The Economics of Abortion and Contraception, Part II
by Marlene Gillette
Modern economies can be seen as a house of cards. One cannot simply remove a layer of cards and expect no repercussions in other areas. Unfortunately, this is what the United States and pro- countries around the world have experienced in recent years.
The financial effects of abortion and should not elude serious economists. But one can be sure that the monetary cost of abortion and contraception has been radically underestimated because those that have commented on the economic consequences of abortion and contraception have ignored long-term effects.
Abortion and Contraception—A Costly Damage to Society
At times reality does point to a poor economic condition in a society that lacks respect for human life.
In his book The Cost of Abortion, published in 1995, Lawrence Roberge, a biotechnology consultant and information broker, has traced the effects of cumulative abortions over the years with slow economic growth in the United States since Roe v. Wade: “[R]eal GDP [gross domestic product] growth continued to slow down as the cumulative effect of abortion becomes more apparent…[even] during…the 1980’s, a time normally associated with growth and prosperity…. GDP growth will continue, but will continue to spiral downward as the cumulative effect of abortions becomes more apparent.” Roberge adds, “Fewer births mean fewer laborers to produce goods and services…[and] less consumption of goods and services. With a decrease in laborers and consumers, the eventual result is a decrease in economic activity.”
John Mueller, an economist for a private company that engages in financial market forecasting, authored the article “The Socioeconomic Costs of Roe v. Wade,” published by the Family Research Council in March 2000. In his study, Mueller states that in the United States the “three-quarters of a million abortions that occurred in 1973 cut the annual growth of the labor force by up to 400,000 workers beginning in 1989. Now nearly one million fewer workers enter the labor force annually because of abortions sixteen years earlier, which means fewer goods and services produced and information processed as well as less money earned.”
Various statistics back up these statements. For example, in a March 1996 article titled “Two Few 25-year-olds May Put a Crimp in U.S. Economy,” The Detroit News reported that “demographic studies show that the number of 25-year-olds—whose spending on consumer goods historically drives economic growth—next year will reach its lowest level since 1973, the last deep consumer recession.”
Population Decline as a Factor in Economic Decline—Who Benefits?
HLI researcher and author Brian Clowes, PhD, in his study titled The Demographic Impacts of Abortion, makes an interesting connection between low birthrates and economic poverty: “…[A] smaller and smaller clientele will be accumulating and concentrating a greater share of [a] nation’s wealth as time goes on. This ‘poverty gap’…will result in a smaller, more competitive, and more lucrative market for luxury goods and a larger and less competitive market for staple goods….”
A good example of this premise is Russia. For decades, Russia has encouraged abortion. In a report from the Russia State Statistics Committee dated May 2000, it is said that there is one live birth for every two abortions, meaning that approximately 66 percent of pregnancies in Russia end in abortion. Under a free Russia, the present government appears to be committed to developing a market economy. Yet what has arisen is an oligarchy of power and money, with these “New Russians” investing their money in foreign endeavors. Standing behind Russia’s rich and powerful is a small middle class who must pay high prices for food. In addition, there is little investment in manufacture, which means no work for the labor force and thus no generated income. In July 2000, President Vladimir Putin addressed the Russian Parliament, saying that “low population growth and population control was putting Russia in peril for its very survival,” adding that economic development in Russia had stagnated.
Most economists agree that while a significant percentage of gross national product (GNP) growth is attributable to specialization and technological progress, it is also true that a very significant percentage of GNP growth is directly attributable to population growth—and vice versa.
Population growth alone does not bring about immediate national economic prosperity, but it is a start. In a 1999 study made by the National Autonomous University in Mexico on the connection between population and economy, it was shown that national economic activity increased where there was a strong economically active population sector, enhanced by contributing factors such as employment opportunities, higher education and health improvements.
A society that accepts and promotes abortion and contraception is killing off its own people, who constitute its daily business market. Eventually, that society will become economically sterile. Before it is too late, nations must reject the economics of death and embrace the economics of life.
Marlene Gillette is an Associate in Development at HLI.
(May/June 2002 HLI Reports)
|
07/12/2002
|
|