I'd vote "no"

"How would *you* vote," Michael asks, on a proposal to re-instate previous subsidization levels of birth-control pills for college students.  I'd vote "no", I think.  (Michael:  How would *you* vote?) 

For starters, I am inclined to agree with "some people":

Not everyone is troubled by the price increases. Some people said they wondered why college students, many of whom manage to afford daily doses of coffee from Starbucks and downloads from iTunes, should have been given such discounted birth control to begin with, and why drug companies should be granted such a captive audience of students. Others said low-priced, easy-to-attain contraception might encourage a false sense of security about sex.

More seriously, though:  Michael prefaces his question by asking us to "assume that [we] want to minimize the number of abortions in the United States."  The preface implies, it seems to me, two other premises:  (a) cheaper contraceptives for college students will result in fewer unplanned pregnancies, and therefore fewer abortions and (b) that policies which are likely to result in fewer abortions are, presumptively, policies worthy of support.

Let's go ahead and assume -- for the sake of argument -- (a).  And, we can all concede that there is something to (b).  If abortion is -- and, it is -- the killing of an unborn child, then it would seem that any policy -- which is not itself morally objectionable -- which is expected to result in fewer such killings is, for this reason, at least presumptively worth supporting.  But, we do not think -- do we? -- that the fact a particular proposed policy could result in fewer abortions removes the need to consider other facts about the proposed policy.  It is easily to imagine all kinds of horrible policies -- e.g., mandatory sterilizations, involuntary commitment, etc. -- that would result in fewer abortions.  It would -- assuming (a) -- also result in fewer abortions if government were to confiscate summarily all of the wealth of the "top 5%" and use this money to set up a fund that would provide contraception free, to everyone.  But, this policy would be both stupid and unjust; that it might result in fewer abortions would not make it smart or just.   

Abortions are not just "bad things that happen" or sub-optimal occurrences -- like mudslides or sewer-line breaks -- whose incidence we want to reduce to the extent it is cost-effective to reduce them.  (It would save lives to reduce the speed limit to 30 miles-per-hour.  But we don't, and no one thinks the fact that it would save lives requires us to.)  Abortions are chosen wrongs, they are acts that harm others.  Certainly, we cannot deny that many people chose this wrong, and do this act, in contexts and under influences (e.g., poverty, domestic violence, child abuse) that diminish -- even dramatically -- their personal culpability.  Certainly, there are policies that we may and should enact to alleviate the impact of such influences.  But, it seems to me that we should remember -- and that policy-makers are entitled to insist -- that a young college man ought not to pressure his pregnant girlfriend to get an abortion, and a young college woman ought not to procure an abortion, even if their inability to shoulder the burden of paying full-price for contraceptives is one of the reasons they face the decision.  And, it seems to me that policymakers may and should take very seriously the possible negative consequences of a law whose expressive function might be to suggest otherwise.

But again:  Michael, how would *you* vote, and why?  (And, happy Thanksgiving!).