[Vision2020] "Traditional" Moral Values Have High Social Costs

[nickgier at roadrunner.com]

Greetings:

Below is my response to John Carlson's recent Town Crier in the Daily News (way below).  I did not have space to dispel the myth about physical and mental consequences of abortion.  Carlson is a retired UI social scientist, which makes his flawed reasoning and ignorance of evidence all the more embarrassing.

To the Editor:

John Carlson’s experiment (10/19) has already run for decades in the Southern United States, where “traditional” moral values reign supreme. Contrary to his theory, the social costs have been much greater than in more liberal states.

Carlson notes the high cost of treating sexually transmitted diseases, but the top six states for syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea infection are Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Alabama.

The Bible Belt also leads the way in teen pregnancies and teen births.  In 2005 the national average was 40 teen births per 1,000 for girls 15-17.  The average for 11 southern states was 54, but only 25 for the liberal New England states.  If one deletes blacks and Hispanics from the calculation, the figure is 40, but the national average drops to 26.

The most destructive drug available is meth, and the highest rates of abuse are found in Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Nebraska, Arkansas, and New York. The lowest rates are found in liberal New England.

The abuse of prescription drug is also big problem. Traditional value states also rank high here as well: Nevada, Arizona, Iowa, Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Washington, and Rhode Island.

Carlson bemoans the high number of divorces, but in 2009 Southern women split from their spouses at a rate of 11.1 per 1,000, while only 7.5 of their Northeastern sisters did. 

The U.S. has the highest incarceration rates in the world, and once again the Bible Belt has the record.  There are 554 prison inmates per 100,000 in 13 southern states, but only 240 in six New England states.

The data on all of these problems (except for divorce) are far better among post-Christian Europeans, so their moral values seem to serving them much better.

Nick Gier, Moscow

Destructive behaviors cost our society 
By John Carlson | Posted: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 Moscow-Pullman Daily News
 
Imagine the following experiment: You divide Americans into two groups. Those who want to live by 
traditional moral values will live in one area, and those who want to reject traditional moral values and 
live doing whatever they please, morally speaking, will live in another area. After 20 years, which 
group would be better off, economically speaking? 

The traditional value group would be better off because the more liberal group would be spending 
millions of dollars dealing with the economic costs of their decisions. These costs are outlined in a 
book by Sen. Jim DeMint and David Woodward, titled "Why We Whisper: Restoring Our Right to Say 
It's Wrong." The authors note, "As elected officials and judges continue to throw traditions overboard 
from the ship of state," conspicuously absent from the political debate "is the mounting costs in 
dollars (and) debt." 

We don't have to look far from home to pick an example. We have proponents of a bill to legalize 
marijuana for medicinal use when the evidence suggests serious health side effects that would more 
than compensate for any claimed benefit. Why would a person want to take a drug that negatively 
affects brain cells, weakens your immune system and can accumulate in your body, prolonging the 
negative effects? It is also more harmful to your heart and lungs than cigarette smoking. It can 
negatively affect reproduction in females. I would never take such a medicine, nor recommend it for 
any loved one. In states where such laws have been passed, the added burden on the legal and social 
service agencies is a major problem. The U.S. attorney for Oregon calls their medical marijuana law a 
"train wreck." 

There are other examples in our society that also affect us. Look at the costs of treating sexually 
transmitted diseases. Research has shown that more than half of all Americans will contract a sexually 
transmitted disease at some point. The cost of treatment exceeds $15 billion in taxes and health 
insurance costs. And this does not include the secondary costs of treating cervical cancer, infertility, 
birth defects and brain damage. 

There are also huge costs associated with out-of-wedlock childbearing. Welfare costs to single-parent 
families exceeds $148 billion per year. Indirect costs in this area relate to increased child abuse and a 
greater inclination toward crime among single-parent homes. And crime and incarceration rates are 
soaring. 

Americans spend billions on abortions - mostly single women - not counting the cost of treating postabortion 
medical and psychological problems. We also pay huge economic costs associated with 
pornography and government-sponsored gambling. The ease of divorce and the choice of many to 
cohabit instead of marry are also added costs to society.
 
In short, social behaviors such as crime, divorce, abortion and drug use have consequences and costs. If government sanctions destructive behavior, the whole country suffers.

As DeMint and Woodward write, the quest for unfettered moral freedom has come at a very steep price. It's a price we all pay, whether we engage in these behaviors or not. And, while we pay more and more each year, we are told we are narrow-minded if we speak out against the destructive behaviors that are causing the increased costs.

Yet, the economic costs - not to mention the human suffering - are why you and I need to speak out. We need to insist that our lawmakers support policies that make good economic sense and relieve human misery. If special-interest groups and liberal lawmakers tell us to pipe down and stop trying to "impose our morality" on everyone else, we need to remind our leaders of that little clause in the Constitution - the one that talks about promoting the general welfare.

Therefore, act close to home and let your legislators know that you oppose the Idaho Medical Choice Act which would legalize medical marijuana in Idaho. It's about promoting general welfare.