Oh Boy, Abortion

OK, the Palin/Couric Roe v. Wade clip (didn't feel like looking for the link alone so this includes the SLOG's commentary) was finally released and it’s even more embarrassing than I was expecting. Not only can she not cite a single case other than Roe v. Wade that she disagrees with, she somehow disagrees with Roe v. Wade while still stating that there is a Constitutional right to privacy (the cornerstone of Roe v. Wade). What, she doesn’t disagree with Lawrence v. Texas*?

Or going beyond the right to privacy issue to another Supreme Court case she might disagree with? Say Kelo v. New London**?

You know what, I didn’t have to Google or Wikipedia either of those. I just remember them. 'Cause I actually do read all of them. Once again, I’m more qualified than Sarah Palin.

The fact is, I’m done arguing about abortion and Roe v. Wade. Let ‘em overturn it if that will shut this debate down. Let the economics of abortion take over and show what will really happen. And if the pro-lifers haven’t thought through what will happen, here’s the logical progression.

Certain states will rush to enact laws keeping abortion legal. Others will rush in the opposite direction. Women who live in the pro-choice states will continue to have access to safe and legal abortions. Women who live in the anti-choice states will have more babies. Except for those women in the anti-choice states who will cross state or country lines to have safe and legal abortions elsewhere. So the only people having more babies (who would otherwise have had an abortion) will be the poor, teenage, unwed mothers. Thereby increasing the number of disadvantaged children born. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortions existed. Hell, if Cleopatra was sticking stones up her uterus as a birth control method, you know abortion existed as well. I bet there were quite a few witches burned for abortion potions they boiled toiled and got in trouble for.

Now, if you’ve read Freakanomics, then you know the theory. If you haven’t, I’ll recap it briefly. The crime rate in this country started going down just as the children who would have been born if it were not for Roe v. Wade would have reached the age of becoming criminals. Harsh. Yes. But the facts and stats do make for an interesting and compelling argument. Crime rates continue to go down as abortion remains legal. That’s because the type of people who are most likely to become criminals weren’t born. I realize that goes against the culture of life thing, but again, the facts and stats really bear the argument out. If that is in fact true (and the authors of Freakanomics debunk any other theory by the numbers), then anti-choice states will have increases in crime, the welfare rolls, poverty.

These states will also be less able to attract certain businesses. Particularly high-tech businesses. We techies are generally a socially liberal lot. Microsoft would never open offices in a state that outlawed abortion. Not because Bill Gates or Steve Balmer is themselves pro-life or pro-choice, but because the type of person they want to employ is generally socially liberal. And given that the majority of Democratic voters are the higher educated, companies would have a hard time attracting these people to a socially conservative state. There’s a reason they’ve stayed in Washington.

So in short, pro-choice states would increase in prosperity while anti-choice states would increase in crime and poverty. Eventually, the well-off people would leave those states because it’s not desirable to live around crime and poverty.

This is an ugly way to talk about abortion. We all want to avoid this side of the topic. We want it to be about the supremacy of the woman’s freedom or the rights of the unborn. But at the end of the day, it’s all about economics, even in as distasteful topic as abortion.

Regardless of your stance on abortion, I cannot imagine that anyone couldn’t come up with one or two Supreme Court cases to discuss in the context of this interview. Nor can I imagine that anyone who is morally or constitutionally opposed to abortion would state that there is a Constitutional right to privacy, but that it doesn’t apply to a woman’s body (but apparently does to boys’ butts, see below).

Also, how can you be for a culture of life and also support the death penalty? Particularly since so many innocent people have been found to be on death row (or already killed)? How does that play into a culture of life?

Sarah Palin makes no sense whatsoever.

*That’s the one that said it was ok for guys to butt fuck and was also based on the Constitutional right to privacy that Palin says exists, but doesn’t apply to my uterus. Guess it applies to boys’ butts. Damn sexism is alive and well! Boys’ butts get Constitutional protection but my naughty bits don’t?

**For a true conservative, this one should really have stuck in her craw. This is the one that said it was ok for the guberment—via eminent domain—to take away property from an individual and give it to another individual who could make more money off it.