With the looming presidential election, healthy (and unhealthy) political discussion is quite commonplace. I recently participated in a discussion on an all-too-common issue: abortion. In some form or another, it seems like the infamous decision of Roe v. Wade is by and large on the minds of many November voters. And why shouldn’t it be? After all, Obama is pro-choice, while McCain is pro-life. But do not vex, this is not another opinion article about a personal view on abortion; I am not so vain and egotistical to think that I could dissuade your view one way or the other in a mere 500 words or so. Instead, I hope to spark “healthy” discourse on another idea. Should we tax abortion?
At a glance, the argument seems to be quite simple. Regardless of your personal – and hopefully informed – decision of where you believe life “starts” or “begins,” both supporters and opponents of abortion can usually sit down and agree that an abortion is indeed (substitute “indeed” with “oftentimes” or “sometimes,” depending on your level of compromise) a tragedy. Compromise or not, most pro-choice proponents maintain that because unintended pregnancies continue to transpire in women in difficult circumstances, abortion should, tragedy or not, remain legal, safe and rare.
So in this context of “rareness,” a plausible solution seems to arise. It is an effortless, methodical approach commonly used in America to restrain a disliked action or practice. That is, it must be neutralized, taxed and regulated. A perfect example of this is cigarettes and now, according to Reflector columnist Robert Scribner, “fat” people in Alabama. We have all been educated against the dangers of smoking – namely cancer, emphysema, heart disease, respiratory and circulatory disease and birth defects in pregnant women. It has also been heavily regulated, with purchasing power only given to those 18 and older, all the while being greatly taxed.
Was there success in the fight against tobacco? Of course there was. With the increased tax revenue, education campaigns were formed and became extremely successful, catalyzing bans on smoking in all different kinds of places for those of age. The number of American smokers has consequently greatly decreased. Hence, in the same fashion, can the number of abortions also be dramatically decreased by taxation, education and regulation? I agreed and thought so, but it was not until recently that I started thinking about the whole picture, or at least my inept version of the whole picture.
First of all, assuming a tax on abortion was indeed passed, it would more than likely be up to the individual states to determine a tax. The U.S. does govern under the idea of federalism, after all. Looking at the example of cigarettes, there would probably be huge discrepancies in tax depending on how “conservative” or “liberal” the state happens to be (see our 18-cent cigarette tax compared to New York’s $2.75 tax).
So, would we be effectively reducing abortion? Or in actuality, would we be making it less available to the lower, poorer classes in certain states, while for the most part the middle and upper classes would remain unaffected? Would poor people just travel to another state for cheaper abortion alternatives?
And if you believe as I do, which you may very well not, how can you or, more importantly, the government, justify the obvious moral and ethical problems with a revenue strategy that entails the profiting from the murders of potential future taxpayers?
If you want to get truly intense, maybe these people having abortions, in a religious context, are lost and doomed regardless, so making abortion illegal, although it will hurt them financially and physically, will matter not in a grand context and will in actuality save future generations from damnation. Another disgusting thought: In terms of pure economics, maybe an abortion is in fact a much cheaper alternative than a tax on abortion. After all, aren’t those babies saved from abortion statistically doomed and destined to irresponsibly reproduce and multiply, creating an exponentially higher amount of cost?
Julio Cespedes is a junior majoring in biological engineering. He can be contacted at
[email protected].