Really leave it to Chelsea to make a case for the economics of Roe, well, if economics is not really your thing anyway.
Chelsea Clinton has some thoughts about the economic consequences of Roe v. Wade:
By Charles C. W. Cooke | National Review
“Whether you fundamentally care about reproductive rights and access right, because these are not the same thing, if you care about social justice or economic justice, agency — you have to care about this.
“It is not a disconnected fact — to address this t-shirt of 1973 — that American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy. Right?
“The net, new entrance of women — that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973.”
“So, I think, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think that you can connect to this issue.
“Of course, I would hope that they would care about our equal rights and dignity to make our own choices – but, if that is not sufficiently persuasive, hopefully, come some of these other arguments that you’ve expressed so beautifully, will be.”
The problem with this argument, obviously, is that it is entirely unresponsive to the debate over abortion, which is not economic in nature, but moral. If unborn children are not living human beings — and if, therefore, it doesn’t matter if they are aborted — then obviously one will be in favor of abortion, especially if it leads to salutary economic news. If, by contrast, unborn children are living human beings — and if, therefore, aborting them is tantamount to murder — then the utilitarian argument is flatly irrelevant. Saying “but look at the effects of killing unborn children on GDP!” to a person who believes that unborn children are living human beings is futile. In no moral universe are they going to make that trade.
And nor, for that matter, would the person making the case. Presumably Chelsea Clinton believes it is wrong to murder human beings ex utero. If so, she knows how she’d react to someone saying, “Whether you fundamentally care about murder or not, you should be able to connect with the fact that killing one in ten Los Angelenos will ease the traffic and reduce the Medicaid rolls.” And if Clinton doesn’t know that — if, in other words, she holds the hyper-utilitarian view that abortion is murder but it’s worth it for an additional three-and-a-half trillion dollars — well, then she’s a monster.
She’s a monster, trust me on this one!
Frankly, I don’t see the need to even argue with her economics, vacuous as they are. What we have been saying for a long time is this is their type of economics — merging morality with failed economic policies, in the wrong way. They called Reagan era voodoo economics? This is actually what they have tried to drive the Roe debate on since concocting it. Yes, it was stood up on a right pulled from thin air, but they have tried to feature it as an economic need. So that does not surprise me. Stay tuned here though.
Every little twisted lie Leftists try to sell is under a guise of economics. Not so much to the other side, but to their own base. They don’t like economics really, but they do have an affinity for faulty economic arguments. And leftists believe those are bulletproof. (as can be anyway) After all, they have been selling class warfare, surf and turf socialism, and wage issues for how long? Illegal immigration too. There is usually an economic tie and lie somewhere. Redistribution abuses economics, it doesn’t use them.
If economics were really a winning combination with Roe’s success, then it doesn’t add up or should not follow that their party would be on the verge of insolvency, and the socialist schemes would be in the sewer, having murdered 60.65 million babies since Roe’s inception. You’d think it would be sunshine, lollipops and rainbows if it were winning economics. It would be paying dividends to Democrats in spades, no? Funny how the party enshrined in supporting abortion on demand would be flirting with bankruptcy, in more than the fiscal way. Sort of dark irony in that. But they will use any means available to cloud or ignore the morality of it. When swearing on the alter of abortion became the litmus test, there was no visible conscience left. What else was left but economics?
But maybe I could be off target somewhere.