Roe V. Wade Economics

By Kate Finegold

Roe v. Wade, a landmark Supreme Court case from 1973 that made abortions legal in the U.S., has most definitely brought about pivotal improvements in the lives of women. Some of which are more obvious than others. By declaring that abortion is included in a woman’s guarantee of privacy under the 14^th Amendment, the abortion procedure was brought into the public arena to be regulated and standardized, making it less risky for women and also not as taboo a subject. Now that women can go to a licensed doctor and have their operation in a sterile hospital room, instead of being forced to seek out a “back alley butcher”, the complications and deaths associated with abortions has dropped to just below 0.3%. Before Roe v. Wade, 50% of maternal deaths were a result of illegal abortions. Now, abortion is 11 times safer than giving birth, a statistic that really drove home for me how important to women’s safety legalizing abortion has been (for more statistics, go to NOW).

Other societal benefits that can be attributed to the Roe v. Wade ruling are less apparent. Economist Steven Levitt believes that the legalization of abortion in the 70’s led to the substantial crime drop that occurred in the 1990s. Crime rates in the eighties were on the rise, and most people expected another spike to occur in the following decade. But what happened instead was a 30% decrease. Explanations for the sudden change included more innovation policing methods, harsher sentencing of criminals, a crack-down on the crack market, tighter gun control, a strong stable economy and more police. But based on Levitt’s calculations, these factors only contributed to half of the decrease in crime. What other explanation could there be? Abortion. If it wasn’t an option for parents not ready to start families, there would be a lot more children born into the world whose parents weren’t in a position to give them the proper care and attention. The first wave of unplanned for kids born in the seventies would be the prime age for crime in the nineties, but since they were never born, crimes they may have grown up to have committed didn’t happen. Thus the drop in overall crime activity, according to Levitt.

When I at first watched a FreakEnomics YouTube video about Levitt’s findings, I wasn’t buying it. In the heated debate still surrounding abortion, Levitt’s argument would definitely add ammo to the pro-choice side. Because let’s be honest, politicians, and most people for that matter, care most about and focus most on money. So an argument that shows that we could save dollars on law enforcement by having people police themselves with abortions could persuade a lot of folks to join the pro-choice side. While such an argument is indeed persuasive, is it true? I remember from a former statistics class to be wary that apparent correlation does not always mean causation. It seemed so far-fetched to me that I thought it was a farce, but then I researched the various effects of Roe v. Wade and what Levitt is saying began to make a lot more sense.

Children born to families that planned on having them are usually raised in a more caring environment. Mothers with unwanted births have a harder time forming a healthy relationship with their child; they spank and slap their children more often, according to a study posted on Planned Parenthood’s website. In addition, children born after 1973 in states that are pro-choice are less likely to be born in single-parent households, live in poverty or receive welfare. Hence, the option for legal, safe abortion that Roe v. Wade has made possible gives women the freedom to choose when they are ready to start a family, and when they are in the best position in their lives to do so. Although it is sad to think about children being neglected and mistreated because they weren’t “wanted”, it is more uplifting to think that less children are being born into this situation since the legalization of abortion, and that our entire society is benefiting from this in the form of less crime. 

DOMA and the Repeal Reaction

by Kate Finegold

President Obama’s policy reversal of the 1996 Defense Against Marriage Act (DOMA) last Wednesday is both “a victory” and one big step in the right direction says Dan Choi, a gay rights activist who is known for his discharge from the military under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

By finding DOMA unconstitutional, the Justice Department no longer has to defend the act in federal court. This is significant, considering that there are currently two cases challenging the legality of DOMA being heard in the federal court system. Although Section 3 of DOMA still stands, laws that curb the rights of same-sex couples will now have to satisfy a higher level of scrutiny in the courts.

Put into effect during the Clinton administration, DOMA states that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages and that states won’t be forced to acknowledge same-sex marriages from other states. The part of the law that’s been most contested in recent court cases is Section 3, which makes unavailable federal tax returns and other federal spousal benefits to same-sex couples.

In discussing his reasons for supporting DOMA, Attorney General Eric Holder observed that the legal climate towards the issue of homosexuality has changed over the last 15 years, becoming much more progressive. Since DOMA was put into effect, laws criminalizing homosexual acts have been found unconstitutional and earlier this year Congress repealed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Lower courts have already for some time now been ruling that DOMA is not constitutional. Holder said that the Justice Department has for a long time now not seen the DOMA as “reasonable.”

Obama, who still does not support same-sex marriage but is open to the idea of civil unions, said that his reason for reversing the act is that it "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

Obama realizes that these laws are an unjust treatment of a minority group, calling such policies as DOMA “unnecessary and unfair.” He commented that his view on gay marriage might change as current policy towards same-sex couples also changes and becomes more egalitarian.

While the Obama administration has in the last few months made an admirable attempt to recognize that homosexuals and those of a sexual minority have rights too by reversing both DOMA and the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell legislation, there is still a lot more to be done. While the end of DOMA is a good step forward, gay activists do have some criticism regarding how Obama went about winning the repeal. Activists including Choi say that the “the new stance would have been unequivocally historic if it were published in 2009 or 2010 as it could have then certainly fueled momentum for a full legislative repeal by a Democrat bicameral majority. It also would have saved many disappointments (including mine) if Obama and Holder used less rancid arguments about bestiality and gay inferiority in their incendiary DOJ DOMA briefs these past two years. Same goes for DADT appeals.” Yet, it is refreshing that at least the topic is finally deemed worthy of politicians’ attention, and it looks hopeful that this is just the beginning of more changes to come.