As Gov. Jay Nixon ponders whether to veto two anti-abortion bills on his desk that could have an effect on about 60 women a year facing heart-breaking circumstances, he should ask himself the $11 billion question:
Why is Missouri still passing laws intended to create legal obstacles to a few abortions instead of doing something to reduce unintended pregnancies and save real lives?
A recent report from the Brookings Institution lays out the problem in stark terms: Unintended pregnancies cost the nation about $11 billion in health care costs per year. The smallest part of this bill is related to abortions sought to end unintended pregnancies. Far more is spent on state- and federally subsidized health care for poor women who become pregnant and the long-term costs of caring for the children they bear.
Even at $11 billion a year, cost is not the issue. If this state and the nation got serious about reducing unintended pregnancies, over generations, hundreds of thousands of abortions would never be performed.
This cause, if taken up by lawmakers, would be one of the most pro-life, fiscally responsible actions they could take.
They'd rather posture. And that brings us back to the two anti-abortion bills (Senate Bill 65 by Sen. Rob Mayer, R-Dexter, and House Bill 213, by Rep. Tim Jones, R-Eureka) passed by the Legislature this year. Why are there two identical bills? So both Mr. Mayer and Mr. Jones can claim credit.
Supporters argued that the bills ban late-term abortions, which sounds like a reasonable goal. But that's not what the bills do. They change the definition of viability and criminalize doctors who might perform abortions after not properly documenting the new, less medically specific, definition of viability.
The result could be a slight reduction from the 63 late-term abortions that occurred in Missouri last year. Maybe.
But how does that stack up to the lives that could be saved by stopping the pregnancies before they begin? That could happen if the state were to educate more teenagers, provide contraception and increase spending on family planning.
Each year as Missouri lawmakers debate abortion bills, various Democrats offer amendments to help focus on the more serious of the two problems. And each year, the response is the same. The Legislature refuses to deal with unintended pregnancies in any responsible fashion.
That's because passing abortion bills in Missouri is more about creating legal challenges to Roe v. Wade than it is saving lives.
If good public policy were the goal, lawmakers would tackle the $11 billion question, even as they played their political games and launched attacks on the one agency — Planned Parenthood — that is doing the most to implement sound family-planning policies in this nation.
The Illinois Senate this week took a step in the right direction, narrowly passing a bill that would require sex education classes in grades six to 12 to discuss "age appropriate" and "medically accurate" information about abstinence and contraception. That's a real step toward reducing unplanned pregnancies and abortions. The Illinois House should pass the bill and send it to Gov. Pat Quinn, who should sign it.
In Missouri, Mr. Nixon probably will let the anti-abortion bill become law, as his veto would be overridden easily. A real leader would take a stand and urge Missouri lawmakers to focus on the more significant issue.
Put politics aside and help poor Missouri women and teenage girls avoid having to confront the question of abortion. Save lives. Cut costs. Get serious.
