As America awaits the Supreme Court’s decision next year in a Mississippi abortion case, here’s something no one is asking:
If the justices, as expected, set greater restrictions on abortion rights or even send the matter back to the states for legislatures to decide, how much will fewer abortions cost Mississippi?
The question is relevant because, according to the Marketwatch.com website, nearly 50% of American women who have abortions live below the federal poverty level, and another 25% are considered low-income. It is likely that America’s poorest state has similar percentages.
The Charlotte Lozier Institute website reported there were 3,194 abortions in Mississippi in 2019, and 90% of the women were residents of the state. However, a Mississippi health resource system reported 4,838 abortions for state residents that year, possibly meaning that a large number of women went out of state.
The Lozier Institute also reported that in 2019, 74% of the abortions in Mississippi were from Black women, and 22% from Whites.
The point of all these statistics is that if the Supreme Court reverses the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion, and if the Mississippi Legislature then outlaws abortion, it will be up to Mississippi policymakers to plan for the almost certain impact of these actions.
To put it plainly, more low-income births means more children joining government assistance rolls each year. This is no small figure.
Using a rounded number, if 2,000 babies of low-income residents that would have been aborted each year are instead delivered, that puts up to 20,000 more children in assistance programs over a decade’s time. This will require a lot of money from both the state and federal governments.
Applying a financial analysis to the abortion debate may be disturbing, but it needs to be done. Especially in Mississippi, which has some of America’s highest rates of infant mortality and maternal childbirth deaths. Which already has too many children living in poverty, from which many will never escape. Which set up an adequate education program years ago to provide more funding for rural and poor school districts but has almost never fully funded it.
Abortion is wrong, except for the rare cases of pregnancy by rape or incest, or when the birth mother’s life is in danger. A high poverty rate is no reason to defend the procedure. But it would be just as wrong for Mississippi, having taken its right to life case all the way to the Supreme Court, to then choose not to allocate enough money to provide for children whose families cannot provide for themselves.
If the Supreme Court next year overturns Roe v. Wade and sends abortion law back to the states, keep an eye on the Legislature and Gov. Tate Reeves. It’s easy to support the rights of the unborn in a pro-life state. It’s harder to commit resources to helping those who most need it.
Mississippi often acts like banning abortion is the end of a fetus’ story. In fact, it’s just the beginning, and officials should plan accordingly.
— Jack Ryan, McComb Enterprise-Journal
