Audrey Pierce(FGCU): Should the U.S. Government Pay for Abortion?

24. March 2010 by student.

Should The U.S. Government Pay for Abortion?Whether you believe it or not, abortion affects everyone.  Right now only seventeen states pay the cost of abortion for some women.  In certain cases, we believe our national government should pay for the entire cost.  By the government paying for abortion it would reduce the amount of welfare, control populations, prevent teen moms, alternative for people who cannot afford it, and it reduces the amount of orphans. The cost of abortions would save money for our government in the long run if they considered putting aside a certain amount of money to put into the budget that pays for all the abortions carried out in the United States.According to controlcongress.com the United States spends approximately $601 billion on welfare a year.  We can easily reduce this price if there are fewer kids born into low income families.  The cost for abortion is only $350 per individual.  If this child were to live, the welfare cost would be about a million dollars for that child.  If the government paid for an abortion for a child that was an “accident” or the result from a rape, that person who had the abortion could generate that money elsewhere. It may seem cruel to some people who are pro-life instead of pro-choice, but the reality is that we are in a recession and to save a million dollars is more than a normal could afford.            The rate of teen pregnancy has significantly risen over the past few years. Every year about 750,000 teens between the ages of 15 and 19 years old get pregnant and about one third of them don’t even graduate high school.  Teen motherhood is an issue that is very common in the United States. Teens are engaging in sexual activity at an even younger age in our generation which commonly results in teen pregnancy. More and more girls have become mothers at such a young age and most of them have dropped out of high school and not gone onto college.  With the government paying for the cost of abortions for teens that become pregnant, the rate teens giving birth would decrease and more teens would graduate high school and attend college.The population of the United States is progressively rising by 14.18% while the death rate is 8.27%. In 2009, the population was 307,212,123. If these numbers continue to follow this same pattern of births vs. deaths, the United States will continue to be overpopulated. Overpopulation has a   detrimental effect on our environment. The more people on this planet cause more natural resources to be consumed. Eventually these natural resources will all be depleted, and earth will be left with none causing the environment many deadly effects.  The solution to overpopulation is abortion.  With the government paying for abortion, the children that come from accidental pregnancies and rapes would decrease the population.   Offering the service of abortion to all would highly decrease the population size and could improve the environment.On average, women give at least three reasons for choosing abortion. Three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities.About two-thirds say they cannot afford a child. Half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner. Since only seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women, thirty-two of the remaining states pay for abortions for low-income women in cases of life-endangering circumstances, rape, or incest, as mandated by federal Medicaid law.            With more and more talk of the new health care reform these days, cheaper healthcare is surely on the horizon. There are countless families and individuals that simply cannot afford health insurance. The question is will this new health care reform include abortion fees being paid for or reduced by the government? The majority of women chose abortion because that they cannot afford a child or have too many responsibilities to rear an infant. The cost of an abortion in 2005, a nonhospital abortion, at 10 weeks’ gestation ranged from $90 to $1,800 (average: $430). If we compare this to the cost and responsibility of raising a child for eighteen years we can clearly see which one carries more financial and economic burden, whether it is on the government or a parent. Another problem that could be helped would be the foster care system.  Our foster care system is desperately in need of some relief with the amount of children they have in their system.  According to www.childwelfare.gov, there were over 500,000 children in foster care as of 2006.  Many agencies nationwide have problems managing so many children and they don’t get the attention and resources that they need.  These children, in many cases, get bounced around from foster home to foster home and either have or end up having behavioral problems and emotional attachment problems.  Our foster care system definitely has problems but the government paying for abortions could help alleviate some of it because it would help with the number of “unwanted” children from being born and entering the system.            People who are not covered for abortions under their health plans or those who cannot afford health insurance should have a choice if faced with this situation. Surely if the individual is of age and is making the choice personally then they should be allowed to receive this medical service at an affordable price. The U.S Government should provide funds for this service to the demographic that cannot fund their own abortions so that there is a safe alternative that they can fall back. People who are financially restricted should have access to cheap and safe abortion services. 

Posted in Social Problems | 2 Comments »