I had to talk to a couple of high school kids and realize that they had in mind that “decriminalizing” or “legalizing” abortion was a sort of “whoever, whenever” abort. First of all, then, there must be a difference between laws that under no circumstances allow abortion and those that do, but under certain circumstances. Similarly, there are cultures for which divorce is not permitted under any circumstances, and other cultures in which divorce is contemplated but under such and such grounds. This is the first of the markings.
Now, supposing that we are in a State where abortion is permitted under such and such situations, for example, that the new child in gestation is not compatible with life; that it implies a very high risk of death for the mother (who has other minor children); or that it is the result of group rape. The fact that it is permitted does not mean, no matter how much the State bears the cost of it. Come on, if the state allows its citizens to have their breasts removed, it doesn’t imply that the state will assume the cost of that surgery.
So when you ask for abortion to be free, you are asking the State to cover the costs of such operation, as well as taking care of primary education, health and retirees. Going to the monetary part, the state would have to collect funds from citizens and use those funds to pay for medical fees, electricity, medical supplies, medicines and everything else needed to cover the cost of abortions. A primary school teacher, for example, when paying her taxes, would use part of her salary to cover the costs of abortions.
That is to say, “the State” is not a magical ATM, nor is it a noun of its own with an unlimited checkbook. The State is simply an administrative apparatus that, among other things, collects money from the people who work, who produce, and that money that they collect spends or invests. Thus, John Doe, who works, pays part of his taxes to pay for school and the health of other children. But with the “free abortion”, less John Doe’s money would go to school and other children’s health, because part of it would go to cover the costs of abortions. It doesn’t kind of curdle, does it?
Now, if the Free Abortion Movement presents a bill in which it offers a budget of X million dollars per year, which will be obtained by cutting the budget of such and such State agencies (vice ministries, sub-secretariats, etc. ), then things could work out marvelously. That is to say, if the population is not going to have to pay more taxes and if, on the other hand, the bureaucracy of the state apparatus is going to be reduced in favour of an increase in investment in the medical sector, there the thing would even make sense, and of the very good ones.
But when it comes to presenting a bill, very few actors appear from the village upwards. The actors only ask and, from the legislative point of view, everything is to turn the matter around and, when it comes down to it, to make some cuts anywhere, except to the state apparatus itself. The Free Abortion Movement is the furthest away from presenting any bill that, if plausible, could be implemented in all countries with similar legislation.