The subsidised vacation to end life

Reading Time: 3 minutes
Pro-life demonstrators in Washington celebrate outside the Supreme Court June 24, 2022, as the court overruled the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision. Photo: CNS, Evelyn Hockstein, Reuters

In the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade which returned the issue of abortion from the federal level to the local state level, US companies such as Amazon, Meta, Disney and JP Morgan have come forward with so-called “abortion vacations.”

Abortion vacations give financial incentive and aid for an employee to travel from a state that has restricted or even made abortion illegal to a the nearest state where abortion is legal.

It seems strange that any business which relies on large numbers of customers making purchases would seek to be profitable by encouraging population decline.

From where exactly do they think future customers come? All I can imagine is that someone has crunched the numbers and determined that, at least in the short term, abortion vacations are advantageous to the company.

“Is there an alternative? What if these companies offering abortion vacations, instead of incentivising the killing of future customers, took a pro-family response?”

Dick’s Sporting Goods, a US nationwide sporting goods store, for example, has pledged up to $4000 (USD) for any employee wanting to travel to have an abortion.

Dick’s own website states: “Our Company is built on the belief that sports make people better and that giving back and doing what’s right is ultimately what makes us successful.”

Yet, Dick’s head CEO misses that formally cooperating in evil is not “doing what’s right.”

Is there an alternative? What if these companies offering abortion vacations, instead of incentivising the killing of future customers, took a pro-family response?

Dick’s Sporting Goods, a US nationwide sporting goods store, has pledged up to A$5900 for any employee wanting to travel to have an abortion.
Dick’s Sporting Goods, a US nationwide sporting goods store, has pledged up to A$5900 for any employee wanting to travel to have an abortion.

What if, instead, Dick’s and friends offered a $4000 gift for employees who conceived? One small Texas based insurer has already moved to announce it will cover the medical costs for employees who give birth to or adopt a child, in addition to paid parental leave.

Companies fall over each other offering new ways to attract and retain staff. Perhaps being “pro family” offers a new, competitive advantage to businesses.

In the US, the birth of a child can leave a family shelling out upwards of thousands of dollars, even with health insurance.

A $4000 gift is enough to cover some of the hidden costs of children. That’s a big carrot for an employee with or planning children when considering if the grass is greener with a potential competitor employer.

“Respecting the inherent dignity of a woman by supporting her through the birth of a child and maternity leave is much harder, not to mention the pressure paid ‘abortion vacations’ will now put on women in the workplace who do actually want to have a baby.”

Brutal number crunching suggest that paying for an “abortion vacation” instead of parental leave probably saves a company money in the short term (assuming there are no long term medical complications from the abortion).

What Dicks’ and company demonstrate is that being pro-abortion is easy. Respecting the inherent dignity of a woman by supporting her through the birth of a child and maternity leave is much harder, not to mention the pressure paid “abortion vacations” will now put on women in the workplace who do actually want to have a baby.

Eventually, many women who have had “abortion vacations” will want to give birth to a child.

What then? Will they stay at a company which pays for “abortion vacations” or look around for a company which, instead offers its staff pro-life family policies?