The child tax credit and the question of sex

The majority in Dobbs denies that abortion regulation is not a women's rights issue to the extent that heightened scrutiny is required in considering it. This assertion demands deliberate ignorance. There are many in the anti-abortion movement who would not let women be responsible for the decision to end their pregnancy who would make every decision to have sex (while denying the right to birth control) the decision to procreate. In other words, their answer to the question of choice is the question of whether or not to have sex. 

The contention is logical, which is why it is wrong. If the majority interests in the legislature feel free to judge every sex act, which is the implication of this decision, then they must concede that their idea of well-ordered liberty is more about order than liberty.

To be truly pro-life, one must support, as a matter of right, the adequacy and refundability of the child tax credit and its delivery with wages (rather than as an end-of-the-year bonus). Further, it must provide for an adequate minimum wage so that no family is simply subsisting on the benefits of their children. Those who cannot work must be given some form of minimum income, either due to some manner of physical or mental disability or to be paid their opportunity costs in pursuing education and training. 

In a modern technological society where its basic needs can be met with fewer and fewer labor hours, the work week must either be shortened or some level of basic income (exclusive of the child tax credit) must be paid. 

To not adequate support workers, students and their families is to turn low wage work into slavery. To not grant a guaranteed income is to turn well-ordered liberty into the majority penalizing the sin of sloth. 

Regulating abortion without also providing for adequate individual and family income is not pro-child, it is anti-sex. While there are some, including many devout churchmen, that have no problem with this implication, I invite them to own it publicly and not hide behind a belief in the rights of the unborn. To be pro-child, one must be sex positive. Build Back Better!

The plight of Down's Syndrome families best illustrates this issue. Parents regrettably abort children found to have this disorder because they fear, not only for themselves in raising the child, but for their children after they survive them. Respite care for parents of Down's Children (like assistance to pregnant women) is the easy part. 

The hard part is guaranteeing the long-term welfare of the child. This would require much higher unearned disability benefits. Supplemental Security Income is simply inadequate for Down's victims to achieve a decent existence absent low wage labor that is hardly affirming. 

For this reason, all disability income must be adequate, especially when it is "unearned" by working 40 quarters. Such benefits should be adequate to not require wading into the maze of public assistance programs available today, especially when obtaining and maintaining benefits require strict compliance with documentation standards (Thanks alot, Bill). Since the reform of welfare, such requirements are best called punitive. It is no wonder that parents see abortion as a better alternative for Down's  children than a life of poverty at the whims of public assistance agencies.