Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Finally, the government might adopt a The second question for evaluating federal
population policy for explicitly eugenic sex policy is whether it has achieved its
reasons. That is, the government might goals. The answer to this question depends
claim for itself the responsibility to monitor on the policy goals of family planning. Keep
the health of the gene pool. If it takes up this in mind that some of the possible goals are
responsibility, then funding and promoting mutually contradictory. The birth rate is
contraception per se does not make sense. lower now than in 1970, so one might argue
The government really ought to encourage that the policy has met its “environmental”
people with desirable genes to reproduce, goal. But it is difficult to argue that the
while encouraging contraception for those government has achieved any eugenic goals
with genes deemed to be undesirable. Most or reduced any fiscal externalities. A larger
definitions of “desirable” genes include percentage of births are now to unmarried
some combination of intelligence, high women than ever before. Moreover, the
income-earning capacity, and social taxpayer cost of out-of-wedlock
productivity. In other words, the genes childbearing is conservatively estimated at
labeled “desirable” are the genes of the $112 billion per year in federal state and
relatively well-off. These are the very local expenditures.7 This is the equivalent of
people most likely to have the heaviest the GDP of New Zealand.
“carbon footprint,” since they will be able to
consume more resources. This eugenic In fact, one can make an even stronger
motive, therefore, contradicts the argument for policy failure. Without
environmental motive for the government’s question, anyone wanting to know why
taking an interest in citizens’ private unmarried women are now bearing an
reproductive decisions. unprecedented number of babies must
acknowledge the impact of Title X and
It should be obvious that these possible Medicaid funding for contraception—along
motivations are some combination of with the Supreme Court’s decision in 1973
perverse, implausible, or repulsive. It is one to give women an unrestricted right to
thing to argue that the government should abortion. The linkage between government
permit private citizens to use contraception funding for contraception and out-of-
in any way and in any context that they wedlock births is not merely some fantasy of
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse • 663 S. Rancho Santa Fe Road Suite 222 San Marcos CA 92078
www.jennifer-roback-morse.com • email: drj@jennifer-roback-morse.com • 760/295-9278
©2007 No part of this document may be reproduced or disseminated in any way without the expressed written consent of the
Ruth Institute.
right-wing social conservatives. That But when low-cost, highly effective
widespread contraception and unwed contraception is introduced, distributed, and
childbearing are causally related is the paid for by the federal government, these
conclusion of a Nobel Prize winning cultural norms no longer serve the same
economist, George A. Akerlof, and his purpose and are likely to fade. A woman
colleagues. They set for themselves the task cannot so easily resist a man’s sexual
of answering the question of why unmarried advances on the grounds that she might get
childbearing increased at exactly the period pregnant: the probability of pregnancy is
of time that contraception and abortion lower. The man can make birth control and
became widely available. Their conclusion: sex the price of being in a relationship with
widespread use of contraception and the him. In many ways, the man has the upper
availability of abortion changes relationships hand; he can more easily find an alternative
between men and women in significant lover if she refuses. Even a woman who
ways. These changes do not just affect the would be inclined to abstain from premarital
individuals who choose to use the relations will face increased pressure to be
technology. Contraceptive technology, sexually permissive. The pressure comes not
imposed on the states by the Court and only from men but also indirectly from
subsidized by Title X and Medicaid, competition with other women.
changes the terms on which everyone
participates in the dating and mating game, If sexual relations commonly result in
even if they decline to use the technology.8 pregnancy, a woman can refuse sex unless
she receives an implicit or explicit promise
When sexual activity entails a high of marriage in the event of pregnancy. As
probability of pregnancy, society develops a the connection between each sexual act and
set of cultural norms for inducing men to pregnancy weakens, a woman is less able to
commit to women they impregnate. These extract a promise of marriage in the event of
norms, largely if informally enforced by pregnancy. If she asks for a promise, she
women, include a strong social expectation may simply cause the man to leave the
that women will refuse sex outside of relationship and find someone who does not
marriage. Women develop a set of socially ask for a marriage promise. The “social
acceptable ways to refuse sex, even with compact” among women therefore breaks
men they genuinely like. The norms also down because of the broader social impact
include the expectation that the man will of even a small number of women who are
marry a woman he impregnates. All these willing to abort their children rather than
norms are designed to discourage casual carry a non-marital pregnancy to term.
encounters and encourage fathers to commit
to mothers. Look at it this way: A single woman who is
willing to terminate a pregnancy will not ask
the man for a promise to marry in the event
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse • 663 S. Rancho Santa Fe Road Suite 222 San Marcos CA 92078
www.jennifer-roback-morse.com • email: drj@jennifer-roback-morse.com • 760/295-9278
©2007 No part of this document may be reproduced or disseminated in any way without the expressed written consent of the
Ruth Institute.
of pregnancy; she considers abortion a married has declined, and the proportion of
simpler solution to her “problem” of an babies born outside of wedlock has
unwed pregnancy. A woman who really increased. As Akerlof notes, between 1965
wants motherhood will keep the baby, even and 1989, the birth rate per 1,000 married
if the father refuses to marry her. The typical white women declined from 119 to 90, while
man presumably knows this, so her attempts the birth rate per 1,000 unmarried white
to persuade him to marry her are not women doubled from 12 to 24 births over
credible. Therefore, in the presence of the same time period. At the same time, the
unrestricted abortion as a back up to percentage of white women who married
contraceptive failure, women will not insist declined from 68 percent to 58 percent. The
on a promise of marriage in the event of a percentage of “shotgun marriages” declined
premarital pregnancy. To put it even more from 60 percent to 42 percent for whites,
starkly, no woman will be in a position to while the ratio of adoptions to out-of-
demand such a promise, since there is no wedlock births declined from 49 percent to
credible threat of social stigma or sanction 20 percent.9
that she can impose on him. The social norm
that insists that men marry women they In short, more of the women who conceived
impregnate erodes very quickly. out of wedlock ended up raising the child as
a single parent. Fewer mothers married the
This is the answer to the puzzle of federal father of the child or placed the child for
family planning: Why should low-cost and adoption. The overall result is that fewer
free contraception for the unmarried lead to children are raised in married couple, two-
more children being born in less desirable, parent households. Yet, this is the family
more difficult circumstances—namely out- form most conducive to the welfare of
of-wedlock—when the ability to prevent and children.10
terminate pregnancy increases? This occurs
precisely because so many women actually The Moral of the Story
want babies, more so than the estimates of
so-called “unintended” pregnancies and The lesson should be clear: A nation cannot
birth suggest. These women want their avoid legislating morality.11 The attempt to
babies; they don’t want to have abortions. remain neutral is itself, not neutral. The
Not very long ago, these women would have federal government’s policies have eroded
had the support of the entire society in the social norms around sexual activity,
pressuring the father to marry them. But marriage, and childbearing. Far from
since having a baby is a “woman’s choice,” occupying some Olympian perspective of
that pressure is greatly attenuated. neutrality, the largest and most powerful
government in the world has created an
Consequently, the overall birth rate has alternative moral universe, based upon
declined, the proportion of women that are highly debatable moral premises and
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse • 663 S. Rancho Santa Fe Road Suite 222 San Marcos CA 92078
www.jennifer-roback-morse.com • email: drj@jennifer-roback-morse.com • 760/295-9278
©2007 No part of this document may be reproduced or disseminated in any way without the expressed written consent of the
Ruth Institute.
empirical claims. States and localities, policy idea whose time has come, and not
churches, and individuals have very limited just for the “religious right,” whoever that
room to maneuver in trying to establish might be. This is good policy for fiscal
more reasonable standards of sexual conservatives and civil libertarians, for
behavior. Citizens who see the anyone who wants to limit the expenditures
destructiveness of the current federal sex of the government and the intrusiveness of
policy are reduced to arguing for parental the state.
notification or waiting periods for abortion,
or for marriage and abstinence promotion to Dr. Morse, a frequent contributor to The
counter the federal government’s active Family in America, taught economics at
promotion of sex outside of marriage. The Yale and George Mason University. She is
federal government has morally disarmed the foundress of the Ruth Institute, a project
our culture. Ordinary Americans have been of the National Organization for Marriage.
reduced to bringing knives to a gunfight.