Economics or Eugenics?

Recent comments by an economics professor asserted that we need to abort the babies of poor women to eliminate poverty.

This isn’t a rogue extremist opinion but is reflective of a growing voice of those publicly advocating eugenics – elimination of the “undesirables.” Those who agree reflect diverse, and in some cases powerful, individuals with disturbing agendas.

Jason Lindo, an economics professor at Texas A&M University, has defended the FDA’s sloppy and politically-motivated approval of the chemical abortion pill. A lawsuit by pro-life medical organizations and doctors against the FDA is pending in federal court. Without chemical abortion, he says, our nation would suffer a significant economic setback.

Unwanted babies, Lindo claims, will result in individuals who perform poorly in school, have increased behavioral issues and will achieve lower levels of completed education. Further, his crystal ball decrees they will earn less, have poorer health and are more likely to be criminals.

In one fell swoop, he has predestined an entire segment of society to a meager and possibly-criminal existence just because they were born into a poor environment. Many reading this blog may have been born into similar circumstances – or know those who have – but rose above Lindo’s expectations, did well in society and became contributing members of society.

Lindo’s condescending opinion isn’t new. In 2005, the United Nations circulated a report titled Reducing Poverty and Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: Arguments for investing in Reproductive Heath and Rights, which are code words for abortion-on-demand. The title says it all – abortion is the answer to poverty.

Not long ago, we listened in saddened dismay as Iceland bragged about “eradicating Down syndrome births.” They achieved this goal not by a landmark breakthrough in medicine, but by exterminating the patients via abortion.

By following Iceland’s similarly flat-earth assertion, eugenicists believe that babies of poor women will grow up to be a cancer on society and must be aborted. This will not decrease poverty, just as Iceland will not eradicate Down syndrome. Both are dark and evil agendas, destined to failure.

Advocates of eugenics have and may still occupy the U.S. Supreme Court. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.” Imagine if a conservative justice had uttered those words!

Canada, through its euthanasia program, has taken eugenics to a desperate low. Government subsidy of the poor and disabled is so paltry that many have grown weary of struggling in poverty and are inquiring about Medical Aid in Dying as a preferred alternative to their despondent existence. Will this be Canada’s legacy; that they financially pressured their citizens to opt for euthanasia, which is by far cheaper than medical costs and providing adequate benefits through Ontario Works? (the equivalent of our welfare)

Another economist, Teresa Ghilarducci, claims abortion is responsible for lifting women from poverty.

In 2014, 75% of the women having abortions were of low income. But as the number of poor women having abortions dramatically increases, an unacceptable level of poverty continues to exist. Abortion is not the answer to poverty.

It is cruel and patronizing that a woman is told she must kill her unborn child to advance economically. How are we different from Canada? Women deserve better – yes, even the poor ones.

If the choice before us were self-important economists or the unplanned, I’m betting on the latter.

Defending mothers and their babies,