So abortion restrictions could now damage the economy?
Politico recently published what other media outlets have called a "bombshell leak," that being Justice Alito's draft opinion indicating that the Supreme Court may be about to overturn Roe v. Wade as soon as this summer.
Much has been made of both the leak and the opinion, which have sent leftists and "progressives" into paroxysms of despair, anger, violence, and insanity. This includes vows to disrupt Masses at Catholic churches on Mother's Day.
Just the kind of class and dignity you can depend on from them.
Even those at the head of our government have offered desperate and inane opinions on the possibility of letting the states decide whether to allow the unfettered mass slaughter of babies.
The ironically titled secretary of labor, Mary Walsh, recently told the online media company Insider Inc. that she has "serious concerns about the economic impacts of Roe potentially being overturned." She stated, "This will impact women individually, but also is going to impact our economy as a whole."
A recent article in the Business Insider, a far-left "financial and business" website that makes the original Pravda seem like a "MAGA" mouthpiece, cited a "study" by the University of California–San Francisco purporting to show that "women being denied an abortion dealt with significant financial blows — but having access to one 'does not harm the health and wellbeing of women.'"
The study somehow didn't mention that access to abortion is fatal to "the health and well-being" of babies. Probably just an inadvertent oversight.
The same study claimed that when women had no choice but to give birth, they "experienced an increase in household poverty lasting at least four years relative to those who received an abortion" and that getting turned away from an abortion meant women's credit scores went down, and their debt went up. Moreover, the study averred that "[y]ears after an abortion denial, women were more likely to not have enough money to cover basic living expenses like food, housing and transportation." Well, when they were flush with cash prior to their pregnancy, perhaps they should have shelled out the nominal amount of cash needed to purchase birth control. Or — dare I say it? — perhaps they should have even considered self-control.
And the article sadly asserts that children who are born because their mothers were tragically denied an abortion "are more likely to live below the federal poverty level than children born from a subsequent pregnancy to women who received the abortion." Huh? So kids who weren't aborted are less well off than those who were aborted? Or are less well off than those who were born after their mother had previously offed their big brothers or sisters?
What's more, according to the Institute for Women's Policy Research, if state-level abortion restrictions were lifted, 505,000 more women would join the labor force — and cumulatively earn over $3 billion every year.
And more than one outlet has claimed, "Since 1973, Americans have had a constitutional right to an abortion." The Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. How did justices suddenly discover a "right" to abortion nearly two centuries later?
We all know that entities such as the Institute for Women's Policy Research are totally unbiased, especially with regard to issues pertaining to women/birthing persons. Yes, individual women who give birth and keep their children have less discretionary income to spend on other things. The same is true of fathers who stick around to help the mother and child. In days of yore, this was called parenting or "doing the right thing." On the other hand, Secretary Walsh's assertion that overturning Roe v. Wade would adversely affect "our economy as a whole" is preposterous on its face. Mass abortion seriously — and negatively — impacts the sale of diapers and formula. And onesies, teething rings, baby powder, cribs, changing tables, children's books, children's car seats, strollers, etc., etc., etc.
"Pro-choicers" have serious concerns about the economic impact of doing away with murder?! Well, then, how about the economic impact of banning the sale and manufacture of firearms? Or of banning oil pipelines, drilling, fracking, nuclear plants, coal, etc.?
What of the economic impact of the Biden administration's economic policies?
It is ironic that progressives, who typically rely on emotional appeals — and despise business and capitalism — casually and callously dismiss the impact of slaughtering a powerless minority of innocents in favor of economic arguments.
But these are not the brightest of people. Some of them protesting yesterday on and in front of property owned by Supreme Court justices held crudely made signs saying, "My Body, My Choice," "I Am A Person," and "No Forced Pregnancies."
Let me take these in order.
"My Body My Choice" had been a long-time staple of so-called "pro-choicers" until the pandemic — at which point progressives loudly demanded that everybody get fully vaccinated and boosted, against his will if necessary, regardless of religious belief, health history, or assertion of bodily autonomy. Coming out of the pandemic, the "My Body, My Choice" sentiment — and placards — have been dusted off and redeployed.
"No Forced Pregnancies"? No one, MAGA-supporter or not, is forcing you to get pregnant. No one is holding a gun to your head and saying, "Do it! Now!" It is your own risky behavior, for which you don't wish to be accountable, that leads to pregnancy.
Lastly, "I Am A Person." Really? That's what you've got? No one is denying that. In fact, you would not be a person had your mother decided to abort you. What pro-life people are concerned about is that you — as a person — wish to extinguish the life of another person inside your person.
This is not rocket science.
It is a matter of the heart and soul. And life and death.
Image: Screen shot from EWTN video via YouTube.