This modest proposal is re-posted in response to a Rachel Maddow item from Facebook today:
A Modest Proposal in
response to one of my Facebook friend’s commentary about former Republican
Senator Alan Simpson’s assertion that male elected representatives should not
vote on abortion laws. See:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/29/alan-simpson-smacks-down-gop-for-violating-privacy-of-women/
John Janovy, Jr.
So here’s a modest proposal, based on the premise that it’s
irrational to demand that a public health problem be solved but at the same
time be adamantly opposed to the methods of solving it. The public health
problem in this case is one we know how to solve, namely, unwanted pregnancy.
The methods of solving it are readily available, safe, extensively tested, and
found to be effective, at least at the individual level. It’s a well-known and
widely-accepted fact that long-term effects of this particular public health
problem fall unequally on the sexes, with the female being physically affected,
subjected to potential medical complications, and traditionally burdened with
nearly two decades of direct responsibility for the care, feeding, and
education of another human being, whereas the male’s participation in this responsibility
is largely voluntary or, when involuntary, limited to financial contribution.
Because the large majority of state legislators are male and claim to
understand public policy, my modest proposal is perfectly capable of being
carried out at the state level, at least, and should be carried out in those
states imposing severe restrictions on elective abortions. The main points are:
(1)
Immediately enact a so-called “life tax” to provide for public funding of “life
services,” defined as prenatal health care, treatment for medical conditions
arising from pregnancy, and care, including medical care, clothing, food,
shelter, and both education and special education as needed, for any infant born
to a mother who would otherwise have chosen to abort it. Life services would
continue until the child is 18 years old.
(2) Establish
residency requirements, for access to such support, similar to those already
established, for example, for tuition at a state’s post-secondary institutions.
(3) Establish
a means test for access to such support. The federal government already has
established guidelines for access to other social services, and means testing
is already in place for Medicare premiums, so enacting such a test for “life
tax” services should be easy to accomplish.
(4) Require
DNA testing of mother, infant, and father (when the father can be ascertained)
when an infant is born to a mother who would otherwise have aborted it. Costs
of such testing would be paid by life tax revenues. If necessary, use test
results to identify the father. Require, by law, the father to contribute half
of the costs incurred in providing life services to mother and infant, and
provide for an 18-year lien on the father’s earnings if necessary, with an
extension to such time as the state is re-paid half of the life services costs
by the father. Include in this law a provision that the father’s parents are
liable for this contribution if the father is a minor.
(5) Immediately
establish sex-education programs in all public schools, the curriculum to
include effective contraception. Withhold certification from private schools
that do not institute such a curriculum.
(6)
Immediately provide birth control services for all individuals who want them
but are unable to afford them. Pay for these services through the life tax.
Services would include oral contraceptives, Plan B, condoms, patches,
injections, and all other forms of artificial birth control to individuals over
the age of 14. These services would be available in school health centers.
(7) In the
event that an infant born to a mother who would otherwise have obtained an
abortion requires long-term care or services due to a congenital condition,
then such care and services would be provided by the state and funded by life
tax revenues.
(8) In the
event that pregnancy results from rape or incest, the mother would receive a
lifetime stipend for carrying the fetus to term and the state would fund all
services resulting from this birth, including counseling, adoptive services,
and treatment of any medical conditions, including mental or emotional ones,
resulting from the conception and delivery of this infant. In the case of rape
or incest, residency and means requirements do not apply.
(10) The
overall impact of this program, including life tax and life services, will be
reviewed every ten years by qualified consultants from outside the state. Life
tax will be adjusted annually to ensure revenues adequate to support life services
programs.
I don’t know what the tax base is for North Dakota, but a
VERY rough estimate, based on the widely available information on costs of
rearing children in the United States, and North Dakota’s population, would
fall in the range of $500,000 per non-aborted fetus, if you add in the overhead
costs of administering the above program. North Dakota reported 1,290 abortions
in 2009, so we’re looking at somewhere in the vicinity of $645 billion over the next 18-20 years to provide life
services as part of this male legislative action to deal with the problem of
unwanted pregnancy. Alternatively, of course, that $645 billion would be paid by those who would have had an
elective abortion but could not because of the law or other de facto restrictions on reproductive
services, and that’s assuming that the individuals involved actually had the
resources to pay these bills.
We have, of course, not even started to consider the social
costs of unwanted pregnancy brought to term, and I’m not sure there is any real
way to calculate those costs so that the public in general, and male
legislators in particular, appreciate their impact on society. We do know that
social factors such as lack of education, poverty, and crime are linked at
least to some degree, and that “quality of life” factors are important for the
attraction of business to a particular region. So in essence, the $645 billion should probably be
considered a conservative estimate of the overall impact of unwanted pregnancy
on the State of North Dakota.
Cheers.
JJ
