With the upcoming presidential election in 2020, we’re going to start hearing a lot of this phrase: “reproductive health rights”. If there was ever a more oxymoronic statement than that, I don’t know what it would be. “Reproductive health rights” is the euphuism du jour for abortion. Forget the inconvenient fact that there’s absolutely nothing reproductive about abortion. Just the opposite.
With all the recent comments and statements regarding abortion and when an abortion can actually take place, the entire concept of infanticide is being overlooked. Regardless of Roe v. Wade, which is considered as “settled law”, the minutia of when an abortion can be performed is what is being fought over. States such as Kentucky, Georgia and Ohio have enacted “fetal heartbeat” laws, which mean that once a heartbeat is detected, an abortion cannot be performed. Kentucky’s law, however, has been temporarily blocked in federal appeals court. Missouri does not allow abortion after 8 weeks, Arkansas after 18 weeks. Ohio has also enacted a law that allows medical professionals to opt out of having to perform abortions if they so choose. Alabama has passed what is considered the most restrictive of anti-abortion laws.
By contrast, New York state has completely decriminalized abortion and the state of New Jersey has some of the lest restrictive laws.
Adoption laws, on the other hand, are just as convoluted. According to the Library of Congress web site: “Adoption in the U.S. is mostly governed by state law…although federal constitutional principles may come into play. State law varies in many particulars, but general features of adoption are common across the states.
“Under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care of their children.
“Some laws that regulate adoption: Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980; Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997; Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.”
Since the title of this article is Adoption vs Abortion, I want to also take a look, albeit briefly due to space, at Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of access to the abortion procedure.
The nation’s first birth control clinic opened on Oct. 16, 1916 in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York. It was started by Margaret Sanger, her sister Ethel Byrne and Fania Mindell. By 1921, this clinic was reorganized under the name American Birth Control League. It wasn’t until 1942 that the name Planned Parenthood was used.
The organization now has 159 medical and non-medical affiliates which operate over 600 clinics in the U.S. They are also in 12 countries globally. In 2014, Planned Parenthood received $528,000,000 in U.S. government grants, which amounts to 1/3 of the organization’s entire budget. They also receive private grants and other donations. In many cases, they offer abortion at reduced rates or free, depending on the patient’s circumstances. The number of abortions performed in 2018 alone were 332,757. Keep in mind as well that Planned Parenthood enjoys 501 (c) 3 status.
That last bit of information brings up an interesting thought. If the courts are going to uphold abortion, and state law is inconsistent at best, why not use tax law to weaken Big Abortion? First off, though, we need to ween them from our tax dollars. Most Americans agree to this. Next, Planned Parenthood should be denied their tax-exempt status. Let’s start taxing them, and every abortion provider at 50%, no exceptions.
Instead of championing abortion, adoption should be the main point of discussion. Once this starts, the tax revenue derived from abortions provided would be placed in a fund in each state that would be used to pay for the cost of live birth by any mother who is indigent. Mothers who opted for live birth delivery and subsequent adoption would not be charged for the procedures and/or care.
These funds could also be augmented by allowing hospitals and all medical personnel involved in the birth to donate their services for free, with a tax right-off for each procedure performed that lead to an adoption instead of an abortion. State by state adoption agencies would then take over and work to place the children with parents who could not have children of their own. Or for that matter, anyone who is approved to adopt a child. The cost of the adoption process could be augmented by a percentage of the abortion provider tax.
Of course, if any of this actually sort of makes sense, then I realize it’s basically a “pipe dream’ of sorts. However, when you consider that the best way to get anyone’s attention is through a tax, the idea of taxing abortion clinics/providers has some validity. Providing financial incentives for birth over abortion, with subsequent adoption, also makes sense.
When you also consider that fewer than 1% of abortions are to “save the mother’s life” (up to 2.8% with mitigating circumstances factored in), then that old mantra is moot. (Source: abortionfacts.com)
I guess I should have started with this, but as a sort of disclaimer, I have to say that I’m adopted. I also firmly believe that life begins at conception.
In closing, consider these verses:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you…” Jer. 1:5
“Can a woman forget her nursing child or show no compassion for the child of her womb?” Isa. 49:15