Florida House: No Public Money for Abortions. Farewell, Low Crime Rate!

2128618333_e09b4267ec.jpg
Today, two stories appeared in Floridian media outlets that didn't seem to have much to do with each other but did.

The first: "Florida's Crime Rate the Lowest in 40 Years." The title is a bit misleading -- Florida didn't begin tracking crime rates until 40 years ago, so our historic streak of lawfulness may be more impressive than we think. What we do know is this: According to Tampa Bay Online, in 1971, Florida suffered 5,700 crimes per 100,000 people. Now, we're down to 4,500 in 100,000. Not bad.

The other story was this: "Florida House passes resolution to ban public funding for abortions." The title refers to CS/HJR 1179, which will put to popular vote an amendment to the state Constitution prohibiting the use of state money to purchase health insurance that provides abortions, save in cases of rape, incest, or mortal endangerment of the prospective mother. That means no abortions through Medicaid.

That these stories appeared in the same publications on the same day is queasily ironic. Unfashionable as it is to say in our Roe v. Wade-hating era, our current low-crime clime was largely created by easy access to abortions.

So suggests the ever-more-solid consensus in the sociological sciences, which has been growing since at least 1966 and entered the mainstream in 2001, with the publication of Donahue and Levitt's "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime." (This paper ultimately became the centerpiece of the bestseller Freakonomics.) The reasoning goes like this: Unwanted pregnancies lead to unwanted children, and unwanted children often receive indifferent or ineffective parenting. Indifferent and ineffective parenting often creates maladjusted citizens, and the odds are pretty damned good that the guy who just jacked your car is a maladjusted citizen.

Of course, maladjusted citizens are still citizens, which is why abortions' most ardent opponents have struggled so valiantly to create a welfare state of sufficient size to tend to these reproductive castoffs. It is also why they have endeavored to ensure that Florida families of all sexual orientations are able to adopt children. Because they understand, deep in their Christian hearts, the enormous burden they shoulder when they seek to prevent impoverished women from controlling their reproductive destinies. And they would never risk moral or intellectual inconsistency when dealing with anything so precious as a life.
Follow The Juice on Facebook and on Twitter: @TheJuiceBPB.
My Voice Nation Help
3 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
JG
JG

The abortion-crime theory has been challenged.

http://www.slate.com/id/33569/...

http://www.isteve.com/abortion...

We can expect individuals who are generally in favor of abortion to side with the argument that strengthens their position (and vice versa).

Brandon K. Thorp
Brandon K. Thorp

You're absolutely right. Although I'm not completely pro-choice, except when it comes to first-trimester fetuses. I'm promulgating the abortion-crime decrease link because it's elegant, logical, and more convincing than the criticisms that have been published. (Note: A lot of the research done in this field was conducted *after* the Slate article you link to.)

- BKT

David Schmidt
David Schmidt

"our current low-crime clime was largely created by easy access to abortions"

This is not a fact and stating it as one is irresponsible.

Russia has a sky high abortion rate and high crime.Ireland does have abortion and they have a lower violent crime rate than we do.

States like California and New York have some of the biggest taxpayer support for abortion and they have crimes rates higher than the national average

Also why was violent crime in the US lower in 1960 than now? The rate of abortion in 1960 and the years previous was less than 10% of what it is now.

Has anyone considered the impact the security cameras and technology has had on reducing crime?

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...