I just got emailed an article from my bffs over at the Buckeye Institute.

Funny thing- the article actually provides one of the best arguments I’ve heard yet for convincing fiscal conservatives that their socially conservative pals are absolutely wrong on the issue of abortion rights in the US.

Not just that- but the information in the article actually seems to support government subsidies for abortion.

The article, written by Jennifer Roback Morse (aka ‘Your Coach for the Culture Wars’), reviews the findings of a report published by the Institute for American Values called “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing”.

Here’s what it says:

Family fragmentation (i.e. babies born to unwed mothers) costs U.S. taxpayers at least $112 billion each year, or over $1 trillion dollars per decade. This estimate includes the costs of federal, state, and local government programs and foregone tax revenues at all level of government…

Her interpretation: women need husbands to take care of them and their babies.

Which is a serious stretch given that she provides no proof that this might actually solve the problem.

My interpretation:

Women need readily available access to free abortion services. Which actually make a lot more sense since the fiscal benefit can be directly measured: Fewer unwed mothers = less money spent on social benefits.

So here’s my new argument to sway self-proclaimed ‘fiscal conservatives’ toward the idea abortion should be readily available and free…

The average cost of an abortion in the US is about $400. Around 1.2 million abortions were performed in the US last year. That’s a total cost of about $480 million.

Compare that to the $112 billion a year needed to support the babies born to unwed mothers (according to this study).

From a purely fiscal savings perspective, the government just made 111.5 billion dollars by investing $500 million.

Any questions?