Remember that book Freakenomics that liberals went crazy for back in the mid 2000s. The book spawned a podcast and even a movie. In it, there is a chapter on how Roe v. Wade is responsible for a precipitous drop off in the crime rate in the United States, and the chapter made waves around the political universe (as you might imagine).
The mind who concocted the study behind that chapter was none other than our old buddy Jonathan Gruber. You know? The guy who says Americans are way too stupid to understand that Obamacare is going to tax them into oblivion.
from National Review:
The theory, simplified for space, was that fewer unwanted babies began to be born after 1973. These aborted babies did not turn 18 in 1991, and accordingly did not commit crimes, leading to the dramatic drop in crime experienced in the 1990s.
It turns out that the study on which the Freakonomics authors based their chapter on abortion and crime was authored by none other than Jonathan Gruber (and others). In their 1998 paper, Gruber and his co-authors concluded that “we find that for the marginal child not born due to increased abortion access, the odds of living in a single parent family would have been roughly 70 percent higher, the odds of living in poverty nearly 40 percent higher, the odds of welfare receipt 50 percent higher… . From these results, we estimate that the legalization of abortion saved the federal government over $14 billion in welfare payments through 1994.”
Considering that 30 percent of abortions are obtained by African-American women, though they comprise just 13 percent of the population, Gruber was in effect arguing that reducing the number of poor black children was, not to put too fine a point on it, a “positive good.” One cannot begin to imagine the outcry if a conservative academic (that rare specimen) had published similar conclusions with such sangfroid.
Leave aside the moral obtuseness of arguing that abortion is justified because it reduces crime or welfare expenditures (which party is supposed to be stingy with welfare, again?) and consider the many, many possible explanations for the drop in crime that began in the 1990s. There was the waning of the crack epidemic. There was New York’s introduction of “broken windows” policing in 1994. New York’s crime rate declined by 70 percent between 1990 and 2000, and then dropped another 30 percent by 2005, a decline that was twice the national average and that was itself responsible for a significant percentage of the overall crime-drop numbers in the U.S. Or consider that the incarceration rate — local, state, and federal — quadrupled from 1980 to 2001.
But let’s imagine that Gruber was right — that legalizing abortion eliminated a big cohort of the criminal element and led to a drop in crime. Did every one of those aborted criminals merit the death penalty? The car thieves? The embezzlers? Did each one deserve a preemptive death penalty? Before trial? Before the crime itself? Oddly, progressives tend to oppose harsh punishments for convicted criminals while quietly celebrating the ultimate penalty for those too young to have committed any offense.
read the rest
Remember, this is the twisted mind who constructed Obamacare. If we’ve learned nothing else about him over the last few months, we’ve learned that he has a contempt for the American people. His theories on abortion and crime show that he has an overall contempt for humanity as well. The common man is beneath him. This is the guy who just re-wrote the rules on our entire health care system.