That’s why it’s critical that both of our main political parties be challenged to create true family-friendly/child-friendly economic policies going forward. One suspects that the companies that are so ready to devote such economic “generosity” to terminating pregnancies (i.e., killing babies in the womb) would vehemently protest if they were required to cover maternity care with the same liberality in order to create a truly equal “choice” environment. No one, of course, lays out the truth in its bare-naked obscenity: it is markedly cheaper for a company to abort babies than to provide maternity and subsequent child healthcare, along with the immediate parental and long-term sick leave, annual leave, school leave, and schedule accommodation that follow from having babies.Ībortion-funding firms will undoubtedly insist their policies are driven by their “commitment to choice,” without allowing it to be seen that their bottom lines are likely more friendly to certain “choices.” That claim, of course, collides directly with the mythology of abortion as “health care.” But when health is defined even more expansively as something as vague and subject to manipulation as “financial health,” the alleged “benefits” of abortion can be rationalized by almost anything. New Jersey’s Governor Phil Murphy and California’s Governor Gavin Newsom have even been touting their states as destinations for businesses to relocate to, not because of their oppressive tax structures but because both had “codified” abortion-on-demand through birth.Ī standard trope of pro-abortionists is that abortion-on-demand is essential to the advancement of women because, bereft of “reproductive health care and control,” females are inherently disadvantaged economically. Not a few corporations pressured state legislatures against considering pro-life legislation. Since Dobbs, leading companies have tripped all over each other to announce that they would happily fund their employees’ abortions, even to pay for travel to states allowing prenatal killing if it were banned where they were located. In the wake of Dobbs, however, expect at least part of the debate to shift from politics to economics, as certain pro-abortion actors leverage financial incentives to tilt the debate in a capitalist society that, occasionally, likes to appeal to “social justice.” Until now, the abortion debate has largely been a political one, played out in terms of legality in the legislatures and – for almost fifty years – the courts. As Catholics in the United States mark Labor Day, two key elements of Catholic social thought deserve our attention: the intersection between the right to life and work.
0 kommentar(er)
