Chelsea Clinton: Killing preborn children is needed for ‘economic and fiscal health’ of America

Chelsea Clinton, along with Center for Reproductive Rights president and CEO Nancy Northup, online dating platform Bumble’s chief legal officer Elizabeth Monteleone, and president and CEO of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research Jamila K. Taylor, appeared on a pro-abortion panel at South by Southwest (SXSW) 2025.

The women spoke about what they consider to be the negative impacts of the overturning of Roe v. Wade — and the anti-feminist and discriminatory reasons they think abortion, the direct and intentional killing of preborn children, should be legal.

Ultimately, their argument in the panel, “Reproductive Freedom: Good for Workers, Good for Business,” appears to be that child killing through abortion is absolutely necessary, so that women don’t need to be impeded by their own offspring; they can remain in the workforce instead, for the “good” of society.

Abortion is ‘a matter of society, economic and fiscal health’

Clinton is the vice chair of the Clinton Foundation and has a doctorate in International Relations. She is producer of the documentary “Zurawski v. Texas,” which followed a lawsuit brought by several women in Texas — including Amanda Zurawski — who claimed they were denied necessary abortions.

None of the women would have required an induced abortion as treatment for their conditions, and any doctor who denied them proper care was in the wrong. For example, based on reports and her own words, Zurawski needed to undergo a preterm delivery, which is not considered an induced abortion in Texas, but which doctors failed to provide. The debunking of that documentary can be found here.

At SXSW, Clinton claimed that access to abortion “is not just about patient health and well-being, it is a matter of society, economic and fiscal health.” This aligns with her previous comment that “American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy.”

Essentially, her argument is that abandoning motherhood and killing preborn children is justifiable so that “our economy” can grow. Underlying these statements is the idea that mothers who choose to stay home to raise children are not contributing to society as much as women who forgo that choice. It is implied that women cannot be successful at both motherhood and a career — while never questioning the same of men. It’s a highly anti-feminist claim from someone who is, herself, the mother of three children.

Taylor claimed during the panel that Texas loses $16 billion annually because of restrictions on the killing of preborn children, and that the U.S. loses $68 billion a year because of this as well. But as previously explained by Live Action News author Kristi Burton Brown:

Abortion on demand did not suddenly open up the work force to women.

Chelsea Clinton forgets the contributions of women who worked hard to fight sexual discrimination in the workplace, the women who fought to open management positions to more women, and the women who decided that higher education was created not only for men, but also for women.

These women did not open the doors of opportunity to their fellow women because Roe v. Wade brought abortion on demand, but instead, because they resisted inequality — many of them as wives and mothers.

READ: ‘Racist undertones’: Pro-eugenics arguments submitted in Supreme Court abortion pill case

Women have been in the workforce since long before Roe was enacted in 1973. Many who weren’t already in the workforce went to work in record numbers during and after World War II, and a large proportion of these women were mothers. Many entered the workforce out of necessity during wartime; the U.S. Labor Department identifies World War II as the turning point for the increase in women’s employment outside the home. As the National Archives notes:

With men off to fight a worldwide war across the Atlantic and the Pacific, women were called to take their place on the production line. The War Manpower Commission, a Federal Agency established to increase the manufacture of war materials, had the task of recruiting women into employment vital to the war effort.

Men’s attitude towards women in the work force was one challenge to overcome but, surprisingly, women’s own ideas about work outside the home had to change as well.

Perhaps most alarming is that Clinton completely dismisses the potential economic contributions that might have been made by the more than 63 million people who have been aborted since 1973.

Access to abortion is a ‘painfully American’ problem

Clinton went on to say at SXSW that access to abortion is a “painfully American” problem. This is an interesting and erroneous claim.

In the 49 years that Roe v. Wade reigned, the U.S. had one of the most expansive abortion laws in the world. Roe and its sister case Doe v. Bolton forced every state to legalize abortion through viability (24 weeks even though babies born as young as 21 weeks can survive) for any reason, and after viability for reasons of ‘health,’ which included physical and mental health as well as familial and financial health. This meant abortion was allowed — even for a woman’s financial concerns — through all 40 weeks of pregnancy. Some would argue that this created a giant loophole that allowed abortion on demand for any reason throughout pregnancy in every state.

However, most of the rest of the Western world, including Switzerland, Hungary, Denmark, Greece, Norway, and Ukraine, protect preborn children from abortion beginning at 12 weeks of pregnancy, and other nations protect preborn children even earlier. Austria and Italy protect preborn children beginning at 90 days (or three months) of pregnancy, while Belgium, France, Luxembourg, and Spain protect preborn babies beginning at 14 weeks. Poland protects most preborn children from abortion unless they were conceived in rape or their mother’s life is at risk. Most of these nations also have had lower maternal mortality rates than the US did during the time of Roe.

A lack of abortion access is not the problem Clinton thinks it is.

READ: EUGENICS: California inmates forcibly sterilized because ‘it’s cheaper than welfare’

Pro-life laws are ‘hugely unpopular’

Another erroneous claim made during the panel came from Taylor, who said, “Abortion restrictions continue to be hugely unpopular, and it is having a broad effect.”

Clinton supported that claim with one of her own, saying, that “[Texas politicians and the Texas Supreme Court] do not represent the will of the people in the state.”

A recent University of Houston poll of 1200 Texans found that less than half of those polled want abortion to be made easier to access in the state. Particularly interesting about the poll is that, while 83% of those polled would legalize abortion for rape or incest and 84% when there is a “lethal fetal diagnosis,” Houston Public Media noted that “About half of Texans surveyed said they favored a ban at either six or 12 weeks of pregnancy, and 23% said abortion should never be allowed.”

Abortion Doctors Share How The Most Common Abortion Procedures Take Place

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in May 2024 found that 57% of respondents feel abortion should be “legal in all or most cases.” However, when asked about support or opposition to a national law allowing abortion through “viability” (defined by the poll as 24-28 weeks), just 27% of the original 57% who said abortion should be “legal in most cases” indicated support for a law allowing abortion up until 24 weeks, while 71% opposed it. In other words, it seems that “legal in most cases” is not clear, and is therefore not a good indicator of individuals’ true feelings about abortion restrictions.

Another McLaughlin Group poll for North Carolina Right to Life found that 71% of those surveyed would support abortion being legal only under four circumstances: When it is necessary to save the life of the mother, when there is a medical emergency posing a serious risk to the mother, in cases of rape, and in cases of incest.

Current pro-life laws aren’t “unpopular” — they have the support of most Americans.

Northup offered her own commentary on that issue, claiming that for many companies, “their employees don’t want to work in the state of Texas or other states where abortion is banned.” Yet, the population of Texas continues to grow at a rapid pace, reaching 30.5 million – a 4.7% growth from April 2020 to July 2023.