Choice

The Post-Dispatch editorial board subscribes to the radical notion that politicians should be promoting policies that reduce the number of unintended pregnancies:

Why is Missouri still passing laws intended to create legal obstacles to a few abortions instead of doing something to reduce unintended pregnancies and save real lives?

A recent report from the Brookings Institution lays out the problem in stark terms: Unintended pregnancies cost the nation about $11 billion in health care costs per year. The smallest part of this bill is related to abortions sought to end unintended pregnancies. Far more is spent on state- and federally subsidized health care for poor women who become pregnant and the long-term costs of caring for the children they bear.

Even at $11 billion a year, cost is not the issue. If this state and the nation got serious about reducing unintended pregnancies, over generations, hundreds of thousands of abortions would never be performed.

This cause, if taken up by lawmakers, would be one of the most pro-life, fiscally responsible actions they could take.

They'd rather posture...

A related question:  If anti-choice legislators cared about reducing abortions as much as they say they do, why do they need multiple bills every session to achieve that goal?  It's almost like they're just playing around the edges and passing piecemeal bills that are mostly about pacifying the base and generating campaign contributions for the next cycle. 

Syndicate content

 

 

Copyright 2005-2013, Fired Up!, LLC