How Does Abortion Affect the United States?

How Does Abortion Affect the United States?

By |2019-10-02T21:58:31-04:00June 7th, 2017|Categories: Abortion|Tags: , , , , |

cemetery

Since 1967, when the first states legalized abortion in the U.S., there have been over 60 million abortions performed in the United States.  Eighteen percent of our nation’s entire population has disappeared into the latter‑day extermination camps we know as abortion clinics.

We have killed a vast number of children equivalent to the combined populations of nineteen states:  Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming.1  This is equal to more than the populations of the greater Los Angeles area, the greater New York City area, the greater Chicago area, and the greater Washington, D.C. area combined.

The social and economic impacts of this shameful and hidden slaughter are profound. They are increasingly felt in the businesses, schools and families of the United States. How has the loss of so much of population to abortion in the U.S. affected the social and economic dynamics of life in our country?

Loss of Talent

The greatest loss we have suffered because of legalized abortion in the U.S. is millions of talented people.

Assuming that the class of those exterminated would resemble in basic character the surviving population, this country has so far lost to a woman’s so-called “right to choose”:

  • 2 United States presidents and 2 vice-presidents
  • 7 Supreme Court Justices, including one Chief Justice
  • 28 Nobel Prize winners
  • 69 state governors
  • 92 U.S. senators and 532 U.S. congressmen
  • 151 United States ambassadors
  • 328 Olympic medalists, including 133 gold medalists.2

olympic gold medal

Economic Impact of Abortion in the U.S.

Of course, the direct loss of human talent is not the only consequence that abortion wreaks upon a society.  A country suffers many other inevitable and profound problems, including a deformed support ratio (i.e., ratio of workers to elderly people supported by non-workers).

The architects of the Social Security retirement system obviously did not anticipate the future legalization of abortion in the U.S.  As fewer and fewer children are born, there will be fewer workers to support the elderly through the Social Security system. Take a look at some of these statistics:

  • The number of workers paying into the Social Security fund for each retiree in the United States was 5.0 in 1980 and 4.7 in 1990.  Then, as fewer workers entered the job market due to legalized abortion, the worker-retiree ratio slid to 4.6 in 1995 when it would have been 4.8 without abortion. Today, the ratio of workers to retirees is 4.3, when it would have been 5.1 without abortion. As time goes on, the worker-retiree ratio in the United States will approach 3:1, an insupportable situation.3
  • 14% of the workforce has been wiped out by abortion, and this number will climb to 23% by 2035.
  • The Social Security system began running deficits in 2010.  Our current total tax burden will have to increase to more than 40% of every worker’s salary in order to pay for Social Security and other benefits promised to retired workers. In fact, Social Security and other federal retirement benefits will consume over half of the federal budget by 2025.4

old couple

If the stresses on the Social Security system are extreme now, imagine how much greater they will be in only twenty years!  The growing worker‑retiree imbalance is already lending impetus to a general push for euthanasia.  National magazines that cater to the elderly (including Modern Maturity Magazine) often extol the virtues of an ‘easy and good death.’

Racial Distribution of the Population

There are many other major impacts caused by four decades of abortion in the U.S., far too many to address in this article. One of the most important of these is the racial distribution of our population.

The total fertility rate (TFR) is the average number of births that each woman has in her lifetime.  A TFR of 2.11 represents “replacement level” fertility for the total population  of a group in a developed nation.

For the first time in 1983, the TFR of black women dipped under replacement.  In 2007, for the first time in 35 years, the TFR of white women exceeded replacement.  What this means in plain language is that, because of its extraordinarily high abortion rate, black Americans comprise a much smaller percentage of the population than they would have without abortion.  About 11% of whites have been wiped out by abortion, but a staggering 31% of blacks have been aborted.5

Since a group’s political and social influence correlates with its percentage of the population, this does not bode well for racial progress in the United States.

Impacts on Religious Institutions

Those churches embracing an anti‑life and anti‑family philosophy are gradually dying out.  By contrast, although many of their members do not agree with their teachings or practice them, pro‑life and pro‑family churches are growing rapidly, especially when compared to the anti‑life churches.

churches

During the time period 1970 to 2012, pro‑life Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon churches have exploded in membership, while the so‑called “mainline” pro‑abortion churches are obviously in deep trouble.  The pro‑life churches in the United States have gained 39% in membership from 1970 to 2012, while the pro‑abortion churches have lost 34% of their membership during the same period.

Bogus religious groups like Catholics for [a Free] Choice, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and the Interfaith Alliance claim that there is no religious “consensus” on abortion.  As usual, they are dead wrong.  In 2012 in the USA, pro‑life churches had a combined membership of 133.9 million people, and pro‑abortion churches had a combined membership of only 16.0 million.  This is a membership ratio of 8.4 to 1, a strong consensus by any measure.

We also hear a lot about the “priest shortage” in the United States.  Abortion directly contributes to this problem by killing future religious.  Two cardinals, 68 archbishops and bishops, 16 abbots, 6,000 priests, 8,000 religious sisters, 2,700 permanent deacons, and 700 religious brothers have been killed by abortion since 1967.  This means that, every week, an average of eight future priests, sisters, deacons and brothers are thrown into dumpsters behind abortion clinics around the nation.  Meanwhile, Call to Action and its fellow dissenting organizations approve of this slaughter under the pretense of “freedom of choice.”6

It is curious indeed that the dissenters, who complain about the priest shortage louder than anyone else and demand women and married priests be allowed to make up the difference, are among the first and loudest to defend abortion ― which is helping to cause the problem in the first place!

As of 2013, there were 6.54 million Jews in the United States, the largest population of Jews in the world.  The worldwide population of Jews is 13 million, which means that they have not yet recovered their pre-Holocaust population of 18 million.

And now, it looks as if they never will, largely thanks to abortion in the U.S.  In our country, the percentage of Jews was 4% of the population in 1945 and is now only 2.1% due to an extremely low birthrate and pervasive intermarriage with Gentiles.  More than half of the Jews who married during the 1980s married non‑Jews, and only about one‑fourth of these couples raise their children to be Jewish.7  If this trend continues, Judaism may well become extinct in the United States by the dawn of the next century.

In short, pro-life religious institutions are growing rapidly while pro-abortion institutions are dying out.

pro life

The Death of Abortion in the U.S.

The only positive aspect of birth limitation through abortion and contraception is that it is a self-correcting evil.  Those people, social groups, nations and even continents that practice it tend to die out over time.  Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, Lothrop Stoddard and their fellow eugenicists fretted constantly over “dysgenic genes” gaining ascendency in their time.

Speaking of Sanger, her grandson Alexander recently conducted a tour of college campuses and received an enthusiastic welcome ― but not the kind he had expected.  He found that pro-choice college groups are rare, but every single college he visited had a large number of pro-life women willing to confront him.  He said:

“I’ve seen the numbers and I find them unbelievably shocking.  Isn’t it obvious that young women have to be at the forefront of fighting for their reproductive rights because they’re the ones who need them?  It’s not just the numbers that are down among pro-choice women, it’s the enthusiasm.”

Sanger and other leaders of the “pro-choice” movement speculate endlessly why this is so.  They claim it’s because the pro-life movement has “re-invented itself” and has produced more persuasive propaganda.  Or perhaps it is because of the wide publication of fetal sonography images.  Or possibly it is because young people are naïve or, as Francis Kissling so patronizingly puts it, “It’s very easy for young people to romanticize life.”  Or because of “a new reverence for motherhood.”  And, of course, it might be because “they’ve never lived through the sordid conditions of back-alley abortions, the deaths from botched procedures, the desperation of a woman trapped by her own changing body.”8

The pro-abortion leaders are not just whistling past the graveyard, they are sprinting past it with air horns blasting in both hands.  Not one of them is willing to admit that they themselves are the cause ― “pro-choice” women abort their children and pro-life women do not.

The population of this country, especially young people, is becoming more pro-life every year.  Forty-seven percent of people aged 18-34 said that they were pro-life ten years ago; that number is now 54% ― a gain of 7%.  In fact, the only one of the nineteen measured demographics that was more “pro-choice” over this period were atheists ― and by only 1%.  Overall, the percentage of the population that calls itself “pro-choice” has plunged from 56% in 1996 to 41% now, and pro-lifers have increased from 33% to 50%.9

In other words, the pro-abortion movement carries within itself the seeds of its own inevitable destruction.

 

Endnotes

  1. For calculations and references, e-mail Brian Clowes at bclowes@hli.org and ask for Excel spreadsheet F-19-01.XLS, “The Dead States.”
  2. For calculations and references, e-mail Brian Clowes at bclowes@hli.org and ask for Excel spreadsheet F-20-01.XLS, “Who has the United States Lost to Abortion?”
  3. For calculations and references, e-mail Brian Clowes at bclowes@hli.org and ask for Excel spreadsheet F-20-04.XLS, “Historical and Projected Age Distribution of the United States Population, 1950-2050, With and Without Legalized Abortion, and Worker:Retiree Ratios in Both Cases.”
  4. David C. John. “Social Security Finances Significantly Worse, Says 2012 Trustees Report.”  Heritage Foundation Issue Brief #3577, April 23, 2012.
  5. For calculations and references, e-mail Brian Clowes at bclowes@hli.org and ask for Excel spreadsheet F-19-06.XLS, “Analysis of United States Abortion Statistics, 1967-2012.”
  6. For calculations and references, e-mail Brian Clowes at bclowes@hli.org and ask for Excel spreadsheet CATHABOR.XLS, “Who has the Catholic Church in the United States Lost to Abortion?”
  7. These figures are from a report entitled “State of the Jewish World” issued at the January 1996 annual convention of the World Jewish Congress in Jerusalem, as described in “Jewish Populations Decline.” The Washington Post, January 27, 1996.
  8. Susan Dominus. “The Mysterious Disappearance of Young Pro-Choice Women.”  Glamour Magazine, August 2005.
  9. Gallup. “Trends in “Pro-Choice” Views on Abortion among S. Demographic Groups ― by Time Period.”  “In U.S., Nonreligious, Postgrads Are Highly “Pro-Choice”.”  May 29, 2012, at https://www.gallup.com/poll/154946/Non-Christians-Postgrads-Highly-Pro-Choice.aspx.

About the Author:

Avatar

4 Comments

  1. Avatar
    Brigid Ayer July 6, 2019 at 6:23 PM - Reply

    Interesting.

    • Avatar
      Jackson Flowers September 18, 2019 at 2:27 PM - Reply

      cool

  2. Avatar
    Matteo September 26, 2019 at 11:30 PM - Reply

    When was this published?

    • Avatar
      HLI Staff September 27, 2019 at 11:54 AM - Reply

      This resource was published June 7, 2017.

Leave A Comment