Bravo to the
legislature! Women seeking abortions in North Carolina are now required to receive counseling and wait 24 hours before having an abortion. As expected, pro-choice minded people have many points when arguing against more restrictive abortion laws like these. The usual suspects showed up in a recent AP article found in the Sanford Herald on July 29, 2011: restricted access, government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship by “directing physicians on how to talk to their patients,” making women “jump through hoops,” and an increased risk for lawsuits for doctors who perform abortions. North Carolina
To counter these I say: First, no one is being denied an abortion. Second, the government is already intruding into our doctor-patient relationships via Obamacare. Oddly, though, many pro-choice people don’t have a problem with that intrusion. Third, women are not being made to jump through hoops. They are being provided information they might not have unless required by the government, and then being given time to mull over the information. Finally, there is always a risk of lawsuits for doctors, no matter what kind of medicine they practice. If abortion providers are determined to continue providing abortions, they will figure out how to dot their I’s and cross their T’s.
A new argument against more restrictive abortion laws is hinted at in this AP article, though. That is, how reducing the number of abortions will put a strain on Medicaid. This new law will potentially “cut the more than 27,000 abortions and result in about 2,900 additional births per year.” Then the article goes on to say this “will cost taxpayers about $7 million a year, mostly because nearly half of the births would be funded entirely or in part by Medicaid.” Will this added strain on Medicaid now be seen as another argument for NOT enacting more restrictive abortion laws? Is the pro-choice movement going to add economics to their list of objections to these kinds of laws? And will they be measuring a child’s worth by the cost to taxpayers for safely bringing said child into this world? I can’t say I would be surprised if factions of the pro-choice community did any or all of these things.
Frankly, though, I believe this particular argument is hypocritical. Consider this, if these were government dollars going to some program or expense ‘for the [already born] children’, most liberally-minded people would have few objections to the strain on Medicaid or the people’s coffers. But because this additional government expenditure is money for the unborn, it is a problem for many liberally-minded people. Personally, I am not clear as to why it’s a problem. After all, children are children, whether born or pre-born.
Now, does it thrill me that nearly half of the projected 2,900 new births will be paid for with hard-earned tax dollars? Absolutely not! On the other hand, these 1,450 babies are our children, and they need to be protected and nurtured and cared for, too, just like our already born children. Perhaps the people who are concerned about the added burden to Medicaid these un-aborted children will cause need to concentrate their energy on finding a way to get people working that doesn’t include more government spending. Then fewer people overall, including unborn (and already born) children, would need Medicaid, WIC, food stamps or any form of government assistance.