This is Richard Wolff from Democracy at Work responding to another Ask Prof Wolff question
from our Patreon community. This one comes from 'Nicholas de Paolo' and 'Nicholas' basically asks
me to look at some of the economic dimensions of the abortion issue, responding, of course, to the
leaked Supreme Court document apropos 'Roe versus Wade' and the general question of abortion. He
particularly directs my attention to the research, that is now many decades old, that attempts to
link the absence or allowance of abortion to the crime rate here in the United States
So, let me begin by summarizing that research. But I'm going to go further afield
(excuse me) to talk about the economic aspects, actual and potential, of the whole abortion issue.
The research in question - starting off back in the 1970s - was what we call a regression analysis
in economics. And it attempted to show that if you looked at the accessibility to abortion
and then that you looked at the crime rate roughly 20 years later you would notice something. Namely,
that when abortion becomes, somehow, more available - legal instead of illegal etc - that
the number of children unwanted clearly goes down. And then the argument was made
that makes for fewer criminals 20 years later entering the criminal justice system.
There was a huge debate about this statistical analysis on both sides.
And I think it's fair to say: while it was never really resolved, there was a kind of general sense
that, clearly, abortion was a factor in the crime rate. But it was clearly not the only one,
and many other factors play a role as well. So I want to start with that. And now go further.
One of the things that abortion will do, economically speaking, is create a whole lot of
families that have more children than they want. Because, usually, that's the point of an abortion.
Which is to have fewer children come into a family than might otherwise arrive there. And if you have
children that you really don't want there are going to be physical problems and mental
problems all the way down the line. This is not rocket science, it's well understood.
It's also the case that if abortion is rendered illegal or unavailable (one way or another)
you're going to have (the way capitalism is organized) the usual story. Namely, if you're
rich enough you can get it. And if you're not rich enough you won't get it; you'll have to travel,
perhaps, if 'Roe versus Wade' is overturned, from states that don't allow it to states that do.
Or you'll go overseas. And, of course, this will contribute to a greater inequality of income.
Abortions bringing children that are unwanted are often motivated by the financial conditions of the
families that seek abortion. And they are usually right about their own financial condition.
If you impose the child on them that they don't want their financial condition will deteriorate
relative to those who can find an alternative way to get an abortion.
So, yes, there are all kinds of economic implications.
We can take the argument a bit further. If the motivation behind limiting
abortion is religious, then one can reasonably ask (in terms of the economics) where else this
religious commitment is going to go. Are we going to ban homosexuality again? Are we going to ban
birth control again? The way abortion was, these things were banned in the past.
And then we can go even further back historically. Because in medieval Christianity
usury was forbidden, not just abortions. And so, usually, charging interest (our financial
system is based on charging interest)... if you take strictly the notion of Christian
teachings, there may then be a movement to obliterate interest rates. And, therefore,
this is going to throw the economy into a tailspin nobody can really quite imagine.
If it isn't religion, but if it's the notion of murder: that the fetus is a human being and is
being killed, and that this is impossible. Then, of course, the question is: how far
will that go? Will we make war impossible? Will the people who don't want the death of fetuses
reject sending weapons to Ukraine? Because it's intended to kill large numbers of people,
which it is clearly doing. What about the guns? What about capital punishment?
You've heard these arguments. But they are all legitimate questions about where
this whole movement around abortion is going, and what it's economic implications will be.
And one last point, as you think about this. In a time when the inequality of income is an explosive
social problem in this country, banning abortion will make that worse. No one knows how much,
but it will. And that ought to be a thought that you weigh in your mind.
And here's the final one. And this is an argument that is often heard in Europe,
where, of course, in case you're not familiar, there is no comparable movement to undo the
access to abortion that exists virtually in every European country, pretty much limitlessly. And
that includes all the Catholic countries: Ireland, Spain, Italy, and so on. Russia, I might add,
has abortion available on demand, at your request. But here's the argument in Europe I always found
interesting: if this society wants to impose taking a child to term once you're pregnant
then does it not also have the obligation to provide a basic support, economically,
for the child that results? Many European companies’ countries give their citizens payments
per child; a subsidy. We don't do that in the United States; creates an interesting dichotomy
between imposing the birth but not supporting this human being after he or she is born.
If dimensions like this belong on a conversation about abortion then please work with us. Debate
with other people. But use this kind of work to extend, to broaden the conversation. Partner
with us - that's really what we're asking - to make the impact all that much greater.
And if you can help us financially that, of course, will be appreciated as well. Thank you.