Torres A, Donovan P, Dittes N, Forrest J D
Fam Plann Perspect. 1986 May-Jun;18(3):111-8.
In state referenda to end public funding of abortions for poor women, one of the most successful tactics of abortion foes has been to charge that abortion funding increases the burden on taxpayers. A state-by-state analysis by The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) shows that the opposite is the case. For every tax dollar spent to pay for abortions for poor women, about four dollars is saved in public medical and welfare expenditures. The savings are in public expenditures that otherwise would have to be incurred because of the babies that poor women would have borne. On the basis of earlier research, it was assumed that 20 percent of Medicaid-eligible women who could not obtain abortions would give birth. Public costs examined in the AGI analysis include Medicaid expenditures for prenatal care, delivery and postnatal care for the mother, and for newborn care, neonatal intensive care and pediatric care for the child for the first two years of life; as well as expenditures for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), food stamps and the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) during those first two years. The benefit-to-cost ratio varies from about 9:1 in Massachusetts to 2:1 in Hawaii and Pennsylvania. The net savings for the nation as a whole over a two-year period if abortions were publicly funded in every state would total at least $339.6 million.
在一些州举行的关于终止为贫困妇女提供堕胎公共资金的公民投票中,堕胎反对者最成功的策略之一就是指责为堕胎提供资金会增加纳税人的负担。艾伦·古特马赫研究所(AGI)进行的一项逐州分析表明情况恰恰相反。每花费一美元税收用于为贫困妇女支付堕胎费用,在公共医疗和福利支出方面大约可节省四美元。这些节省来自于若贫困妇女生育原本将产生的公共支出。根据早期研究,假定20%符合医疗补助条件但无法堕胎的妇女会生育。AGI分析中所考察的公共成本包括医疗补助用于母亲产前护理、分娩和产后护理以及婴儿头两年的新生儿护理、新生儿重症监护和儿科护理的支出;还有头两年对有受抚养子女家庭的援助(AFDC)、食品券以及妇女、婴儿和儿童特别补充食品计划(WIC)的支出。效益成本比从马萨诸塞州的约9:1到夏威夷和宾夕法尼亚州的2:1不等。如果每个州都为堕胎提供公共资金,那么在两年时间里整个国家的净节省至少将达到3.396亿美元。