Jonathan Gruber Argued Abortion is an Economic Benefit

Jonathan Gruber, one of the "architects" involved in the initial Obama.Care legislation efforts, apparently helped write a paper in 1997 about the economic "advantages" of abortion in general.

Gruber was the center of attraction for comments he made about voters being stupid.

This exposure is extremely controversial and implicative.

Read for yourselves and comment.

Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Argued Abortion is an Economic Benefit

In case we needed another reason to be frustrated with Jonathan Gruber, America’s most infamous architect who insulted our intelligence, he also once argued that abortion has helped improve our nation’s economy and social environment.

In a paper he helped write in May 1997 for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Gruber and two fellow writers suggested that abortion has helped save the nation money and social woes. Here is one of their must infuriating excerpts:

very controversial ...

Our results suggest that the marginal children who were not born as a result of abortion legalization would have systematically been born into worse circumstances had the pregnancies not been terminated: they would have been 70% more likely to live in a single parent household, 40% more likely to live in poverty, 35% more likely to die during the first year of life, and 50% more likely to be in a household collecting welfare.

The last of these finding implies that the selection effects operating through the legalization of abortion saved the government over $14 billion in welfare payments through the year 1994.

link to the pdf "paper"...
The Paper

a reply to: xuenchen

There are those that don't like what he says but sometimes the truth hurts.

Just because there are those who don't like hearing the truth doesn't mean he should lie to make them feel better.

a reply to: Grimpachi

You could be right.

Maybe it is all about money afterall.

a reply to: xuenchen

Well it probably is about the money when it is a paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Can't wait to see this guy on the Hill this week.

He could blow the lid off this Healthcare scam.

We just need a government panel to decide which economic classes of people should be allowed to have children.... for the good of the economy....you know.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Can't wait to see this guy on the Hill this week.

He could blow the lid off this Healthcare scam.

Oh don't we wish!!

Some of the elitist are into 'depopulation'...maybe he's one of them

There is a simple fact here. Children cost money. Unwanted children cost money. Aborting unwanted children saves money.

That may seem callous to some, but it's a simple truth. Make abortion illegal and it will be an additional strain on an already strained economy, not to mention a additional financial, emotional and physical strain on the individuals who, for whatever reason, are not ready or willing to have kids.

It's not "all about money" or about "allowing certain people to have children" or "depopulation". That's all hyperbole. It's a simple fact. Children cost money. Aborting unwanted children saves money, in addition to having other benefits.

a reply to: FlyersFan


This idea about the nuclear family, 2 kids tops, and adjusting that with abortion if necessary to be very strange and unnatural.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Of course, that ignores the emotional impact of abortion

Many actions in life have an emotional impact. Getting divorced, having children, breaking up with a boyfriend, joining the military, etc. However, all of these are perfectly legal, as we are well-equipped to deal with emotional impacts. We don't need the government making sure we don't suffer with "emotional impacts" in our lives.

or the fact that it is considered to be black genocide by many.

If blacks were forced into abortion clinics and forced to have abortions, then that would be black genocide. That emotionally-charged phrase is mostly uttered by people who want abortion to be illegal. It's simply not true.

And it ignores that Margaret Sanger was a horrid racist.

That's irrelevant. The birth control organizations she established evolved into what is Planned Parenthood today. It doesn't follow that Planned Parenthood carries forth her racist views. Many people of her time held similar racist views that have evolved over time. The fact that she was considered racist is used to wrongly criticize today's Planned Parenthood. If people want to claim that Planned Parenthood is racist, they need to find proof of racist behavior TODAY, not attempt to link back to Sanger and her views of the 1920s.

That's like suggesting that the US government supports slavery because the founding fathers did...

a reply to: xuenchen

Well of course he did.


Nothing should surprise anyone about this POS.

I can't wait to see what else is there is on this jackass.

a reply to: xuenchen

Economics deals more with the reality of a financial situation than the emotional aspects of the people involved.

It would be better to keep the two as separate as possible in any discussion.

a reply to: xuenchen
Here's a read for you. Unfortunatley, it is non-partisan.
Freakonomics

a reply to: xuenchen

Truth hurts, doesn't make it less true. Those babies being born WOULD have been a drain on our society and economy, whether you like it or not. Your article is an emotional appeal coupled with a false equivalence to character assassinate someone who made some unemotional observations about abortion. Fallacy trifecta.

originally posted by: macman
Well of course he did.

Nothing should surprise anyone about this POS.

I can't wait to see what else is there is on this jackass.

Is it true that you disagree with Mr. Gruber's writings?:

Our estimates imply that the marginal child who was not born due to legalization would have been 70% more likely to live in a single parent family, 40% more likely to live in poverty, 50% more likely to receive welfare, and 35% more likely to die as an infant. These selection effects imply that the legalization of abortion saved the government over $14 billion in welfare expenditures through 1994.

And is he a POS and a jackass because he tells the truth? Or is your problem with him that he is in some way affiliated with the current president?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Killing an innocent is the issue.

The fact that he lies and distorts for the Fed Govt, while being paid via tax dollars is a separate issue.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

Truth hurts, doesn't make it less true. Those babies being born WOULD have been a drain on our society and economy, whether you like it or not. Your article is an emotional appeal coupled with a false equivalence to character assassinate someone who made some unemotional observations about abortion. Fallacy trifecta.

Fu*k our society and economy then. Let it burn.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Apparently the argument is that abortion is wrong, but it is the mother's fault for using welfare and being a drain on the state when she keeps the child. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

a reply to: Logarock

All to save one more child? You do know that even with abortion being legal, that infant mortality rates are at an all time low. That means that before the modern age, more infants were dying than they are today. Meaning that even with abortion, more babies are living than ever before. So if society crashes and burns, expect the infant mortality rate to go back up. This means more babies end up dying overall. It helps to consider the cause and effect of your statements before saying them, though I understand the appeal of letting your emotions dictate your decisions. It's easier that way, less thinking involved.