The Utilitarian Purposes of Publicly-funded Abortions

by Rep. Terry Martin

Alaskans have been subjected to a lot of fear-mongering over the last few years about the so-called "fiscal gap", but with $22 billion in the bank and an oil industry that is happily developing new fields every day on the North Slope, I don't happen to think there is much to worry about on the fiscal front. But I would instead encourage Alaskans to shift their focus to what may be referred to as the population gap, and especially to look at the utilitarian policies of state government that help to perpetuate it.

In an article earlier this summer, I examined the drop in Alaska's population in two critical segments, the 18 to 35 year-olds and the newborn to 5 year olds. In taking a closer look at this second category, it has become manifestly evident that the policy of state-funded elective abortions is having a significant negative effect on our birthrate.

Between 1988 and 1996, the state paid for a low of 463 elective abortions in one year to a high, in 1992, of 852, for total of 6390 or a yearly average of 710. During those same years, the number of births in Alaska has fallen steadily from 11,451 in 1988 to 10,045 in 1996, or an average of 175 births per year.

When you compare the annual average of state-funded elective abortions (710) to the average annual drop in the birthrate (-175), one has to wonder what will be the long-term impacts of this utilitarian policy on Alaska, our society, and our economy.

Indeed, we are not even keeping up with a replacement rate. The accepted fertility rate to sustain a population is 2.1 children per child-bearing woman. Yet, ours hovers well below that, at about 1.6. Another important measure of the health of our society is the birth rate, defined by the number of births per 1000 population. Dropping from a high of 35.9 at the height of the baby boom in 1956, we are now at an all-time low of 16.6.

True to its roots in the eugenics movement of 100 years ago, Alaska's policy of state-funded elective abortions appears to have racist overtones, when you look at the statistics. For example, abortions of Alaska Native infants averaged 230 each year from 1988-96. That's about 32 percent of all state-funded elective abortions. Yet, the number of Alaska Natives is just under 16 percent of the state's population.

The same holds true for African-Americans. The state paid for an average of 83 abortions of black babies each year, or 11.7 percent of all state-funded abortions. Yet, blacks represent only 4.1 percent of the population.

For whites, though, the yearly average was 340 state-paid elective abortions, or about 48 percent of the total. But the overall population of Alaska is 75 percent white.

For such an onerous, utilitarian state policy, what are we gaining? What purpose is being served? One thing I have noticed is that the only significant offsetting factor to fill the void of these aborted Alaskans is a growing rate of foreign immigration. Given our low fertility rate, exacerbated by the state-paid abortions, perhaps Alaska should develop a new policy to encourage more foreign immigration to maintain our population, just as some European countries now pay for.

It seems to me that, as far as the economy is concerned, we are extremely fortunate that this foreign influx has occurred, so that we can continue to find buyers for new homes, children to fill our schools, people to buy cars and shop at local stores.

Indeed, how ironic it is that one of the biggest advocates of abortion has long been the Alaska teacher's union. Don't they realize where kindergartners come from? An NEA advocacy of abortion makes as much sense as if the Teamsters went all out to banish big trucks from the highway because they wear down the infrastructure. Sure, the roads would require less maintenance and they would be a lot safer for drivers of small cars, but where would the Teamsters work? And how would Alaskans be supplied with food, building materials, fuel for their cars and homes, and many other necessities?

Of course, teachers are not the only group depending on a continued flow of children to maintain their livelihoods. Consider the plight of day care operators, social workers and youth organizations. Consider also the irony of the testimony of Department of Health and Social Services "experts" in opposing a bill now in the Legislature--HB 234--that would stop state-funded elective abortions. They estimated that 590 of the 700+ pregnant mothers who every year come to the state for an abortion would opt instead to give birth. They are opposed to these births because, they said, it would cost the state millions of dollars when all these kids end up on welfare and other social service programs.

DHSS officials publicly stated that these are the children who would be abused, end up in jail, and go on welfare. That seems like a bold assumption to make. It makes one think that this utilitarian policy has already missed a lot of kids who these experts evidently think should have been aborted.

It is now time for the Legislature to stop state funding of elective abortions. This can be done without preventing anyone who wants an abortion to get one, particularly if the male involved is made to pay for it with his Permanent Fund Dividend. The vast majority of states, and the federal government, do not pay for elective abortions. Why should Alaska?

As current statistics force us to face the reality of what state funded elective abortions are doing to us, surely we can understand the impact this is having on our population and get us out of this ill-conceived public policy.


(To view these files you must have Adobe's Acrobat Reader plug-in installed. You can navigate to their download and installation instruction pages by clicking on the "Get Acrobat Reader" icon.)