Solving the Abortion Debate

Politicians are using this highly divisive issue to keep people locked into predictable voting blocks. This issue reminds me a lot of what I hear from the slavery debates in the early 1800s. Neither side is going to back down and many small compromises are highly criticized by all parties. Will this lead to a Civil War? Well, I doubt it. The first Civil War was caused by economic factors other than slavery, although slavery was the emotional issue used by politicians to fight and wage war.

The abortion issue is one of many red herrings used in DC and local elections to stir up voter interest and passion. By focusing on abortion, politicians can distract people from the impact of rising economic powers on the American economy, repressive governments worldwide, social programs about to go bankrupt, education that focuses on helping people gain economic freedom rather than reading 4-8 years of Shakespeare plays, environmental issues of global economic growth, etc etc.

If DC really wanted to solve the abortion issue, they would come together and create a solution. Because of the passions on both sides, a final compromise would look something like this:

1) Unlimited abortions during the first 3 months of pregnancy. Studies conclude the fetus is inviable in this early stage and the woman should have complete control over her decision to keep or abort the fetus. Does this mean insurance should pick up the tab? Depends on your provider. I imagine if the healthcare system was free-market based, many providers would pay for abortions while charging higher premiums. Government insurance for the poor should offer this as a medical procedure where the woman must pay for some of the bill. There should always be a cost associated with a personal decision.

2) No abortions in the last 3 months, unless the woman's life is at risk. It is time to consider the fetus a baby at this point, capable of living on it's own. There is an obligation of society to protect those who are most vulnerable. Unborn babies definitely fit into this category. 6 months of pregnancy is plenty of time to abort an unwanted fetus, so don't kill someone who can live on his/her own. There needs to be some type of oversight for medical professionals who continually perform "emergency abortions". If a doctor is running a late term abortion clinic and using the loophole created by "unless the woman's life is at risk", there should be some type of medical council which oversees such cases to ensure no one is abusing the system. Again, if you are going to place trust with doctors and limit lawsuits, you need to place trust with them to make good decisions on abortion issues (this would be a great compromise in DC....The Doctor Trust Act of 2008, limit punitive law suits and increase judgment to perform abortions).

3) 3-6 month term abortions determined by the states. This is the gray area of abortion debate and should be left up to the individual states to determine their position. The woman's right to choose has been protected as required by Roe v. Wade and the right of the viable baby to live is protected from late term elective abortions. The constitution grants powers to the states to make decisions based on the lowest possible level.

Why am I writing about abortion on an economics blog? Because this issue is being used to distract people who need to focus on their own economic situation as well as that of many other people in need of assistance. Solve this and other red herring issues quickly and get to the real work that needs to be done to include all people in the economy.