The reaction of the left to the Hobby Lobby decision may not have been a surprise, but it should be a warning. For decades, the pro-life movement has been dogged by criticism that it is somehow chauvinistic and/or sexist. This, too, is no longer a surprise, but the reason for it points the way to our political weakness – a weakness we must address if we are to convince our fellow Americans to join us in legally protecting pre-born children.
In microeconomics classes, one of the things I try to drive home to my students is how policies that damage society as a whole can still be maintained: mainly because the cost is spread out (and thus, very small) amongst the many, while the benefits are concentrated (and thus, very large) among the few. Repealing that mistaken policy will cost those few greatly (who thus protest to keep the policy), while the many who would benefit barely notice. As a result, the policy stays.
We pro-lifers need to recognize that we face a similar problem. We tout the great benefits of pre-born protection – moral, ethical, and even economic for those of us who rightly reject Malthusian nonsense about population control. Yet that is clearly not enough.
Until we acknowledge, and address, that the cost of legal protection for the unborn is uneven – and unevenly paid by women of child-bearing age – our arguments will have a glaring weakness, one that can make – and in more than a few instances, has made – the difference.
Up until now, most of the reaction from the pro-life community has been to highlight the benefits or dismiss the cost. Simply put, that isn’t working very well. Even when pro-lifers focus on areas where a majority of Americans agree with us – medical safety requirements to stop Gosnell-like horrors, parental notification and other restrictions, and even straight out legal protection for pre-born children after the point of medical viability – we suffer from not dealing with the problem of concentrated cost.
Moving beyond the political, does it really make sense to argue that something as important as protecting the most vulnerable among us (children in no position to defend themselves or even speak for themselves) should not lead to a cost as diffuse and equitable as possible? I think not.
So how can we spread this cost more evenly among society? Given that I’m a cost estimator, my first thought goes to the financial area (your mileage may vary). One idea comes from recent tax reform proposals to raise the child tax credit, which would at least begin to alleviate the cost of child rearing. Another that I myself have been pondering is expansion of the definition of child support to include pre-natal cost (medical and otherwise), and even opportunity cost (from lost wages and lower incomes due to career advancements deferred – I’ll admit this one could be difficult to define). These come with the added advantage that they could be done (and thus have an effect on life-or-death decisions) even within the current Roe/Casey legal environment.
Of course, these two ideas above would be just a start – and one could use improvement. I do not claim to have the perfect solution. I do think, however, we need to acknowledge the problem.
If we as a society are serious about protecting pre-born life, we also need to be sure the costs are borne as equitably as possible. This goes double for those of us advocating for such protection. It’s a better political strategy, but more importantly, it’s also better policy.
