Yellen: Banning abortion would be 'very damaging' to U.S. economy.

[mystery-ak]

Yellen: Banning abortion would be 'very damaging' to U.S. economy

Victoria Guida
Tue, May 10, 2022, 10:07 AM

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Tuesday argued that banning abortion would be “very damaging” for the economy by reducing women’s ability to balance their careers and their families.

“I believe that eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades,” she said in response to a question at a Senate Banking Committee hearing.

The disclosure of a draft Supreme Court decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights, has set off a firestorm across the country as people grapple with the possibility that terminating a pregnancy could become illegal in some states.

In her comments, Yellen said the 1973 ruling helped allow women to finish school and increase their earning potential, leading to higher participation in the workforce.

“Research also shows that it had a favorable impact on the well-being and earnings of children,” she said. “There are many research studies that have been done over the years looking at the economic impacts of access or lack thereof to abortion, and it makes clear that denying women access to abortion increases their odds of living in poverty or need for public assistance.”

more
https://news.yahoo.com/yellen-banning-abortion-very-damaging-150750615.html

[rustynail]

If Janet and the Federal Reserve had not ruined our economy women would not have to worry about  'women’s ability to balance their careers and their families'.  Two income families would be an option not a necessity.

[Kamaji]

She's running this up the flag-pole to try and build some idiotic case that abortion is an economic matter, and therefore a fit subject for Congress to legislate on under the Commerce Clause.

[rustynail]

She's running this up the flag-pole to try and build some idiotic case that abortion is an economic matter, and therefore a fit subject for Congress to legislate on under the Commerce Clause.

Well it does involve seed.

[GtHawk]

Damaging to whose economy, murder incorporated or their official name PP? On the other hand has this incompetent thought about the boost it would bring to the travel industry with Bezos, Musk and others offering free travel, hotels and medical abortion vacays?

[Kamaji]

Damaging to whose economy, murder incorporated or their official name PP? On the other hand has this incompetent thought about the boost it would bring to the travel industry with Bezos, Musk and others offering free travel, hotels and medical abortion vacays?

The economy "at large".  It's the same sort of argument they tried in U.S. v. Lopez to support the Gun Free School Zones Act - i.e., that guns in schools negatively affected education, and that in turn negatively affected the economy, and therefore Congress could directly regulate the possession of guns in school zones under the Commerce Clause.

That is exactly the sort of argument Yellen is making:  lack of abortion availability makes it harder for women to complete school, and to get better-paying jobs, thereby "negatively affecting the national economy" and, therefore, can be regulated directly under the Commerce Clause.

[DefiantMassRINO]

OMFG ... You never heard Alexander Hamilton make such a statement when he was Treasury Secretary.

[GtHawk]

The economy "at large".  It's the same sort of argument they tried in U.S. v. Lopez to support the Gun Free School Zones Act - i.e., that guns in schools negatively affected education, and that in turn negatively affected the economy, and therefore Congress could directly regulate the possession of guns in school zones under the Commerce Clause.

That is exactly the sort of argument Yellen is making:  lack of abortion availability makes it harder for women to complete school, and to get better-paying jobs, thereby "negatively affecting the national economy" and, therefore, can be regulated directly under the Commerce Clause.

Sorry once again my attempt at sarcasm appears to have been underwhelming, I better look into using a sarcasm tag.

[GtHawk]

OMFG ... You never heard Alexander Hamilton make such a statement when he was Treasury Secretary.

Well you never heard any federal official, let alone POTUS and VP advocate for the murder of innocents then either, at the least they would have been locked up in the madhouse.

[Kamaji]

Sorry once again my attempt at sarcasm appears to have been underwhelming, I better look into using a sarcasm tag.

No worries.  It wasn't entirely lost on me.  And I am being serious in that I think she's trying to gin up support for precisely the sort of specious argument I outlined.

Quite honestly, if that argument were valid, it would prove too much, and would mean that Congress has the authority to directly regulate everything under the Commerce Clause, since just about every human activity has some sort of potential economic effect and, therefore, in the aggregate, everything everybody does has an effect on the national economy.

For example (and yes, this is a totally specious argument):  allowing people to avoid the annual flu vaccine voluntarily is likely to lead to more people getting the flu, which will mean that more people will be taking time off from work for sick days, thereby reducing aggregate economic output, and more people will be buying more tissues to blow their noses with, thereby resulting in greater sales of kleenex than would be the case if everyone got the flu vaccine.  Accordingly, each individual's decision whether or not to get the flu vaccine has a negative economic impact, and can therefore be regulated by Congress directly under the Commerce Clause - i.e., under the Commerce Clause, Congress can mandate that everyone get the flu vaccine each year.

Pretty damned stupid if you ask me, but that is how the left would like to use the Commerce Clause.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Next this idiot will be claiming we need to go to war with Russia in order to bolster the economy.

Yellen has been a drag on our economy for the past two decades.

I consider her among the poster childs for those needed to be aborted.

[Fishrrman]

Kamaji wrote:
"if that argument were valid, it would prove too much, and would mean that Congress has the authority to directly regulate everything under the Commerce Clause, since just about every human activity has some sort of potential economic effect and, therefore, in the aggregate, everything everybody does has an effect on the national economy."

Well then...
(and I'm serious)
...Maybe it's time to amend the Constitution to REMOVE "the commerce clause" from the body of that document.

Is it time for that New Continental Congress yet...?

[mountaineer]

More dead babies for a better economy!

It's a strange slogan, but probably makes sense to Democrats.

[Hoodat]

“Research also shows that it had a favorable impact on the well-being and earnings of children,” she said.

Abortion has a favorable impact on the well-being of children?  Seriously?

[Smokin Joe]

Eliminate elective abortions...
There are, however some 860,000 abortions in the US per year, so that would mean a 96% reduction in dead babies.
 
Leaving only those for 'victims of rape', (some 32,000 pregnancies a year in the US--estimated chance of getting pregnant in a rape is 5% https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/). (not something I personally agree with, using rape as justification, but a common canard)

For starters, perhaps seeking convictions of rapists and, upon conviction, sentencing like you mean it, could reduce that number.
 
The only economic reduction might be the productivity of guys who were accused of rape so she could get rid of the inconvenient baby, even though the sex was actually consensual.