Arkady
President
In this country, the debate on abortion almost always takes the form of a debate on prohibition. The action is around efforts to criminalize types of abortions or to outlaw abortions generally. I believe working to decrease abortion through prohibition is unlikely to have much of a positive result for at least four reasons:
(1) The GOP has made this one of their centerpiece efforts for almost forty years now, with little to show for it. It's unlikely that they'll be accomplishing much more than whittling around the edges of abortion rights any time in the foreseeable future.
(2) Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would most likely be in a way that allowed states to decide abortion laws on their own. As long as abortion remains legal in liberal states, it will be exceedingly easy for someone to travel to get an abortion in a free state, meaning little actual decline in the abortion rate (if, for example, you're a woman in Indiana who wants to terminate her pregnancy, you're not going to carry to term simply because you can't be bothered with the hour long drive to a legal clinic across the Illinois border).
(3) Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned in an unlikely way, creating a "right to life" for fetuses, abortion would remain legal on demand in most advanced nations. That's not going to be quite as easy as jumping in the car and driving over a state border, but the majority of women who want legal abortions are still going to be able to get them pretty easily and cheaply. For the huge portion of our population that's a quick drive from Canada, it's not much harder than crossing into another state (it's about a seven hour drive from New York City to Canada, for example). For the rest, it's a quick and relatively cheap flight to a Canadian city (or Mexico City, or most of the countries of Western Europe). Although some extremely poor women may be deterred from getting a legal abortion by the cost of such travel, the expected impact would be minimal, since the cost of the travel is, in any event, likely to be significantly less than the cost of the pregnancy and birth. With a little flexibility and bargain hunting, $300 will get you a round trip ticket from most places in the US to somewhere with legal abortion.
(4) Aside from the medical tourism option to get around abortion prohibition, there will also be smuggled abortion pills. This isn't like 1973, when abortion was last illegal. There are now cheap, highly effective, and fairly safe abortion pills, legally sold in many countries. Even if a woman is unable or unwilling to travel for her abortion, it won't be hard for most to terminate their pregnancies anyway, at least early in the pregnancy, simply by getting their hands on these pills, which would undoubtedly become widely available under the table from women's rights activists.
Because of those things, I think abortion prohibition is unlikely to result in more than a tiny reduction in the abortion rate in this country. It may OBSCURE the abortion rate, by encouraging women to get it done secretly abroad, or through the black market, but if your purpose isn't to pretty up the stats, but rather to cut down on the number of terminated fetuses, it's not a promising strategy.
The good news is that we have every reason to think we can greatly cut down on the abortion rate without outlawing abortion. The last data I saw, the abortion rate in the US was 22.9 (abortions per 1000 fertile-aged woman, per year) versus just 6.5 in the Netherlands. The other wealthy liberal democracies of Western Europe also have much lower abortion rates than the US, despite abortion access that, if anything, is greater than ours (since price is less of an issue in their health systems). Cutting our abortion rate by half or even as much as almost three quarters is FAR beyond anything we could realistically hope to do just through an ineffective plan like prohibition. So, rather than wasting all sorts of political capital on the shaky strategy of trying to push through abortion prohibition, wouldn't it make more sense to spend it on trying to emulate whatever it is about these lower-abortion-rate countries that allow them to achieve those low rates?
If it isn't prohibition that's got the abortion rate so low in the Netherlands, what is it? Well, it's certainly not puritanism. Anyone who has ever been to Amsterdam can vouch for that -- the Netherlands is one of the most sexually liberal countries in the world. So, apparently, there are other factors involved in fewer unplanned pregnancies happening, and more of the unplanned pregnancies that do happen being carried to term. What could those factors be?
I have some ideas. One, the Netherlands doesn't do "abstinence only" education. They have frank sex-ed that focuses on preventing STDs and pregnancies through the use of condoms. They also have universal healthcare that covers prescription contraception, which again means fewer unwanted pregnancies. Their sex-positive culture probably also cuts down a little on the shame of an unplanned pregnancy, making women who end up in that unfortunate position less likely to sneak off an have an abortion just to keep people from knowing about it. Given the high obesity rate in the US, and the tendency for obesity to make people less fertile, it's surprising that a country like the Netherlands would have fewer unwanted pregnancies, but the stats say that's true, so there's got to be some reason.
The Dutch also have all sorts of social spending programs that make bringing a baby into the world less of a frightening proposition for those who do get pregnant unexpectedly. For example the Dutch get paid maternity leave for 16 weeks, by law, which makes it less financially daunting to have a baby, especially for a single mom who might not have other means of support. After that, they have heavily subsidized childcare (an hourly allowance to pay much or all of the price of a daycare), in addition to free medical care for the kid. That's in addition to a generous allowance to cover part of the other costs for raising a kid:
http://www.expatfocus.com/expatriate-netherlands-holland-maternity-childcare
In addition, the Dutch have some interesting post-natal care plans (like having an assistant come to your house in the week after the birth to help with everything from breastfeeding advice to watching your other kids). When women feel like the government has their back if they have a baby, it shouldn't be surprising that fewer of them choose to terminate their pregnancies than in the US, where the overarching message is that you're on your own.
So, are there things liberals and conservatives can cooperate on in decreasing the abortion rate? Or does this have to take the form of fighting to have the government punish women who choose to terminate their pregnancies? I think it comes down to whether your main goal is to decrease the number of fetuses that get killed, or whether it's to increase the number of women who get punished.
(1) The GOP has made this one of their centerpiece efforts for almost forty years now, with little to show for it. It's unlikely that they'll be accomplishing much more than whittling around the edges of abortion rights any time in the foreseeable future.
(2) Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would most likely be in a way that allowed states to decide abortion laws on their own. As long as abortion remains legal in liberal states, it will be exceedingly easy for someone to travel to get an abortion in a free state, meaning little actual decline in the abortion rate (if, for example, you're a woman in Indiana who wants to terminate her pregnancy, you're not going to carry to term simply because you can't be bothered with the hour long drive to a legal clinic across the Illinois border).
(3) Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned in an unlikely way, creating a "right to life" for fetuses, abortion would remain legal on demand in most advanced nations. That's not going to be quite as easy as jumping in the car and driving over a state border, but the majority of women who want legal abortions are still going to be able to get them pretty easily and cheaply. For the huge portion of our population that's a quick drive from Canada, it's not much harder than crossing into another state (it's about a seven hour drive from New York City to Canada, for example). For the rest, it's a quick and relatively cheap flight to a Canadian city (or Mexico City, or most of the countries of Western Europe). Although some extremely poor women may be deterred from getting a legal abortion by the cost of such travel, the expected impact would be minimal, since the cost of the travel is, in any event, likely to be significantly less than the cost of the pregnancy and birth. With a little flexibility and bargain hunting, $300 will get you a round trip ticket from most places in the US to somewhere with legal abortion.
(4) Aside from the medical tourism option to get around abortion prohibition, there will also be smuggled abortion pills. This isn't like 1973, when abortion was last illegal. There are now cheap, highly effective, and fairly safe abortion pills, legally sold in many countries. Even if a woman is unable or unwilling to travel for her abortion, it won't be hard for most to terminate their pregnancies anyway, at least early in the pregnancy, simply by getting their hands on these pills, which would undoubtedly become widely available under the table from women's rights activists.
Because of those things, I think abortion prohibition is unlikely to result in more than a tiny reduction in the abortion rate in this country. It may OBSCURE the abortion rate, by encouraging women to get it done secretly abroad, or through the black market, but if your purpose isn't to pretty up the stats, but rather to cut down on the number of terminated fetuses, it's not a promising strategy.
The good news is that we have every reason to think we can greatly cut down on the abortion rate without outlawing abortion. The last data I saw, the abortion rate in the US was 22.9 (abortions per 1000 fertile-aged woman, per year) versus just 6.5 in the Netherlands. The other wealthy liberal democracies of Western Europe also have much lower abortion rates than the US, despite abortion access that, if anything, is greater than ours (since price is less of an issue in their health systems). Cutting our abortion rate by half or even as much as almost three quarters is FAR beyond anything we could realistically hope to do just through an ineffective plan like prohibition. So, rather than wasting all sorts of political capital on the shaky strategy of trying to push through abortion prohibition, wouldn't it make more sense to spend it on trying to emulate whatever it is about these lower-abortion-rate countries that allow them to achieve those low rates?
If it isn't prohibition that's got the abortion rate so low in the Netherlands, what is it? Well, it's certainly not puritanism. Anyone who has ever been to Amsterdam can vouch for that -- the Netherlands is one of the most sexually liberal countries in the world. So, apparently, there are other factors involved in fewer unplanned pregnancies happening, and more of the unplanned pregnancies that do happen being carried to term. What could those factors be?
I have some ideas. One, the Netherlands doesn't do "abstinence only" education. They have frank sex-ed that focuses on preventing STDs and pregnancies through the use of condoms. They also have universal healthcare that covers prescription contraception, which again means fewer unwanted pregnancies. Their sex-positive culture probably also cuts down a little on the shame of an unplanned pregnancy, making women who end up in that unfortunate position less likely to sneak off an have an abortion just to keep people from knowing about it. Given the high obesity rate in the US, and the tendency for obesity to make people less fertile, it's surprising that a country like the Netherlands would have fewer unwanted pregnancies, but the stats say that's true, so there's got to be some reason.
The Dutch also have all sorts of social spending programs that make bringing a baby into the world less of a frightening proposition for those who do get pregnant unexpectedly. For example the Dutch get paid maternity leave for 16 weeks, by law, which makes it less financially daunting to have a baby, especially for a single mom who might not have other means of support. After that, they have heavily subsidized childcare (an hourly allowance to pay much or all of the price of a daycare), in addition to free medical care for the kid. That's in addition to a generous allowance to cover part of the other costs for raising a kid:
http://www.expatfocus.com/expatriate-netherlands-holland-maternity-childcare
In addition, the Dutch have some interesting post-natal care plans (like having an assistant come to your house in the week after the birth to help with everything from breastfeeding advice to watching your other kids). When women feel like the government has their back if they have a baby, it shouldn't be surprising that fewer of them choose to terminate their pregnancies than in the US, where the overarching message is that you're on your own.
So, are there things liberals and conservatives can cooperate on in decreasing the abortion rate? Or does this have to take the form of fighting to have the government punish women who choose to terminate their pregnancies? I think it comes down to whether your main goal is to decrease the number of fetuses that get killed, or whether it's to increase the number of women who get punished.
