“But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down,” said Bennett, author of “The Book of Virtues.”

He went on to call that “an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.”


I can't believe he would say something like that!

By Karen~moderator on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 02:45 pm:

Well, I'm not at all familiar with what you've just posted, or *Bennett*, but my first reaction is anger, how politically incorrect is that, how prejudiced, and how STUPID???

By Kaye on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 02:56 pm:

Bennett's remark was apparently inspired by the claim that legalized abortion has reduced crime rates, which was posited in the book Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005) by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. But Levitt and Dubner argued that aborted fetuses would have been more likely to grow up poor and in single-parent or teenage-parent households and therefore more likely to commit crimes; they did not put forth Bennett's race-based argument.

From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Bill Bennett's Morning in America airs on approximately 115 radio stations with an estimated weekly audience of 1.25 million listeners.

— A.S.


Copyright © 2004-2005 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.

By Kaye on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 02:58 pm:

I think he was just talking smack with a idiot caller. It is true there are lots of things we can do to reduce the crime rate, most of them are just not morally right. That is what he was trying to say i think.

By Crystal915 on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 07:49 pm:

Ok, I'll play the devil's advocate. It was an inappropriate thing to say, but statistically speaking it is accurate. A certain percentage of crimes are committed by each race, gender, age group, etc. Removing an entire group WOULD statistically drive down the percentage of crime, although not by much because the population would also decrease. Anyway, I agree with Kaye, and I think he was trying to show the caller that his or her hypothesis was absurd. Back to the caller's original hypothesis, if all of those fetuses had NOT been aborted, they would be increasing revenue, but they would also be taxing the system, just as anyone else does. It's the same economic situation on a larger scale. Account for the number of poor single women who aborted, and figure they may have been on welfare and taxed the system further than a self-sufficient family, and the outcome is slightly worse. The caller was trying to take SS as an argument against abortion, just plain ridiculous.

By Melanie on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 11:31 pm:

It is so funny how things can be taken out of context. I heard the entire clip earlier today (posted above, but it is even clearer when the tone of voice is heard). Like Crystal said, he was trying to show the caller that the argument about social security was ridiculous by making a different outrageous claim. He wasn't in any way advocating this as something to be done. He was trying to show that the logic the caller was using was off base.

By Jtsmom on Saturday, October 1, 2005 - 08:11 am:

I agree Melanie. At first the only thing that I heard on the news was the inappropriate statement he said. They didn't bother to put it in with the rest of the conversation. When taked with the rest, I understand what he was trying to say. The news loves to alter things to make everyone look so bad.

By Jtsmom on Saturday, October 1, 2005 - 08:12 am:

I meant when "put" with the rest, I understand

By Ginny~moderator on Saturday, October 1, 2005 - 08:52 am:

It was a totally inappropriate thing to say, said more or less on the spur of the moment and without much thought, but I think probably well meant in showing why the ideas put forth in that book are morally wrong and absurd and in refuting the caller's premise. It will, however, probably haunt him for the rest of his life.

By Cocoabutter on Monday, October 3, 2005 - 12:21 am:

I agree that saying that arguing for rescuing all aborted babies to fund social security isn't any more ridiculous or idiotic than arguing for aborting all black babies to reduce the crime rate, whether there is merit for that argument or not.

However, we do still have a first amendment. Even if he really was advocating for aborting all black babies, why is it that he can't say it? Seems like more political correctness run amuck on the Republicans.

So "where is the outrage?", I asked myself, when I heard that a doctor is Arkansas is offering free abortions to black Katrina evacuees. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9514379/

Why aren't the partisan bloggers talking about this? (It seems to me to be an obvious publicity stunt- that's what they call pitching in to help the victims!) Where's the sense of proportion here with regard to abortion? Why is it that offering a free abortion to a poor Katrina evacuee, who is most likely to be black, is any worse than what Bennett said? Has our society really sunk so low that people now think the free termination of our children to be a charitable work?

By Unschoolmom on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 07:20 am:

The doctor is offering a legal service to people whose lives are in chaos and have the ability to make a choice about whether to have that done. I think the controversy over Bennets statement was due to the spector of forced abortions or eugenics.

By Ginny~moderator on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 10:30 am:

Lisa, exercising one's First Amendment right to free speech (and to me this Amendment is almost sacred) doesn't mean that what you say in exercise of that right will not come back to haunt you. Nor does it mean that you should not be criticized by others for what you say.

The rights the First Amendment protects are the right to say or publish without government pre-censorship, interference or control and the right to be free of government punishment for exercising that right.

People who are saying Bennett shouldn't have said it, and criticizing him, have the same First Amendment rights.

By Cocoabutter on Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 02:17 pm:

I agree, everyone has the same first amend right to criticize him. It all just seems so one sided.

A conservative personality always gets criticized by the media before a liberal personality does.

By Ginny~moderator on Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 04:48 pm:

Lisa, I think that is a matter of perspective. From where I sit, the liberals get criticized pretty quickly too, especially by the conservative commentators and columnists - and in sometimes very strong terms.