FOLLOW-UPS. As an addendum to Dana's terrific post below, people interested in this topic should definitely read Michael Berube's thoughts on the subject if they haven't already. I would also like to add that the possibility that women may choose to obtain abortions if their children will have severe disabilities (or for sex selection or whatever) is, as Dana suggests, likely to be a major rhetorical strategy for the anti-choice lobby. It seems worth noting that even if one were to assume that this is always immoral there's no way of addressing this in enforceable legislative enactments. Women barred from obtaining abortions for certain motivations can always claim other motivations, and how can they be proven wrong? (Making women get a doctor's certificate, say, would simply make abortions easier to obtain for women with the resources and information necessary to find more sympathetic doctors, while doing little to ensure that women have abortions for reasons that third parties deem appropriate.) The question remains straightforward: you either trust women or you don't, and choosing the latter course is a 19th century anachronism. Meanwhile, as a follow-up to Ben's post, I strongly recommend Elizabeth Kolbert's recent New Yorker comment on the subject. Basically, it works where it's been tried. Ben is correct that the "savings" of tolerating more congestion are illusory, and in cities with robust mass transit, the effects of the tax won't be particularly regressive. --Scott Lemieux
