Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and President Joe Biden both wish to reduce inflation, prevent (or cure) a recession, and grow the economy.
Both receive the advice of top, uh, well-paid economists. Yet both favor precisely the opposite policies.
Powell admitted he doesn’t have the right tool but insists on continuing with the wrong tool.
Powell recently said, “I do not think the U.S. is currently in a recession, and the reason is there are too many areas of the economy that are performing too well. This is a very strong labor market … it doesn’t make sense that the economy would be in a recession with this kind of thing happening.”
Translation: He doesn’t understand what’s happening but denies it’s a recession.
Yet he raised interest rates by 0.75 percentage points for a second consecutive time to “cool” the economy.
By “cool,” he means the economy is growing too fast, which causes inflation.
He wishes to slow economic growth, which in his opinion, will cure inflation but not cause the recession he denies already is happening. Apparently, Powell thinks the opposite of “inflation” is “recession.” But the two can occur together in what’s called “stagflation.”
Prices are a function of supply and demand.Inflation occurs when there is an imbalance: Too little supply to meet the demand. Today’s inflation, and indeed all inflations through history, are not caused by demand growth but by supply shrinkage.
Historically, demand increases are not sudden, but supply decreases can come overnight. So markets can adjust to the former but struggle to adapt to the latter.
Today, we have the confluence of many shortages: Oil (energy), food, transportation, computer chips, autos, lumber, appliances, homes, labor, and many items related to the basic shortages. In terms of inflation, the single most crucial shortage is the oil (energy) shortage.
Since the cause of inflation is shortages, curing inflation requires curing shortages.
But Powell’s interest rate increases do not address shortages. They do not increase supply. Interest rate increases reduce both supply and demand. They reduce supply by making borrowing by manufacturers more expensive. They reduce demand by making borrowing by consumers more expensive.
Powell hopes that his rate increases will cut demand more than supply. He has no way to know or control whether this will happen. It’s just a hope.
But Jerome, be careful what you hope for; cutting demand impoverishes the supplier section, which leads to a recession.
To quote the Wall Street Journal:
Inflation is a global phenomenon inflicting significant financial pain on families everywhere. Rising costs are an urgent problem, and interest rates play a key role in maintaining price stability.
But urgency is no excuse for doubling down on a dangerous treatment.
As with any illness, the right medicine starts with the right diagnosis.
Unfortunately, the Fed has seized on aggressive rate hikes—a big dose of the only medicine at its disposal—even though they are largely ineffectiveagainst many of the underlying causes of this inflationary spike.
It’s a global problem, as is COVID, but the U.S. can solve this problem within our borders if we use the correct solutions.
As we often have said, the Fed has been tasked with a problem for which it has no tools — shortages of crucial goods and services. Only Congress and the President have the tools to cure shortages.
Mr. Powell has acknowledged this. He noted that elevated interest rates likely wouldn’t bring down gasoline or food prices. “There are many things we can’t affect,” he admitted —namely, the key causes of today’s inflation.
This is a monumental admission. The man tasked with curing inflation has admitted he doesn’t have the tool to do the job. Still, he persists in using that one tool that will lead to recession.
Higher interest rates won’t end skyrocketing energy prices caused by Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine. They won’t fix supply chains still reeling from the pandemic.
And they won’t break up the corporate monopolies that Mr. Powell admitted in January could be “raising prices because they can.”
If the Fed’s interest-rate hikes won’t address many causes of today’s inflation, it’s worth asking: What would they do?
When the Fed raises interest rates, increasing the cost of borrowing money, it becomes more expensive for businesses to invest in their operations.
As a result, employers will slow hiring, cut hours and fire workers, leaving families with less money. In the bloodless language of economists, that’s referred to as “dampening demand.”
It also is referred to as “causing a recession.”
But make no mistake: If the Fed cuts too much or too abruptly, the resulting recession will leave millions of people—disproportionately lower-wage workers and workers of color—with smaller paychecks or no paycheck at all.
But that is the whole plan. Make lower-wage workers and workers of color pay to stop inflation. The general sends the poor to the front, not caring how many die.
Mr. Powell has even conceded that the Fed’s actions may lead to a downturn, saying recession “is not our intended outcome at all, but it’s certainly a possibility.”
If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Who cares whether it works or not?
Despite these warnings, the Fed chairman still has cheerleaders for his rate-hiking approach. Chief among them is Larry Summers. “We need five years of unemployment above 5% to contain inflation—in other words, we need two years of 7.5% unemployment or five years of 6% unemployment or one year of 10% unemployment,” the former Treasury secretary recently told the London School of Economics.
You read that correctly: 10% unemployment. This is the comment of someone who has never worried about where his next paycheck will come from.
What can I say about Larry Summers that I haven’t said here, here, here, here,here, and here? The man has my admiration for his ability to fail into better jobs repeatedly.
Summers is a magical example of the Peter Principle: Being promoted to his level of incompetency is his sole success. What next, Larry? Kill the elderly to cut Social Security costs?
If Messrs. Powell and Summers have their way, the resulting recession will be brutal.
As in past downturns, Republicans in Congress will press for austerity—tax cuts for giant corporations and the rich, weaker regulation on big businesses, and little economic support for the most vulnerable.
Democrats should be ready to reject the Republican playbook and prepared to help working families survive.
Well, maybe, just maybe, the Dems are listening, especially if Sen. Joe Manchin remembers he’s a Democrat.
From Axios:
President Biden has slowly but substantially re-engineered significant parts of the American economy — achievements obscured by COVID, inflation and broad disenchantment. e domestic semiconductor industry, and accelerated U.S. viral research and vaccine production capabilities.
He might be on the cusp of the biggest domestic clean-energy plan in U.S. history.
Interestingly, it all has an America First twist— drilling more oilhere … fixing infrastructure here … moving chip-making here … increasing manufacturing jobs here … creating vaccines here.
The $280 billion CHIPS and Science Act provides grants, tax credits and other incentives to manufacture computer chips in the U.S. The White House says it’ll eventually lower the price of cars, dishwashers and computers.
Biden could get another huge win with the climate plan secretly negotiated by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Joe Manchin. The package would provide new tax credits for buying EVs — plus rebates for buying efficient appliances and weatherizing homes, and tax credits for heat pumps and rooftop solar panels.
Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructurebill to rebuild roads, bridges and rail is one of the biggest packages signed by a president ever.
The Biden administration said it’ll pour $3 billion into the vaccine supply chain, creating thousands of U.S. jobs, and helping prepare for future threats.
Electric-vehicle manufacturing is growing in the U.S., with GM and Ford announcing plans for massive vehicle and battery plants across the Midwest and Appalachia. Fun fact: GM’s Mary Barra, who also chairs the Business Roundtable, is the CEO this White House has hosted most often.
These developments required bipartisanship (remember that?) — something Biden promised but gets little credit for, since these thin bands of Republican support look nothing like traditional bipartisanship.
Not only did Biden land these economic measures and a gun-control bill, but same-sex marriage protection is getting close — baby steps, but in a once unthinkable direction.
Biden has only a bare 50-50 Senate “majority” (depending on Sens. Manchin and Sinema). Even then, he is limited by reconciliationto avoid a purely political GOP. It has no ideas for anything but will filibuster everything the Dems submit.
Somehow, Biden managed to accomplish far more than Trump ever dreamed of. This is partly because Trump is an incompetent, corrupt psychopath, who cares only about himself, and the GOP is a crooked election machine.
But much credit belongs to “weak, timid” Biden, who plays the long game, insults no one, closes no doors, knows how to negotiate, and doesn’t whine about everyone else being at fault.
Whereas Trump split his time evenly among golf, tweeting insults, and self-aggrandizement, Biden moved slowly, quietly, but surely to accomplish, accomplish, accomplish.
Now, if only Powell would stand up and say, “I don’t have the right tool. Interest rates won’t cure shortages. Congress must pass spending bills to end key scarcities. That would end inflation and enrich the economy. And the people would thrive.”
That bit of honesty would send more shock waves through Congress than the attempted coup did.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary SovereigntyTwitter: @rodgermitchellSearch #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
……………………………………………………………………..
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.
Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps: Ten Steps To Prosperity:
No problem. You haven’t hit the ground yet, so we won’t call it a “fall.” We’ll say it’s a step in the plan.
Today, Powell and his cronies debate whether to call where we are “a recession.” He’s worried about semantics as the economy tanks.
Please let me know if there is a more damaging, less effective way to fight inflation than what Powell now is doing.
Consider this: What action should the government take when there is a food shortage, causing food prices to rise?
Government price controls over food? Or,
Reduce federal benefits to the poor, so they will buy less food, thus curing the shortage. Also, reduce farm aid, so there will be even less food produced? Or,
Fund federal aid to farmers so they can produce more food and give people money so they can buy food?
Number 1 never works. It always leads to more shortages and a reduction in Research and Development, forcing even more shortages.
A classic example is rent controls, which reduce the number of new apartments and cause existing apartments to fall into neglect.
Yet politicians without knowledge of history or economics often turn to price controls.
Number 2 leads to recessions and depressions. Today, we have shortages of oil, food, housing, computer chips, and labor, and these shortages are causing prices to rise, what we call “inflation.” All those who are not rich starve.
Amazingly, the Federal Reserve has chosen solution #2. Raising interest rates makes many goods and services even less affordable, starving the poor and middle classes to cure inflation. Higher interest rates also make increased production more difficult, exacerbating shortages.
The federal government should provide aid to industries whose products are in short supply and to consumers so they can afford those products. Approach #3 is the only correct approach. Cure the shortages, and you cure the inflation.
Shortage of food: Federal aid to farmers. Education. Equipment. Insurance. Tax breaks.
Shortage of oil: Aid to drillers. Aid to electric car/truck makers. Support for R&D alternative energy
Shortage of labor: Eliminate FICA. Reduce tax rates on salaries. Provide Medicare for All.
Shortage of lumber: Aid growers. R&D for alternatives. Tax breaks for alternatives
Housing shortage: Aid home & apartment builders. Cut interest rates. Tax breaks for renters.
Powell: If she lives, I cured her. If she dies, I did everything I could.
Notice how curing inflation, i.e., fixing shortages, requires morefederal spending, not less.
Of course, the expenditures must be targeted toward eliminating the scarcities.
Powell’s interest rate increases only make reducing shortages more difficult.
Those higher rates impoverish consumers and hinder the ability of suppliers to produce.
Powell has found the ultimate way to increase shortages, worsen inflation, and cause a recession.
In effect, Powell is applying leeches to cure anemia.
Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps: Ten Steps To Prosperity:
What process should HHS use to set the price for a drug?
Will the new system set prices only for a limited number of high-cost drugs that lack therapeutic alternatives or more broadly by including drugs that compete with other medicines?
Does the specified price represent the actual price for all sales of a drug, or is it a “ceiling” price, with payers retaining the ability to negotiate lower prices?
Will drug prices set by HHS apply to a narrow or broad population (e.g., only Medicare Part B or Part D beneficiaries or all patients, regardless of their insurance coverage)?
How would HHS assess and incorporate the value of a drug when establishing its acceptable price?
How should HHS select drugs for lowered prices?
The answers are complex, filled with “It depends” and “Maybes.”
The truth is we already havequite a bit of federal price controls, some helpful, some not. The question arises because many people now favor government negotiation of pharmaceutical prices.
Consider this brief video. It shows a woman weeping. She was suffering because the cost of a lifesaving drug was beyond her ability to pay.
In response to many thousands of similar, heart-rending stories:
U.S. Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Mark R. Warner (D-VA) reintroduced legislation to help lower the costs of needed medical care and prescription drugs for children.
The Fair Drug Prices for Kids Actwould give states the ability to purchase prescription drugs at the lowest price possible, reducing the cost of prescription drugs for children who receive coverage through the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and generatingimmediate savings for states and the federal government.
Actually, it’s not “the lowest price possible.” It’s the lowest price being offered, anywhere. And it’s state governments that would negotiate.
But that is a digression from our real question. Should the federal government determine prices for pharmaceuticals?
Senior living: Medicare could get to negotiate drug prices under Democratic billBy KAISER HEALTH NEWS |PUBLISHED: July 25, 2022Democratic senators recently took a formal step toward reviving President Joe Biden’s economic agenda, starting with a measure to let Medicare negotiate prices with drugmakers and to curb rising drug costs more broadly.
A similar proposal died in December when Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., decided to oppose Biden’s $1.9 trillion Build Back Better bill, which also included provisions allowing for Medicare drug negotiations.
Reining in drug costs has long been wildly popular with the public, with more than 80% of Americans supporting steps such as allowing Medicare to negotiate and placing caps on drug price inflation.
The bill revealed in early July would do both. It would also limit annual out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries to $2,000, make vaccines free for people on Medicare and provide additional help for lower-income seniors to afford their drugs.
The heart of the bill is the negotiation provisions.
Under the legislation, Medicare could start the new pricing procedures next year, with the secretary of Health and Human Services identifying up to 10 drugs subject to bargaining. The resulting prices would go into effect in 2026. As many as 10 additional drugs would follow by 2029.
The use of the word “negotiate,” when talking about the federal government, is ludicrous if one side has all the power.
The federal government arbitrarily can set an unprofitable price for any drug. But, that drug won’t be sold, which is unacceptable to the public or drug companies.
The populace, which has a limited amount of money available for any spending, always wants, often needs, feels it deserves, and usually will vote for, lower prices.
The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has an unlimitedamount of spending money.
With no more effort than to touch a computer key, it can pay the full, asking prices for any drugs, or it can set prices by law. Clearly, when people are made to suffer from high prices, market forces are not working.
So why not either:
Have the federal government pay the asking price for all drugs and offer them free to the people or,
Have the government set an “affordable” price for all drugs, despite what the drugmakers want.
Solution #1 has problems: Healthcare providers, including pharma makers, would jack up prices to astronomical levels, and simply feed off the government’s trough.
There would be no profit motive for the Research & Development of new drugs, because the current drugs would provide infinite profits.
Government price-setting is a risky business. It often has the opposite results from what one would hope. Rent controls are a perfect example.
Limit rents, and landlords will refuse to maintain or upgrade apartments.
Costly, time-consuming, not itself profitable.
Limit profits, and fewer people will become doctors; fewer hospitals will upgrade ; fewer new drugs will be created; fewer patients will be served.
Solution #2 also has problems. It too would not provide the profits needed for the Research & Development of new drugs, especially drugs for rare diseases and low-profit categories (anti-biotics, for example).
Sincethe Orphan Drug Actwas signed into law in 1983, the FDA has approved hundreds of drugs for rare diseases, but most rare diseases do not have FDA-approved treatments.
The FDA works with many people and groups, such as patients, caregivers, and drug and device manufactures, to support rare disease product development.
In one sense, Medicare already does #2.
Without negotiation, it sets the healthcare prices it is willing to pay, on a take-it or leave-it basis with healthcare practitioners.
That policy has generated the “concierge doctor” system. For annual fees, primary care (usually) doctors can limit their practices to a manageable 600-800 patients, allowing plenty of time to devote to each patient.
This compares with the more typical 2500+ patient load, characterized by quick, robotic diagnoses, treatments, then on-to-the-next.
There is a commonality to the problem of all federal price setting. It doesn’t pay for improvements.
When rents are controlled, landlords don’t maintain or upgrade. When doctor’s fees are controlled, doctors are not rewarded for being better doctors. They are not rewarded for doing the daily “R&D” to keep themselves up to date with the latest procedures. Nor are they rewarded for taking more time with patients.
When the primary reward is numbers sold — how many apartments, how many patients, how many sales — hospitals, convalescent homes, pharmaceutical companies, etc. are rewarded for more, but not for better.
Abortion has been much in the news lately, And everyone seems to have a different opinion.
Despite claims that abortion is murder, the abortion argument is not based on a moral issue. Nor is it a health issue. Nor is it a biological issue. Nor is it a logical or scientific issue. Nor is it a social issue.
The life importance of a sperm and egg, vs. an embryo vs. a fetus vs. a mother vs. a child is a digression from the real argument.
The heated battle over abortion rights fundamentally comes down to a religious issue. All discussion of which religion is right and which is wrong are exercises in futility. Are conservative and reform Jews right and Roman Catholics wrong? Are Hindus right and Unitarians wrong?
The questions are senseless, and the answers are equally senseless. They have been debated for thousands of years, and will be debated for thousands more.
Further, all people claiming membership in any one religion don’t think alike. Some Catholics support abortion; some Jews don’t.
The abortion debate is comparable to debates about which city is better or which college is better. Logic means nothing. Taking sides means everything.
Our religion bans all abortions. Yours doesn’t. We don’t care about your religion. Our religion rules.
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ”
But we face arguments about what “establishment” and “free exercise” mean.
Many of our ancestors came across an ocean to avoid the one-religion-for-all Church of England.
It was why our founders attempted to build a wall between the government and religion, the so-called “separation of church and state.”
Of late, the right-wing has narrowed that separation, and the overturning of Roe is just one of several recent decisions in that vein.
Any discussion of abortion involves four main questions:
I. What is abortion? II. When is abortion” III. How is abortion? IV. Why is abortion?
I. What is Abortion? There are many definitions:
Bing.com defines abortion: The deliberate terminationof a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy
British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS): Abortion is when a pregnancy is ended so that it doesn’t result in the birth of a child. Sometimes it is called ‘termination of pregnancy.
Harvard Medical School: Abortion is the removal of pregnancy tissue, products of conception or the fetus and placenta (afterbirth) from the uterus.
American Pregnancy Association: Abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus.
Wikipedia: The termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or “spontaneous abortion“; these occur in approximately 30% to 40% of pregnancies. When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently, “induced miscarriage.” The unmodified word abortion generally refers to an induced abortion.
Britannica:The expulsion of a fetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability (in human beings, usually about the 20th week of gestation).
Immediately, we see many differences in what people mean by “abortion.”
Is it the expulsion of a fetus? Is it the removal of an embryo? Can abortion happen even before an embryo is formed?
When drafting laws, specificity is necessary. There is a vast difference between an embryo and a fetus, or between expulsion and removal.
Birth is a highly complicated procedure that begins with all the preparations of the human male and female bodies, even prior to insemination.
Any interruption or change in these preparations can prevent a live birth, and be called an “abortion,” depending on one’s viewpoint. There are religions that consider contraceptives to be a form of abortion that should be prohibited.
Any law banning abortion should be clear.
To be illegal, must “abortion” be deliberate or can it be accidental?
What about a woman who takes any drug (alcohol included) or does any strenuous activity that results inan abortion? Has she broken a law?
Is it her purpose or her state of mind that is the deciding factor?
The law must take all these variables into consideration.
II. When is an abortion? Begin with the question, “What is pregnancy?”
Gestational age can be confusing. Most people think of pregnancy as lasting 9 months. And it’s true that you’re pregnant for about 9 months.
But because pregnancy is measured from the first day of your last menstrual period — about 3-4 weeks before you’re actually pregnant — a full-term pregnancy usually totals about 40 weeks from LMP — roughly 10 months.
This is important, because some abortion laws specify time periods when abortion is legal or illegal. Yet, there are significant differences among the various measurements of when pregnancy has begun.
In the first 2 weeks of your menstrual cycle. You have your period. About 2 weeks later, the egg that’s most mature is released from your ovary — this is called ovulation.
After it’s released, your egg travels down your fallopian tube toward your uterus. If the egg meets up with a sperm, they combine. This is called fertilization.
So far, we are up to 4 weeks into the pregnancy process and still no fetus.
The fertilized egg moves down your fallopian tube and divides into more and more cells. It reaches your uterus about 3–4 days after fertilization.
The dividing cells then form a ball that floats around in the uterus for about 2–3 days.
Georgia bans abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy.There is no agreement about when “pregnancy” begins. But under any circumstance, Georgia’s ban comes well before the existence of a fetus.
III. How is an abortion? There are two types of abortion: Medical and surgical.
In a first-trimester medical abortion, a patient usually begins by taking a mifepristone pill. The medicine, also known as RU-486 or the “abortion pill,” blocks the hormone progesterone, which stops the fetus from growing.
The second drug, misoprostol, is usually taken 24 to 48 hours later. It causes the uterus to contract and empty.
Seven states — Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Utah — require patients to be told that abortions by mifepristone can be reversed with doses of progesterone, despite a lack of scientific evidence.
At the end of the first trimester, the average fetus is about the size of an adult’s little finger.
A first-trimester surgical abortion is called vacuum or suction aspiration.
A suction device is used to empty the uterus in a procedure that can be done in five to 10 minutes.
A second-trimestersurgical abortion is called dilation and evacuation.
For this type of abortion, the process of dilating the cervix may need to begin the day before the procedure.
On the day of the procedure, a numbing agent may be given, or sedation may be offered. A health-care provider uses forceps and a suction device to remove the fetus and placenta.
The procedure itself usually takes between 10 and 30 minutes. It is done in a clinic or operating room.
Dilation and evacuation can generally be performed throughout the second trimester of pregnancy. It accounts for an estimated 95 percent of abortions performed in the second trimester in the United States.
A second-trimestermedical abortion is called an induction.
Medication is given to induce labor by causing the uterus to contract and expel the fetus and placenta.
Different medications can be used, including a combination of misoprostol and mifepristone, or misoprostol alone. In some cases, high-dose oxytocin is delivered through an IV.
The process can take 12 to 24 hours and generally occurs in a hospital.
Induction abortions mostly take place after 16 weeks and can be used throughout the second trimester.
Induction abortion is less common than dilation and evacuation, but one study found it is the primary method of termination in cases of fetal abnormalities in the late second trimester and early third trimester.
Third-trimester abortions are performed in only a handful of clinics and hospitals in the United States. Methods for third-trimester abortions vary based on the circumstances.
Confusion sometimes crops up over what is and is not abortion. Abortion is a medical intervention that ends a pregnancy.
Pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Methods used to prevent pregnancy before it occurs are called contraceptives.
The morning-after pill is an emergency contraceptive that primarily works by stopping the release of an egg from an ovary but may also prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.
It is taken orally. The over-the-counter version, sold under brand names including Plan B, is generally taken within three days of intercourse, and the prescription version, Ella, can be taken within five days of intercourse.
An intrauterine device (IUD) is a contraceptive that works mainly by reducing sperm’s ability to fertilize an egg.
There are two types: copper and hormonal. In copper IUDs, copper ions decrease sperm’s ability to move.
In hormonal IUDs, progestin thickens mucus in the uterus, making it harder for sperm to enter the uterus and reach an egg. A hormonal IUD may also prevent implantation.
An IUD is placed into the uterus by a health-care worker and can remain in place for five to 10 years, depending on the type.
IV. Why is an abortion?
A number of factorsmay lead a woman to decide that abortion is the best option in her circumstances.
Every woman’s reasons for abortion will be different, and it’s impossible to fully understand the circumstances each woman is facing that leads her to her abortion decision. However, here are some of the common reasons why women have abortions, according to a survey conducted by theGuttmacher Institute:
Social Reasons for Abortions: Almost always, women choose abortion in response to an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. Oftentimes, an unplanned pregnancy happens at a less-than-ideal time, and women may choose abortion for one (or more) of the following reasons:
A baby would have a drastic impact on their current life.
They are having relationship problems with the baby’s father.
They are done having children.
They are not ready to have a baby at their age or maturity level.
Financial Reasons for Abortion: Having a baby is expensive, and raising that baby to adulthood is even more expensive. In addition to the various medical costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth, it costs an average of $245,000 to raise a child to age 18.
They are unmarried and concerned about affording a baby on one income.
They are pursuing higher education (or planning to pursue higher education) and can’t afford the costs of raising a baby while being a full-time student.
They are unemployed.
They feel they can’t afford to adequately care for themselves and their children.
While social and financial concerns are the most common reasons why women have abortions, there are also some other, less common (but just as valid) reasons why a woman might choose abortion:
Pressure from others. Only 0.5 percent of women surveyed choose abortion because they feel pressured to do so by the baby’s father, their parents or other people in their lives.
Non-consensual sex. A woman may choose abortion if conception was the result of rape or sexual assault.
IN SUMMARY Abortion is argued on many levels: Moral, health, biological, medical, and scientific. There is no widespread agreement on such variables as:
What is abortion?
When is abortion?
Why is abortion?
How is abortion
The life importance of a sperm and egg, vs. an embryo vs. a fetus vs. a mother vs. a child vs, society is a digression from the real argument.
The heated battle over abortion rights fundamentally comes down to a religious issue.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary SovereigntyTwitter: @rodgermitchellSearch #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
……………………………………………………………………..
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.
Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps: Ten Steps To Prosperity:
Are conservative and reform Jews right and Roman Catholics wrong? Are Hindus right and Unitarians wrong?
The questions are senseless, and the answers are equally senseless. They have been debated for thousands of years, and will be debated for thousands more.
Further, all people claiming membership in any one religion don’t think alike. Some Catholics support abortion; some Jews don’t.
The abortion debate is comparable to debates about which city is better or which college is better. Logic means nothing. Taking sides means everything.
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 