A liberal think tank claims that killing babies is good for the economy. Or, to use their words, "providing women with a full range of reproductive health options [abortion and contraceptives] is good for the economy at the same time as being essential to the financial security of women and their families. Doing the opposite threatens not only the physical health of women but their economic well-being too."
On April 28th, the think tank Progressive Congress held an event in conjunction with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The purpose of the event was to publicize their belief that the availability of contraception, family planning and abortion "is vital not only to [a woman's] individual health and human rights, but for the fundamental role it plays in determining whether they – and their children – remain or become poor." When they figured out income, they probably did not count the wages of the killed infant.
To support their position, the Progressive Congress pointed to a financial study conducted by the University of California, San Francisco which suggests:
Abortion access and a woman's potential wealth are inextricably linked: A recent study of 1,000 women seeking abortions found a "profound" connection between lack of abortion access and the effects on a woman's life. Forty percent of respondents wanted an abortion for financial reasons, and women who ended up keeping unwanted pregnancies were more likely to live in poverty.
One in seven women in the U.S. live in poverty, and in 2012, only 31 percent of low-income American women had access to publicly funded clinics.
Their position was corroborated by Maggie Jo Buchanan, associate director at the George Soros-funded Centre for American Progress (CAP). Ms. Buchanan pointed out "in the US policy discussions around economic vulnerability and family planning have tended to take place in isolation, ignoring their interconnection, and so stifling solutions. In essence, one of the major contributing factors to entrenched poverty – unwanted pregnancy – is sidelined despite it being proved time and again that the universal availability of contraception and family planning improves women’s earning power and prospects."
But, to make this a quantitative discussion assumes that the value of a human life can be determined. Taking their argument to its most absurd extreme, if it is okay to kill a baby in the womb because of a perceived financial burden or benefit, is it also valid to kill a five-year-old because the parents can't afford to purchase new sneakers? If a university raises tuition, should it be acceptable to murder the student if the parents can't afford the new rates?
Based in the logic of the Progressive Congress, the answer to the above may be a clear "yes."