emphasize it. Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”

Had she not sounded slightly deranged, her point could have attracted more positive attention and concern from her audience. However, regardless of the ridicule Pelosi’s extreme depiction in her strongly worded sentiment received, her concern is valid. The “Protect Life Act” inhibits health-care providers from assisting a woman with a health risk — that could be resolved by the termination of a pregnancy — thus proving to be quite the contradiction to its name.

What kills me (and it’s not looming baby doom) are the economic and religious motivations behind the bill. If, from a fiscal point, the government is trying to curtail excessive spending to alleviate the deficit (not that I really think this is a driving point but just theoretically), why would they presume subsidizing a procedure that would cost, on average, approximately $500 at Planned Parenthood?”-? Sans emotional countenance, would the financial obligations that came with raising a child to the age of 18 while being on welfare and food stamps not prove to be a more strenuous expense? I say again, strictly logistically and economically speaking, this is a far higher tab to pay out than a procedure that costs a few hundred dollars.

Furthermore, when Roe v. Wade concluded with the legalization of abortion, crime rate in the U.S. dropped significantly. Unwanted, abandoned or ill-cared for children were a force on the scene prior to the legalization — but just for survival. Irresponsible or financially disadvantaged adults were bringing children into the world that they couldn’t support, forcing these children to fend for themselves, which unfortunately often lead to illegal or violent activity.

As far as the religious convictions behind the bill, where is the separation of church and state? If it would be more economically astute for the country to help provide this service, then shouldn’t that become the main issue examined? I understand that anyone pro-life would grit his teeth at handing over tax dollars to a cause he didn’t support, but as I stated above, the price of substantiating the existence of those who are otherwise not cared for is far greater than subsidizing the service provided. If that is something you are capable of then that’s fantastic, but since we’re on the verge of bankruptcy, it’s just not logical.

I swear I’m not the Tin Man, but I do think there are monetary elements of bills that Congress passes that should be taken in to account. Pro-life or pro-choice opinions can co-exist but the condition of our national bank account shouldn’t be affected by emotionally charged actions.


1 Comment

  1. Firstly, in making a cost-benefit analysis (If you must be utilitarian) it is shortsighted to only consider the cost of raising the child and not the benefits that the child will add back. Humans are the ultimate resource and source of wealth, we have more people on earth than ever before and we are also richer than ever before, population and prosperity are positively related. Also, there’s a solution to the cost side of things as well for these 18 year old welfare/food stamp mothers, its called adoption. Secondly, in regards to the crime rate: correlation does not imply causation, the decrease in crime could be attribute to many other factors and I also suggest that it is  calloused and idiotic to suggest mass genocide of minority infants as a means to reduce crime. Thomas Jefferson said that “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical”, if it is unacceptable to use taxpayer money to propagate controversial ideas than how much worse is it to use that money to propagate controversial actions? Quite a bit I would say. The spending power and principles cannot be separated, the first depends on the latter for the stability of the whole.