The Commercialization of Emily
Emily is the fictitious name of my pregnant friend who is considering all her options. She's young, healthy, both she and the baby's father are Caucasian, and her pregnancy could be safely aborted at this time, if she chooses that option.
Not-So-Wizard In OzKansas State
Representative Thomas Klein has filed a
bill to give women who place their babies for adoption a $5,000 tax credit.
(I'll let that sink in a minute.)
The credit would be available to women 18 or younger, or to a person who claims that woman as a tax exemption, when that woman (mother) places a child of one year of age or younger for adoption. The bill also calls for publication of information about abortion, adoption, adoption agencies, and health services.
In news reports, Klein was cited as saying that the credit would help women pay for medical and personal expenses, and is intended to reduce the number of abortions in the state. Former Rep. Billie Vining, one legislator who opposed the bill, argued "We don't want women providing children for $5,000 a pop. We don't want it to be a market."
Ah, but listen to another view...
Competitive Baby MarketIn 1978, Federal Judge Richard A. Posner co-authored an article with Elisabeth Landes called "The Economics of the Baby Shortage." The article suggested that if parents were given financial incentives to place their children for adoption - selling their parental rights instead of raising their children themselves or choosing abortion - the supply of white children available for adoption would increase. Posner restated similar views in his 1992 book,
Sex and Reason.
Posner argued that the law of supply-and-demand would rule the day, a competitive market would push prices down, and adopting a baby would cost no more than buying a car.
Do I Hear Any Bids?If the eBay baby-auction fiasco and other well-publicized baby-selling scandals are any indication, Judge Posner's free-market theory could, in this writer's opinion, mark the beginning of the end of humanity and compassion as we know them. This theory should
only be hauled out as an example of how an active legal mind can combine law and economics to make it appear as though a perceived "shortage" of white babies for adoption is right up there with fuel and commodity shortages.
Thankfully, most of us seem to understand that baby-selling is illegal for good reasons, and that fewer babies of
any color available for adoption might be a positive indicator that more women are parenting their own children.
The Issue of CoercionI am indebted to one of our readers for pointing out the following, concerning language included in the Kansas bill about materials to be published:
"Included in this section is a statement that the woman must be informed that it's illegal for anyone to coerce her into an abortion."
It should be noted here that most state adoption laws contain very specific language allowing adoptions to be challenged where it can be proven that the birthmother was
coerced into relinquishment. In this writer's opinion, a $5,000 tax credit might easily be used and abused to coerce a young woman into a decision not her own.
Tax Credits For EveryoneMeanwhile, back in the land of magical red shoes, the sponsor of the Kansas bill is quoted as saying (emphasis added), "If they're doing something the
state wants them to do, then the
state should help."
The
state wants women to place their children for adoption?
We have been discussing this on the forum, and members have been quite outspoken about handing out tax credits. "Well, heck! The state claims it wants me to vote, so why not pay me to go to the polls? It wants me to buy pork from local pig farmers, so why not give me a gigantic freezer? They want me to visit our local tourist traps, so why won't they buy me an RV?"
Why not a $5,000 tax credit for women who keep - and parent - their children?
Next page >
Are We Solving Anything? > Page
1,
2
Add Your Comments!
We want to know what you think. Your comments are important to us and the other readers. You are what makes this site special.