THE DOBBS V.

JACKSON DECISION ISN’T

CHRISTIAN, PRO-LIFE OR PRO-FAMILY
Forcing Birth in a Supply Side Economic Policy environment is Anti-Family.
 The Dobbs V. Jackson Decision isn’t a Christian, Pro-Life or Pro Family

The Economic Argument – Forcing family outcomes in a Supply Side Economic Policy world fails the fiscally sound equation.

My first part to this three part analysis on the Dobbs V. Jackson decision started with the moral argument. As a Christian, I don’t see anything in
the walk of Christ that allows us to impose moral judgment into civil and criminal law to force women to make a decision that I can’t make. Jesus
called for his followers to share the faith, reach out and spread the word, yet never did he say use Government to force someone to follow his path.
There are so many factors that impact this decision that require more compassion and thoughtfulness than is exhibited by the Pro-Birth side, one of
those is the economic cost of parenting. Wanting to impose a religious mandate of birth and the pending elimination of birth control with no
consideration to the economics of parenting is uncaring and lacks any concern for the woman and her family. This part of my analysis will focus
on the economics of parenting and how Dobbs isn’t a Pro-Family decision economically.

The Economic Cost of Parenting – It’s not like it was for our parents.
One of the most important factors that a pregnant woman faces is the cost of raising a child, from birth to High School Graduation. It’s not cheap
and nothing is guaranteed. If one or society desire is to value life, it must value:
• The beginning of life,
• Provide supportive services to help women and their family through their choices,
• Understanding and respecting the choices people make, just as Jesus did, and
• Caring for life and the social, economic, spiritual, mental and physical health needs of life through death.
It’s the how that tends to get people lost in the dialogue and leads to knee-jerk reactions, policies and demonizing of all instead of real solutions.
Jesus cared for in life and in spirit, life in the totality, not just in the snapshots of time. That requires a much deeper and truer commitment to life
through the full existence of a person. This also requires implementation of policies that address the economic impact on Mothers, children,
fathers, complete families and lack of modern Federal Pro-Family policies that support the family unit like policy tools to support the Corporate
Business sector. Each child you have places a significant financial burden upon your household income, yet the so-called “Pro-Life movement &
“Republican Pro-Life” partners have opposed all policy prescriptions to help families meet the financial requirements of being a parent. The
“individualism” paradigm is absent of the collective support that Jesus preached to his apostles and the greater body of Christ. If you’re going to
be supportive of birth and life, policies must be supportive of the financial costs of birth and life. The following data is reflective of that cost
impact of raising children after birth and how incomes from private and public sector employment have failed to keep up. The annual cost for you
to live as an adult or as a spouse, separate of children, aren’t added. It’s irresponsible to impose a life mandate on mothers without family fiscal
support tools to support it.

1
How Much Does a Baby Cost?
Before a child is born, there’s the financial cost associated with pregnancy. The Pro-Birth side doesn’t acknowledge the costs of raising a child,
while completely ignore the cost of being pregnant, which is illogical and impractical. So before this paper delves into the financial responsibilities
that comes with parenting, we must start with the cost of pregnancy. According to ValuePenguin, in 2020 in the U.S., the average cost of a vaginal
birth without insurance is $13,024, including standard predelivery and postdelivery expenses such as facility fees and doctor fees1. A cesarean
section (C-section) without insurance is much more expensive, costing an average of $22,646 including standard predelivery and postdelivery
expenses. Pre-Natal Care isn’t included in these costs. Common prenatal care costs can equal an additional $10,000 prior to birth and include:
• Monthly checkups, which become weekly closer to your due date
• Prenatal vitamins
• Tests and imaging, like blood tests, ultrasounds, DNA testing, and diabetes testing
• Birthing classes
• Additional doctor’s visits for high-risk pregnancies (mothers who are over 35, overweight, have medical conditions like diabetes, or who
are having twins)

1
https://www.valuepenguin.com/cost-childbirth-health-insurance

2
Separately, a new June 2022 study by the Peterson Center on Healthcare & Kaiser Family Foundation2 found that the average cost of childbirth
in the US is $18,865 under large insurance plans. Though most of that is often picked up by insurance, out-of-pocket payments clock in at an
average of $2,854. That includes money spent during pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum-care periods over the course of about three years.
Those costs also do not include the amount spent on heath-insurance premiums themselves, or extra bills incurred from out-of-network providers
or non-medical procedures and services. The Kaiser/Peterson Center study also examined how pregnancy, childbirth, and post-partum health
spending among large group enrollees varies by the type of delivery, finding these costs for pregnancies resulting in a vaginal delivery average
$14,768 ($2,655 of which is paid out-of-pocket) and those resulting in cesarean section (C-section) average $26,280 ($3,214 of which is paid
out-of-pocket).

Hospitals have fixed prices for delivering baby services and will be billed directly to you if you lack healthcare insurance (unless you buy a flat fee
maternity package) or to your healthcare insurance provider (your costs will vary if the hospital is in-network or out of network). Those charges
may include but aren’t limited to the following:
• Anesthesiology (i.e. epidurals) and pain medication
• Your OB/GYN doctor
• Medical supplies
• Your room and board
• A doula or midwife
• Induction
• C-section (which requires an operating room, more anesthesia, and additional supplies)

So, in totality, the average cost for a woman to carry a pregnancy to term can range from $23,024 to $32,646 if she doesn’t have insurance or
$12,854 to $13,214 if she does have health insurance with standard out of pocket costs. This is if the pregnancy is without health issues and the
birth is uncomplicated. From the end of the Great Depression in the 1930’s to the Baby Boom peak in the early 1960’s, the average number of
children per family grew from 2.2 per family to 3.64 children per family3. By 2018, the number of children per family was down to 1.73 but has
increased slightly to 1.91 children per family during 2021. Each new child adds additional costs while the mother is managing the existing cost of
raising her child, so being Pro-Birth absent of economic policies to support pregnancy is an insult to the woman and the unborn child. Now, let’s
examine the cost of raising the child after birth, if the child has no major health issues.

Cost of raising a child

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture4, the average cost of raising a child to age 18 was $233,610 as of 2015. With an annual
adjustment for inflation at a rate of 2.2% each year factored in, the lifetime cost of raising a child born in 2022 will be equivalent to $284,570.

2
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/health-costs-associated-with-pregnancy-childbirth-and-postpartum-care/
3
2020 POPULATION CONNECTION Sources: Haines, Michael. “Fertility and Mortality in the United States”. EH.Net Encyclopedia, 2008; National Center for Health Statistics,
National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 68, No. 13, 2019.
4
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child

3
This cost doesn't account for the additional cost of a college education5. Higher education can add to the total for parents who help pay for their
children's college costs. How much you pay for college can depend on whether your child:
• Attends a two- or four-year school
• Goes to a public or private university
• Is charged in-state or out-of-state tuition rates (at public universities)
The average annual cost of a public college (in-state) for the 2021-2022 academic year comes in at $22,690; for a private college, it’s $51,690,
according to the College Board, which can easily add $80,000 to $100,000+ per child as an expense floor over the minimum four years it takes to
graduate with a Bachelor’s degree (college loan debt relief is Pro-Family, Demand-Side Economic Policy but that’s for another paper). The Pro-
Birth movement & the White Male dominated Radical Gnostic Evangelical elites don’t have any policy plans to help mothers and families deal
with these increasing cost considerations. Actually, they oppose Pro-Family fiscal support policies under the guise of “individualism” &
Governmental overreach/welfare, actual ways that Jesus would want you to consider when considering how to treat all within your society6.

Basic Cost of raising a child increase by age & what Do Families Spend Money On? - (Source: United States Department of Agriculture)
This is important because the cost of raising a child increases by age attainment. Neither side communicates the economic impact of having
children effectively, but the Pro-Choice side does the best at stressing the financial challenges of parenthood and the lack of support for low-
income women. The Pro-Choice side also has a stronger argument on creating economy policies to improve the choice of parenting and take
advantage of the Pro-Life sides resistance to any Pro-Family fiscal support (the family unit is a small business). The average yearly cost of raising
each individual child from birth to 17 years old in the US ranges from $13,000 to $20,000 every year. As your child grows up, his or her needs
and expenses tend to increase as well. The primary factors that contribute to the increase are the child’s education and food.
• From birth to two years old and ages three to five years old, the average cost is around $12,000 to $14,000 per year.
• Between six and seven years old, the annual expenditure goes down to $12,800 per year.
• From nine to eleven years old, the child’s body changes in preparation for puberty; hence, the needs change as well. With that said, the
average yearly cost for these ages is $13,680 per year.
• Then, it continues to rise as they age, from 12 to 15 years old, costing around $14,420 per year. At 15 to 17 years old, the average cost
has already reached $14,970 per year.

The estimated average lifetime cost to raise a child breaks down into the following major components and cost per year and per child:
Estimated
average lifetime Average Cost per Average Cost per Average Cost per Average Cost per
cost to raise a year - 1 Child year - 2 Children year - 3 Children year - 4 Children
Estimated average lifetime cost to raise a child – child - Age Birth from age Birth to from age Birth to from age Birth to from age Birth to
categories and percentages to 18 years old 18 years old 18 years old 18 years old 18 years old
Housing – 29% $82,525.30 $4,584.74 $9,169.48 $13,754.22 $18,338.96
Food – 18% $51,222.60 $2,845.70 $5,691.40 $8,537.10 $11,382.80

5
https://www.investopedia.com/how-much-to-save-for-college-4782579
6
Mark 12:28–31, Matthew 22:35–40

4
 Childcare and Education – 16% $45,531.20 $2,529.51 $5,059.02 $7,588.53 $10,118.04
Transportation – 15% $42,685.50 $2,371.42 $4,742.83 $7,114.25 $9,485.67
Healthcare – 9% $25,611.30 $1,422.85 $2,845.70 $4,268.55 $5,691.40
Miscellaneous – 7% $19,919.90 $1,106.66 $2,213.32 $3,319.98 $4,426.64
Clothing – 6% $17,074.20 $948.57 $1,897.13 $2,845.70 $3,794.27
Total $284,570.00 $15,809.44 $31,618.89 $47,428.33 $63,237.78
Average lifetime Average lifetime Average lifetime Average lifetime
Cost - 1 Child Cost - 2 Children Cost - 3 Children Cost - 4 Children
Average lifetime cost per child $284,570.00 $569,140.00 $853,710.00 $1,138,280.00

In the 1970s, the last decade of American Demand Side Economic policy, 65% of families reported having 3 or more children and 41% of families
reported having four or more children7. As of 2015, only 36% of families have three or more children, with just 14% having four or more, while
the number of families with a single child doubled from 11% in 1976 to 22% in 2015. By 2021, the share of families having one child only grew to
42.5% while the percentage of families having three or more children dropped to 19.9%.8

Table 102.10. Number and percentage distribution of family households, by family structure and presence of own children under 18:
Selected years, 1970 through 2021
All families In the Thousands
With own children under 18 33,579
One own child under 18 14,255 42.45%
Two own children under 18 12,630 37.61%
Three or more own children under 18 6,692 19.93%

Costs of raising a child by married families and household income status:

Even if you’re a low income household, the cost to raise one child to adulthood is a significant tab, one that wage growth has not kept up with
since our switch to supply side economic policy (1981-2021). What’s notable is that the higher income households have an average per child
spending advantage ($146,820 for single parent households and $197,520 for married households) that can set their child(ren) up for an easier
path to achieve financial stability and enhanced employment mobility than lower income households.
• Low-income married couple families spend $174,690 on average to raise a child.
• Low-income single parents spend $172,200 to raise a child from birth through age 17.
• High-income single parents spend $319,020 to raise a child on average - High-income families spend almost double than low-income
families.

7
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/05/07/family-size-among-mothers/
8
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_102.10.asp

5
 • High-income married couples spend $372,210 on average to raise a child - Married couples, whose before-tax income is higher than
$107,400, spend $372,210 on average to raise their kid.

Budgets for different family types

Before we get to wage growth and how that negatively impacts the economic capacity of the family unit to raise children, it’s important to look at
the monthly and annual household budget costs for single parents and couples (married & unmarried) and the increasing costs per child (you may
achieve an economic of scale with the family budget growth rate declining by child number 4 but different factors can change the financial impact
including health, gender, marital status, etc.) for a typical family unit in Metropolitan Detroit MI. Here’s how monthly budgets in the
Detroit/Warren/Livonia metro area vary by family size and composition9. These costs vary by state and geographical region of the country but are
indictive of the escalating costs for larger families.

Monthly budgets in the Detroit/Warren/

Livonia metro area vary by family size Monthly Budget Monthly Budget
and composition Monthly Budget Increase per Child Increase per Child %
1 Person $2,781
1 parent and 1 child $4,542 $1,761.00 63.32%
1 parent and 2 children $6,069 $1,527.00 33.62%
1 parent and 3 children $7,455 $1,386.00 22.84%
1 parent and 4 children $7,881 $426.00 5.71%

Couple $3,902
2 parent and 1 child $5,488 $1,586.00 40.65%
2 parent and 2 children $6,893 $1,405.00 25.60%
2 parent and 3 children $8,115 $1,222.00 17.73%
2 parent and 4 children $8,564 $449.00 5.53%

Annual budgets in the Detroit/Warren/

Livonia metro area vary by family size Annual Budget Annual Budget
and composition Annual Budget Increase per Child Increase per Child %
1 Person $33,372.00
1 parent and 1 child $54,504.00 $21,132.00 63.32%
1 parent and 2 children $72,828.00 $18,324.00 33.62%
1 parent and 3 children $89,460.00 $16,632.00 22.84%
1 parent and 4 children $94,572.00 $5,112.00 5.71%

9
EPI's Family Budget Calculator - https://www.epi.org/resources/budget/

6
 Couple $46,824.00
2 parent and 1 child $65,856.00 $19,032.00 40.65%
2 parent and 2 children $82,716.00 $16,860.00 25.60%
2 parent and 3 children $97,380.00 $14,664.00 17.73%
2 parent and 4 children $102,768.00 $5,388.00 5.53%

U.S. Economic picture in the Pre Roe V. Wade world - Family incomes and economic policy stayed ahead of the cost of raising children?

The American economic picture in the post Great Depression period up through the 1973 Roe decision was drastically different as it relates to
having multiple children, but it took charting a different economic path from economic policies that are similar to the 1920’s through to the Great
Depression. Coming out of the Spanish Flu Pandemic, incomes for the bottom 90% (1.93%), the 90th to 95th income percentile (1.67%) and 95th to
99th income percentile (3.23%) grew at an anemic rate during the Roaring Twenties Gilded Age boom when compared to the top 1%, leaving them
extremely unprepared for the Great Depression, very comparable to the impact of Supply Side Republican Austerity economic policies and the
bookends of the Great Recession (2008-2010) and the Covid-19 Pandemic (2020-2021). When the Great Depression hit incomes loss ground by a
-6.3%, -4.67% and -5.53% for 99% of American households, erasing their income gains from 1923 to 1928 and placing them into a household
income deficit model. Hoover’s Supply Side economic policies not only failed to restore our economic health, it coincided with a significant
decline in the total birth rates per women from 2.6 births per woman in 1923 to 1.8 births per woman by 193410 or 3.29 births per woman in 1920
to 2.17 births per woman in 193511.

The election of FDR and shift in Domestic Economic policy contributed both to a restoration of family income stability and growth and family
population size. During the time period of 1940 to 1973, the total fertility rate (TFR - the expected number of births that a woman would have over
her lifetime) peaked at 3.77 births per woman in 1957 and stayed above 3 births per woman from 1946 to 1964, the Post-World War II baby
boom12. It was also the time period where American economic policy was driven through demand side principles which produced better financial
outcomes for families than the last 50 years of the “Reagan Revolution. In effect, Demand Side Economic policies were also Pro-Family policies
and Pro-Life policies. Some of those outcomes include the following:

Faster income growth for the bottom 99% - Incomes for the bottom 90%, 90th to 95th percentile and 95th to 99th percentile grew at a faster rate
than the top 1% and recovered all of their lost income from the Great Depression, gaining a net of 0.39% (bottom 90%), 0.52% (90th to 95th) and
1.05% (95th to 99th) above the net loss from 1923 to 1928. (See chart below).

10
Table 1-1. Live Births, Birth Rates, and Fertility Rates, by Race of Child: United States, 1909-80
11
UN DESA 2019 Total Fertilty Rate Report
https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Files/1_Indicators%20(Standard)/EXCEL_FILES/2_Fertility/WPP2019_FERT_F04_TOTAL_FERTILITY.xlsx &
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020/
12
QuickStats: Expected Number of Births over a Woman’s Lifetime — National Vital Statistics System, United States, 1940–2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:20.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6901a5external icon

7
 Wage Bottom 90% Bottom 90% 90th–95th 90th–95th Avg 95th–99th 95th–99th Avg. 99th–100th 99th–100th Avg.
group13 percentile Avg. growth Percentile growth Percentile growth Percentile growth
1923-1928 $10,891.49 1.93% $39,824.75 1.67% $65,916.51 3.23% $844,284.85 5.53%
1929-1933 $9,433.93 -6.30% $37,200.04 -4.67% $60,337.83 -5.53% $682,754.95 -10.35%
1934-1974 $24,044.59 4.16% $70,235.65 3.20% $108,005.75 2.91% $708,812.73 1.42%
1934-1979 $25,414.61 3.71% $74,656.50 2.88% $113,923.75 2.63% $262,156.61 2.07%

Income, Inflation, Unemployment and Gross Domestic Product interconnectivity - Income growth for families and single individuals in the
bottom 90% of household income percentile increased at an annual rate above inflation by an average of 0.7% from 1934 to 1974 and
families/households in the 90th to 95th percentile had annual income growth that tacked slightly below the rate of inflation, at a rate of -18% above
inflation. Even though incomes during the last five years of the 1970’s trended below inflation, the wage growth for those at the bottom 90%, 90th
to 95th percentile and 95th to 99th percentile all grew faster than the top 1%. GDP grew at a greater rate under the Demand side macro-economic
policy period rather than the initial supply-side macro-economic policy period from 1913 to 1933. Unemployment was higher during this period,
but when accounting for Federal Reserve policies driven to reach full employment versus raising interest rates to reduce inflation and empower the
non-C Suite class, the natural rate of unemployment and increased labor participation balanced each other. The resulting balance was important
during this time, to drive high income growth for workers and higher prices that small businesses can charge for goods and services.

US Real GDP Growth Rate by Year

Inflation Rate YOY - Table Table of Historical Inflation (Real US GDP 1913–1929 - Maddison
of Historical Inflation Rates Rates in Percent (1914-2021) - Unemployment Rate - (2003) - (in millions of 1990
Year in Percent (1914-2021)14 Avg-Avg 1913-2020 international Geary-Khamis dollars)
1923-1928 0.22% 0.40% 3.85% 4.53%
1929-1933 -4.92% -5.42% 15.26% -4.59%
1934-1974 3.46% 3.38% 6.90% 4.97%
1934-1979 3.97% 3.89% 6.90% 4.86%

Income gap reduction - The income gap between those high up the income ladder and those on the middle and lower rungs — while substantial
— did decrease between this period (see charts below for average and net growth or decline rate for the bottom 90th percentile, 90th-95th, 95th to
99th and 99th to 100%, also known as the top 1%). From 1934 to 1979, The bottom 90% income percentile saw their percentage of wage growth
equal 2.92 to 1 ratio with the top 1% percentile (net wage growth for the bottom 90% was 170.5% versus 58.28% for the top 1%).

13
Table A4: Top fractiles Average Real income levels 1913 to 2018 (excluding capital gains) in the United States (adjusted for price inflation) - (fractiles are defined by total
income (incomes in latest year $ - 2018) & 2019 and 2020 Real Income data sourced by EPI analysis of Kopczuk, Saez, and Song (2007) and Social Security Administration wage
statistics (incomes in 2020 dollars).
14
All Urban Consumers – (CPI-U) 1913-2021* Price Index - CPI uses the official CPI-U from 1913 to 1978 and the CPI-U-RS from 1978 to the present.

8
 Wage Bottom 90% Bottom 90% net. 90th–95th 90th–95th net 95th–99th 95th–99th net 99th–100th 99th–100th net
group percentile growth Percentile growth Percentile growth Percentile growth
1923-1928 $10,891.49 11.60% $39,824.75 10.01% $65,916.51 19.38% $844,284.85 33.16%
1929-1933 $9,433.93 -31.52% $37,200.04 -23.34% $60,337.83 -27.63% $682,754.95 -51.74%
1934-1974 $24,044.59 170.47% $70,235.65 131.17% $108,005.75 119.41% $708,812.73 58.28%
1934-1979 $25,414.61 170.85% $74,656.50 132.65% $113,923.75 120.93% $718,046.27 58.48%

Decreasing Inequality helps foster positive family economic conditions - For the period of 1934 through 1974, the wage gap for the bottom
90% households versus the top 1% percentile decreased by 192.5% and slowing the real wage gap from 7,751.8% growth gap during the height of
the Gilded Age (1923 to 1928) to a growth gap between the two income groups of 2,947.9%. During this period, the gap between CEO’s and
front-line workers decreased significantly. Prior to World War II, average compensation of top executives was about 63 times higher than average
earnings. This ratio fell significantly during the war years, so that by 1945 the remuneration of top executives was 41 times average earnings15.
Using the realized compensation measure, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 21-to-1 in 1965. Decreasing the wage gap had a direct
correlation to the baby boom generation, during which the total fertility rate for women stayed above 3 births per woman for 18 years (1946 to
1964), providing better economic conditions to afford the obligations of parenting and managing a larger family than the previous time period.

Wage Net % change in Income growth rate for the Income gap by Net ratio of Income growth rate for Net % of Income growth rate for
group Top 1% vs the Bottom 90% period Top 1% vs Bottom 90% Top 1% vs Bottom 90%
1923-1928 65.02% 7751.78% 2.86 285.86%
1929-1933 39.08% 7237.23% 1.64 164.15%
1934-1974 -192.49% 2947.91% 0.34 34.19%
1934-1979 -192.15% 2825.33% 0.34 34.23%

Union Members and income share distributed to the top 10% income percentile – An additional contributor to the Pro-Family Demand side
economic policies of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and Nixon was the growth of labor unions. Union membership dipped slightly during
the Great Depression (1929 to 1933) but boomed during the Demand Side Economic expansion period of 1934 to 1979, going from an annual
average of 10.56% to 27.46%, a 160% increase. An additional Pro-Family economic outcome was the deceasing share of income going from the
top 10%. From the Depression to Demand Side economic time periods, the share of income going to the top 10% decreased by 19.6%.

Year Union membership Share of income going to the top 10%

1923-1928 10.95% 46.80%
1929-1933 10.56% 47.44%
1934-1979 27.46% 38.15%

15
Historical Trends in Executive Compensation 1936-2003; Carola Frydman* and Raven E. Saks**

9
 Year Union membership Share of income going to the top 10%
Trendline: 1923-1928 to 1929-1933 -3.56% 1.37%
Trendline: 1929-1933 to 1934-1979 160.04% -19.58%

In addition to the economic gains for households across the income percentiles, the Demand-Side Economic “value creation” model to private
sector business strategies produced significant economic returns for small business, corporate and investment sectors. Value Creation business and
economic decisions trend towards being better for growing families and additional customers with higher disposable incomes. During this time
period of 1936 to 1979, the retain-and-reinvest approach to profit investments and human capital support prevailed at major U.S. corporations.
They retained earnings and reinvested them in increasing their capabilities, first and foremost in the employees who helped make firms more
competitive. They provided workers with higher incomes and greater job security (Pro-Women, Pro-Family results), thus contributing to equitable,
stable economic growth - what a William Lazonick calls “sustainable prosperity16.” This retain and reinvest approach led to a number of positive
economic outputs (via Bureau of Economic Analysis reports):

Economic Indicators 1936 to 1979

Wage & Salaries annual growth rate 6.09%
Corporate Profits annual growth rate 12.15%
Taxes on Corporate Income annual growth rate 14.28%
Governmental Consumption Spending on Fixed Capital annual growth rate 11.46%
Governmental Consumption Spending on Goods & Services annual growth rate 12.65%
Personal Income Pre-Tax annual growth rate 8.52%
Personal Disposable Income Post-Tax annual growth rate 8.19%
Personal Income Outlays Post-Tax annual growth rate 7.99%
Dow Jones Average - 6.25% annual growth and 285.47% net growth 6.25%
S&P 500 Average - 7.24% annual growth and 325.69% net growth 7.24%
Consumer Sentiment Index net average 87.6
US ISM Manufacturing: PMI Composite Index net average 54.07
Homeownership rate growth annual (year over year) 1.56%

In a nutshell, 1934 to 1979 was the greatest period of closing personal income inequality in American History and created better economic
conditions for mothers and families to afford the resulting cost of parenting. This was the greatest Pro-Family, Pro-American Consumer economic
period in our Nation’s history. So, what happen to this approach? How did we go from Pro-Family economic policy and lack of reproductive
choice for women to reproductive freedom and Anti-Family economic policy? Let’s examine.

16
Harvard Business Review Article, Profits Without Prosperity https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity

10
U.S. Economic Policy in the Roe V. Wade and Post Roe V. Wade world – Supply-Side Economics has failed to keep family incomes ahead
of the cost of raising children?

Unfortunately, the nomination and confirmation of Paul Volker as Federal Reserve Chair in 1978, stagflation, the election of Ronald Reagan in
1980 & Conservative America’s desire to move from FDR-Eisenhower-LBJ-Nixon Economic policies led to a Supply-Side Economic policy
revolution. It’s like the Empire Strikes Back or Revenge of the Sith if the Skywalker Star Wars saga ended with those two movies. We’ve been
trying to return to get back to a Return of the Jedi or Rise of Skywalker economic rebirth and have been stuck in this failed policy time loop for
over 40 years, which correlates with a decline in the economic power of the 99% and erosion in the ability to finance a large family. How has this
economic return to the Gilded Age of the early 1920’s failed families and is Anti-Family? Let’s look at first what is Supply Side economics and
the data that shows how it has failed women, families and children.

The four corners of American consumption spending – The foundation of Supply-side economic policy failure
There are four legs to the American economic table, driving both supply and demand economic activities. These four corners of spending are:

• Corporate Purchasing - business capital investment via suppliers for fixed investment goods (purchases of new equipment, factories,
cost of replacing existing investment goods that have become worn out or obsolete, property acquisition), inventory investment (final
goods produced and waiting to be sold), intellectual property products (e.g., software) and human capital investment.
• Consumer/Family Spending - Consumption good purchases of perishable and non-perishable nondurable goods, such as food and
clothing, and purchases of durable goods, such as appliances and automobiles. Consumption service expenditures include purchases of
all kinds of personal services, including those provided by barbers, doctors, lawyers, and mechanics. Consumer consumption capital
investment includes purchasing of residential housing and investment vehicles.
• Non-Profit & Education Institutional (K-12 & Higher Education) Spending – Capital Infrastructure, Technology, Intellectual
Knowledge Transfer, Innovation, Social Services, Health and Human Services & Community Reinvestment.
• Governmental Spending - Federal. State. County and Municipal Government expenditures on consumption and investment goods and
services.

When America's economy had its greatest sustained period of economic growth and income equalization (closing the wage gap from the top 1%
and the majority 90%) from the mid 1934 through 1979, we had four engines of spending that were all at their highest levels of output and fueling
equitable demand-side economic growth, which included a higher tax rate on Corporate America, higher per capita Governmental spending,
increased Educational investment and above inflation wage growth, all of which helped fuel revenue into small businesses and Corporate
businesses, which drove their purchasing. It worked, even with hiccups during the 1970’s. Since 1981 however, US Economic policy (driven by
Republican elected officials, Supply-Side Democrats and various Corporate and Conservative media interest), has focused upon the Value
extraction business model. This model operates under a downsize-and-distribute regime of reducing costs (laying off workers, reducing wage
increases and domestic capital expenditures), cutting taxes at the Federal and State level for Corporations and then distributing the freed-up cash to
financial interests, driving shareholder equity, stock performance and financial returns. The expectation, as a response to the Volker induced
recession of 1979 to 1982, was that fueling the Corporate & Small Business ability to have easier capital reserves would lead to increased business

11
purchasing and investment, which would fuel the other three legs of the American Economic table. By favoring value extraction and supply side
austerity economic fiscal policy over value creation and demand side investment economic policy, this approach has contributed to employment
instability and income inequality17. Since the Reagan Revolution & the shift to the Supply Side economic policy matrix from 1980 through 2020,
these are the indicators that have been produced:

% change from Demand Side Value Creation Economic

Policy period to Supply Side Value Extraction
Economic Indicators 1980 to 2020 Economic policy period.
Wage & Salaries annual growth rate 5.17% -15.11%
Corporate Profits annual growth rate 5.81% -52.18%
Taxes on Corporate Income annual growth rate 4.70% -67.09%
Governmental Consumption Spending on Fixed Capital annual growth rate 4.92% -57.07%
Governmental Consumption Spending on Goods & Services annual growth rate 6.02% -52.41%
Personal Income Pre-Tax annual growth rate 5.65% -33.69%
Personal Disposable Income Post-Tax annual growth rate 5.68% -30.65%
Personal Income Outlays Post-Tax annual growth rate 5.76% -27.91%
Dow Jones Average - 10.15% annual growth and 416.16% net growth 10.15% 62.40%
S&P 500 Average - 10.28% annual growth and 421.65% net growth 10.28% 41.99%
Consumer Sentiment Index net average 86.9 -0.80%
US ISM Manufacturing: PMI Composite Index net average 51.88 -4.05%
Homeownership rate growth annual (year over year) 0.05% -96.79%

These are direct contributory factors that have stagnated our ability to respond to crisis and continue the path of equalization of wealth and income
that we were tracking upon during the Demand-Side economic policy period. During the past 40 years, we have cut one of the corners off of the
table, which is governmental spending, which is the wrong way to promote “Pro-Life” “You must bring a pregnancy to term or you are an evil
woman” mandated policy. The efforts to cut that has led to a direct negative economic activity impact on consumer income (correlates to spending
and parents ability to afford the cost of multiple children), non-profit & educational system spending and US Based corporate/business spending
(capital investment, hiring employees & increasing wages above the cost of living, consumer price index & inflation) by reducing a contributor to
the table. We’ve spent 40 years dealing with the Global economic diversification and competition with one hand, one arm, one eye and a bad ear
in this contest. We will always fall short and increase anger, frustration and detachment

17
Harvard Business Review Article, Profits Without Prosperity https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity

12
Supply Side Economic policy impact on women, births, families and the 99% of American households
At the Federal level, trickle-down supply side economics, super-charged by austerity macroeconomic policy from the Federal Reserve since 1981
(Fed actions to raise interest rates and tighten economic liquidity to allow or generate excessive unemployment for extended periods in the name
of keeping inflation tame) would decrease unions and workers ability to achieve wage gains too quickly and make it easier for the business sector
to expand with regulatory, financial and human capital competing constraints. This approach and value extraction model of business investment
and human capital policies, has led to:
• Underwater wage growth,
• Expanding income inequality and
• Increased the number of households that close the year in a bigger deficit than the previous year.
• Reduction in family size and the number of births per woman.

Slow and unequal wage growth since 1980 stems from a growing wedge between overall productivity—the improvements in the amount of goods
and services produced per hour worked—and the pay (wages and benefits) received by a typical worker. This has a destabilizing effect on family
planning and the economic capacity of women to have and raise children. By 2018, the expected number of births per women fell to 1.73, a
record low for the nation. As of 2022, the expected number of births per woman in the US are expected to equal 1.7818 via UN data, however the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Provisional Birth data for 2021 shows a total Fertility Rate equaling 1.663 births per
woman19. Either way, the years of supply side austerity economic policy driven by the Pro-Birth movement, the Republican party & Fiscally
Conservative Democrats have had a negative impact on the growth of American families and is Anti-Child rearing.

Data from the “Identifying the policy levers driving wage suppression and wage inequality” EPI report showed that while productivity and a
typical workers’ compensation grew in tandem over the 1948–1973 period, they diverged thereafter, splitting entirely after 1979. In the latter
period productivity decelerated significantly, but much more rapid deceleration (or even stagnation) occurred in a typical worker’s compensation.
Productivity grew 108.1% from 1948 to 1979, accompanied by 93.2% growth in a worker’s compensation, coinciding with growth in family
size and fertility rates. Between 1979 and 2018 productivity grew 69.6% (1.2% annually) further, but a typical worker’s compensation (wages
and benefits) grew only by 11.6% (0.24% annually), impacting the cost of raising a child and multiple children.

Gap between productivity and a typical worker’s compensation, 1948–2018

1948–1979:
Productivity: +108.1%
Compensation: +93.2%
1979–2018:
Productivity: +69.6%
Compensation: +11.6%

18
<a href='https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fertility-rate'>U.S. Fertility Rate 1950-2022</a>. www.macrotrends.net. Retrieved 2022-07-31.
19
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr020.pdf

13
Their analysis20 quantified that if median hourly compensation (wage and benefit) grown with net productivity (instead of the 43% point
divergence between productivity and compensation from 1979 to 2017), it would have increased from $20.48 in 1979 to $33.10 in 2017 ($2019).
Median hourly compensation was $23.15 in 2017, a $9.95 shortfall from the net productivity benchmark, reflecting the 43% point
divergence under the Supply Side economic policy world, which is extremely Anti-Family, Anti-Parent Economic Interest. From 1980 through
2020 real wages for the bottom 90% of household incomes grew at an annual rate of 0.2%, households in the 90th to 95th percentile grew at
0.5% annual rate while the annual rate of inflation grew at an average of 3.05%. The annual income 95% of American households ended
each year in a deficit of -2.85% in real wage growth against inflation for the bottom 90% and -2.59% in real wage growth for the 90th to 95th
percentile households, which decreased personal purchasing power from where women and families were at during the 1970’s. This erosion in
income & spending power makes it extremely difficult for women to meet the financial resources to have families, if economic insecurity is the
driving factor in an abortion decision. In seasonally adjusted current dollars, median usual weekly earnings rose from $232 in the first quarter of
1979 (when the data series began) to $879 in the second quarter of 2018, which looks like significant wage growth, but in real, inflation-adjusted
terms, the median has barely budged over that period: That $232 in 1979 had the same purchasing power as $840 in 2018 today’s dollars.

Bottom 0% to 90% 90th–95th 95th–99th 99th–100th

Wage Bottom 0% to percentile - YoY 90th–95th Percentile - YoY 95th–99th Percentile - YoY 99th–100th Percentile - YoY
group21 90% percentile Growth rate Percentile Growth rate Percentile Growth rate Percentile Growth rate
1923-1928 $10,891.49 1.93% $39,824.75 1.67% $65,916.51 3.23% $844,284.85 5.53%
1929-1933 $9,433.93 -6.30% $37,200.04 -4.67% $60,337.83 -5.53% $682,754.95 -10.35%
1934-1979 $25,414.61 3.71% $74,656.50 2.88% $113,923.75 2.63% $718,046.27 1.27%
1980-2020 $36,413.70 0.20% $132,984.36 0.46% $226,068.49 1.87% $2,211,233.17 3.89%

The Pro-Birth, Pro-Supply Side Economic policy models haven’t just failed women, families and children, they have failed businesses as well,
with Real GDP growth being down by -2.34% year over year growth rate from the Pro-Family Demand Side Economic period of 1934 to 1979.

US Real GDP Growth Rate by Year (Real

Inflation Rate YOY - Table of Table of Historical Inflation US GDP 1913–1929 - Maddison (2003) - (in
Historical Inflation Rates in Rates in Percent (1914-2021) - Unemployment Rate - millions of 1990 international Geary-
Year Percent (1914-2021)22 Avg-Avg 1913-2020 Khamis dollars)
1929-1933 -4.92% -5.42% 15.26% -4.59%
1934-1979 3.97% 3.89% 6.90% 4.86%
1980-2020 3.05% 3.17% 6.21% 2.52%

20
(Identifying the policy levers generating wage suppression and wage inequality By Lawrence Mishel and Josh Bivens • May 13, 2021)
21
Table A4: Top fractiles Average Real income levels 1913 to 2018 (excluding capital gains) in the United States (adjusted for price inflation) - (fractiles are defined by total
income (incomes in latest year $ - 2018) & 2019 and 2020 Real Income data sourced by EPI analysis of Kopczuk, Saez, and Song (2007) and Social Security Administration wage
statistics (incomes in 2020 dollars).
22
All Urban Consumers – (CPI-U) 1913-2021* Price Index - CPI uses the official CPI-U from 1913 to 1978 and the CPI-U-RS from 1978 to the present.

14
Wage inequality continued to increase in 2020 – Dobbs Decision doesn’t help the situation for women23
Despite 4 years of false stories regarding the economic boon of Trump, the final year of Trump/GOP supply side economic policy failures
continued to widen the income gap, which hurts Mothers disproportionately and robs women of financial resources if she wanted to bring her
unborn baby. Women are paid on average 22.1% less than men (EPI 2022b) and there’s been little to no progress in closing the gender wage gap
in three decades (Gould 2022b). Since 1979, the top 1.0% of income/wage earners saw wages grow by 179% since 1979 while share of wages for
bottom 90% hits new low.
▪ In 2020, annual wages rose fastest for the top 1.0% of earners (up 7.3%) and top 0.1% (up 9.9%) while those in the bottom 90% saw
wages grow by just 1.7% and comprised only 60.2% of all wages in 2020, the lowest share since data began in 1937 and far lower than the
69.8% share in 1979.
▪ The income gap grew significantly versus the 1934 to 1979 period:
• Net % change in Income growth rate for Bottom 90% to Top 1% grew by 94.82% from 1980 to 2020 versus a 192.15% decrease
from 1934 to 1979.
• Net ratio of Income growth rate for Top 1% vs Bottom 90% grew to 19.3 ratio from 1980 to 2020 versus 0.34 ratio from 1934 to
1979
▪ The top 1.0% and 0.1% were the clear winners during the 1979–2020 period:
▪ Wages for the top 1.0% and top 0.1% skyrocketed by 179.3% and 389.1%, respectively.
▪ Wages for the bottom 90% grew just 28.2%.
▪ Cumulative wage growth flipped from the 1934 to 1979 Demand Side Economic policy period, where the top 1% saw growth shift
from 58.48% during the 1934-1979 period to 159.58% during the 1980 to 2020 Supply Side Economic policy period
▪ Cumulative wage growth dropped for the bottom 90% from the 1934 to 1979 period of 170.85% cumulative growth to 8.27%
cumulative growth during the 1980 to 2020 period.
▪ The other segments of the top 10% also had faster-than-average wage growth since 1979, up 53.9% and 83.1%, exceeding the
bottom 90% by a 1.9 to 1 ratio (90th–95th wage group) and 2.95 to 1 ratio (95th–99th wage group).

Women who would be most impacted by the Pro-Birth movement’s forced birth agenda are primarily in the bottom 95% income percentiles, not
the top 1% or the CEO Suite. Another aspect of the Pro-Birth movements economic policy failures for women, in the supply side economic period,
the average gap between CEO jumped by 351-to-1 via the Economic Policy Institute24 and the typical worker and median worker pay in 2021
jumped to 670 to 1 via the Institute on Policy Studies Executive Excess report25. From 1978 to 2020, CEO pay based on realized compensation
grew by 1,322%, far outstripping S&P stock market growth (817%) and top 0.1% earnings growth (which was 341% between 1978 and 2019, the
latest data available). In contrast, compensation of the typical worker grew by just 18.0% from 1978 to 202026. Claiming to be Pro-Life while

23
https://www.epi.org/blog/wages-for-the-top-1-skyrocketed-160-since-1979-while-the-share-of-wages-for-the-bottom-90-shrunk-time-to-remake-wage-pattern-with-
economic-policies-that-generate-robust-wage-growth-for-vast-majority/
24
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2020/
25
Executive Excess 2022 report - https://ips-dc.org/report-executive-excess-2022/
26
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2020/

15
robbing women in 95% of households of income gains through GOP Supply Side economic policy will further raise the inequality and poverty of
children across all geographic areas. That’s not Pro-Life, that’s a Pro-Birth only, Anti-Women mandate.

Wage Bottom 90% Bottom 90% net. 90th–95th 90th–95th net 95th–99th 95th–99th net 99th–100th 99th–100th net
group percentile growth Percentile growth Percentile growth Percentile growth
1923-1928 $10,891.49 11.60% $39,824.75 10.01% $65,916.51 19.38% $844,284.85 33.16%
1929-1933 $9,433.93 -31.52% $37,200.04 -23.34% $60,337.83 -27.63% $682,754.95 -51.74%
1934-1979 $25,414.61 170.85% $74,656.50 132.65% $113,923.75 120.93% $718,046.27 58.48%
1980-2020 $36,413.70 8.27% $132,984.36 19.02% $226,068.49 76.70% $2,211,233.17 159.58%

Wage Net % change in Income growth rate Income gap by Net ratio of Income growth rate for Net % of Income growth rate for
group for Bottom 90% to Top 1% period Top 1% vs Bottom 90% Top 1% vs Bottom 90%
1929-1933 39.08% 7237.23% 1.64 164.15%
1934-1979 -192.15% 2825.33% 0.34 34.23%
1980-2020 94.82% 6072.53% 19.30 1929.63%

Dobbs, Pro-Birth and Supply Side Economics - Where do we go from if we really care about women and children?

With proof that wages and incomes from all household types except for those earning $500,000 per year have not stayed ahead of the cost of living
and inflation, the so-called Pro-Life (Gnostic fake Theocratic Cultural Dictatorship) movement continues all Supply-Side cultish resistance to any
Federal or State level policies to provide income supports to families similar to the subsidies provided to the Corporate sector. For lower income
households, Supply-Side Macro-Austerity economic policy robbed mothers and families with the financial income to meet or exceed increases in
the cost of living and the cost of raising children, yet this movement wants to force a birth mandate without exceptions and not provide any
economic support to the woman and unborn child.

This Anti-Liberty, Anti-Demand-Side Capitalistic Authoritarian side isn’t really Pro-Life, they are really only Pro-Birth Patriarchal movement.
There’s no economic plan to support mothers and families from the Pro-Birth Patriarchal movement except “trust us only, demonize and hate all
Democratic, 3rd party or Pro-Choice people and do as we say, it will all work out”. That’s not fiscally sound, its horrible economic policy, it’s
cruel, indecent and Dictatorial. It’s the modern day version of feudalism, where women are treated as vassals of the State with no right to privacy,
extremely restricted human and economic rights and life choice dictates from “Republican” Pro-Birth Patriarchal Federal and State Governments.

16