A major plank of the legal abortion argument has always been that it would decrease poverty. It’s now been several decades since Roe v. Wade, and the numbers don’t hold up.
This is Part 3 in a series on the abortion issue by editor/owner Justin Stapley. Click here to read Part 2.
Another tent-pole argument of the ‘60s and ‘70s pro-abortion debate was the idea that abortions would decrease poverty. Advocates of this view pointed out that areas of high poverty had an extremely high rate of births out of wedlock. They believed that because unwanted pregnancies thrust young men and women into provider roles, they could not progress towards higher learning and better-paying careers. They viewed Accidentally starting a family as “getting stuck” and as a significant contributor to generational poverty.
Low-income areas were also the least likely to afford and use birth control options. So, the belief was that without abortion as an option, both men and women would become doomed to persistent poverty all because of “just one youthful mistake.”
Given these arguments, we should be able to expect that over the course of the several decades since Roe v. Wade, there should be quantifiable statistics demonstrating upward mobility from low-income communities.
Specifically, it should be expected that there are higher high school graduation rates, higher attendance of college, fewer children born out of wedlock, fewer families on welfare dependence, and less overall generational poverty.
However, the actual raw numbers contradict the original premise. While abortion rates in low-poverty areas, especially amongst the African-American community, have sky-rocketed each decade considerably since Roe v. Wade, there has not been a significant change in any of the numbers mentioned above.
An article in the Journal of Economics states the situation in clear terms by saying, “in the last three decades, U.S. poverty rates have changed very little.” Most interesting is that despite the increased rates of abortion, there are still significant numbers of children born out of wedlock.
One possible reason for this development could be increased recreational sex among impoverished young adults, specifically because abortion is available as an option to remove the consequences of their sexual activity.
While the argument that abortion access can decrease poverty still exists, it is a much more cursory argument since the numbers over nearly half a century do not suggest any real benefit to the impoverished by having unrestricted access to abortions.
In Part 4 of this series, The Inevitability Argument, Justin will move on to another prevalent argument for legal abortion, that abortions will occur whether they’re legal or not.
Justin Stapley is the owner and editor of The Liberty Hawk and the voice of The New Centrist Podcast. As a political writer, his principles and ideals are grounded in the ideas of ordered liberty as expressed in the traditions of classical liberalism, federalism, and modern conservatism. You can follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.