The Economics of Abortion and Contraception, Part I
by John Clark and Marlene Gillette
In one of the greatest economics books ever penned, "Economics in One Lesson," author Henry Hazlitt begins his work with the claim that “Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man.” This may never have been truer than in the case of the economics of and . Fearing the political fallout surrounding abortion and contraception, economists have rarely commented on its long-term monetary effects.
The One Lesson
Hazlitt’s “one lesson” is simply this: “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.” Therefore, at this point in the debate, economics owes it to itself to consider not only the short-term, but the long-term effects of infanticide. The main argument consists in this: Although abortion apologists may claim that abortion is an economic boon for society, their argument is fallacious because the positive monetary effects of abortion are short-term in scope, immediate in nature, and financially deleterious over the long term. In short, abortion and contraception equals bad economics.
First and foremost, it must be stated that abortion and contraception are industries in the United States, or more specifically, are service industries, just as legal or financial services are industries. The abortion and contraception industries could be classified as a subheading of the healthcare industry, but they certainly generate enough revenue to have their own major subheadings. This point is often overlooked, but is crucial to understanding that abortion and contraception, as industries, have significant macroeconomic implications.
Short-Term Analysis
Abortion proponents waste no time in attempting to point out economic benefits to abortion and contraception. First, doctors who specialize in abortion and contraception often make serious money. Although there is not enough data available to provide a median income for the typical doctor who specializes in abortion, some projections are possible. A doctor can perform a first- abortion in less than five minutes, and it is not uncommon for an abortion specialist to perform as many as 20 abortions per day, which totals roughly 5,000 abortions per year. Approximating the average cost of an abortion at $350, it amounts to a “get rich quick” enterprise. This financial standpoint provides a compelling reason to choose this specialty over other medical specialties. The perceived economic “benefit” to society is that the doctor takes the money from the mothers and/or fathers and spends or invests it—on cars, houses, vacations, stocks, etc.
And because abortion and contraception are industries, they increase the immediate financial gains of related industries, such as pharmaceuticals that specialize in contraceptives and companies that manufacture suction machines.
These are all short-term economic goods, however. Short-term economics is much easier to understand, but is almost irrelevant to an economist. If a man robs a liquor store and runs down an alley with a satchel of cash, that is a short-term economic good, at least for him. The long-term effect of his crime, however, will be five years in C-Block—hardly a long-term economic good for himself, his family and society.
All of these hypothetical economic gains are short-term in nature and benefit very small groups of people to the detriment of the rest of society. First, the abortion and contraception specialists may earn millions of dollars, but they create no wealth. It is simply a case of wealth transference, as the father and/or mother no longer have the $350 to spend on real economic needs and wants.
Second, the healthcare industry realizes short-term economic gains, but in doing so, kills the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg. By promoting abortion, the healthcare industry has become involved in what can be termed none other than financial cannibalism. From the viewpoint of economic utilitarianism, killing future customers is a strange, irredeemable practice. A baby in the represents one of two things to the healthcare industry: something that can be killed for a quick profit, or something that can be born and represent thousands of dollars just in the first year of life. If the baby is born, the healthcare industry will realize 20 times the revenue than in aborting the baby, beginning with baby delivery costs. The United States Department of Agriculture conducted a study in 1992 establishing other relevant data. Using figures adjusted for the 1998 Consumer Price Index, the average family spends $10,830 on healthcare for a child in the first 18 years of life, not including birth expenses! The abortion industry pre-empts healthcare profits. Thus the long-term perspective points to very different conclusions than the short-term perspective.
A Question of Numbers
It is said that abortion is a $500 million per year industry. But the study by the Department of Agriculture cited above presents a much clearer picture. Taking into account costs of housing, food, transportation, clothing, child care, education, etc., the study estimates that the cost of raising a child for 18 years is approximately $157,000. An aborted baby might represent $350 in revenue for an abortion provider, but it also represents more than $150,000 of lost revenue to healthcare, clothing manufacturers, baby food companies, diaper companies and so forth. Try to multiply that figure by 40 million babies aborted since 1973, and you will need the kind of calculator you cannot buy at a convenience store. The total comes to almost $6,267,600,000,000—essentially $6.26 trillion, give or take a billion. That number is almost the size of the current United States national debt. Contemplating $6 trillion in lost revenue takes the shine off the abortionist’s new Jaguar. But these numbers don’t tell the whole story.
A Life of Crime?
As any student of mathematics understands, one can determine an answer to variables if one is provided enough data with which to work. But some sets of variables are undeterminable. In the case of the abortion industry, the financial costs are so numerous and multi-faceted that some variables will inevitably be left undetermined. Despite this fact, many still attempt to arrive at a figure. And some even try to suggest that there are other financial benefits to abortion.
The May 2001 issue of the Harvard University Quarterly Journal of Economics published a piece titled, “The Impact Of Legalized Abortion On Crime,” by Stanford University professor John J. Donohue III and University of Chicago professor Stephen D. Levitt. Their conclusion: abortion lowers crime rates. They make the argument that in 1991, 18 years after abortion was legalized, the crime rate dropped. They argue that unwanted babies are most likely to grow up and commit crimes, and abortion eliminated many of those most likely to commit crime when they would have turned 18 to 24 years old. Donohue and Levitt claim that the benefit to the economy may be as much as $30 billion annually. Planned Parenthood Federation of America now posts this research on its website, presenting this argument as if it were one more way that abortion helps society.
This argument unwittingly points out the faulty nature of their view of economics. How could one hold that the absence of 18- to 24-year-olds from an economy could so drastically drop the crime rate and simultaneously say that the absence of this same demographic category does not hurt the overall economy? There is no logical way to support this argument, unless one claimed that all aborted babies should be seen as potential criminals and could not be seen as positive potential components in economic society.
This argument does not take into account what economists call “human capital.” How much wealth society gained or lost by these children who never had the chance to be born will never be known; but it is disturbing, purely in terms of economics, that the human capital they may have brought into the world is not even taken into account by these economists.
Each human being born into the world automatically becomes an economic component of society. Whether a child born becomes another Beethoven, a lawyer, blue-collar bricklayer or stay-at-home mother is irrelevant. Each human being born into the world has the capacity to do much good for others, no matter the field of society they may serve. Eventually, society will economically benefit from their personal dedication, hard work and adherence to natural law.
(See next month’s HLI Reports for Part II of “The Economics of Abortion and Contraception.”)
John Clark is the president and CEO of Paladin Financial Group (registered representative of LaSalle Street Securities, LLC) in Front Royal, Va. Marlene Gillette is an Associate in Development at HLI.
(April 2002 HLI Reports)
|
04/24/2002
|
|