America v. Itself
In recent decades, our society has seen an incredible change in striving towards equality, from the birth of the ‘Me Too’ movement, to the legalization of same sex marriage. While there are still miles to go, and pools of progress to fill, we have seen change. However, years of progress can be washed away when we take a step back, and in this case a big one.
Following the events of the nationally acclaimed court case, Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court deemed that restrictive state regulation of abortion was unconstitutional in a vote: of 7 to 2. The initial advocacy for this case began in the state of Texas, where a woman legally identified as Jane Roe, challenged the Texas law which prohibited abortion in all cases other than to save the woman’s life.
Jane Roe filed the initial lawsuit in Dallas and with the supreme court making the final ruling, this case surely caught national, and global attention. Despite 61% of Americans currently believing that abortion should be legal, the supreme court recently overturned the historical legal case. Despite the lengthy and secretive Supreme Court deliberation, to the general public, the new definition of autonomy was written within days. This left societies with an impending and looming fear for the future.
While one could compile a list of social issues that are birthed from stripping the national right to bodily autonomy, a plethora of economic reasoning can also be leveraged to advocate for the right to choose. Due to the nature of this issue being so vulnerable, and individual beliefs being so strong there is a high level of polarity regarding the debate of abortion. When we boil it down, the issue lies within a single question: should one’s personal beliefs dictate the nature of another's autonomy, choice and ultimately life?
The Economic Impact
It is evident that despite historical gender norms, women play a key role in the American workforce. Statistics demonstrate that women currently hold 50.4% of American jobs. It should be expected that pregnancy, and childbearing responsibilities may impact a woman’s career. This is especially the case in countries that lack government-funded maternity leave; for many low-income individuals, childcare is priced like gold. Forced birth will inevitably decrease participation in the workforce, therefore reigning negative economic impact on the individual. Through a national lens, an increase in the unemployment rate will negatively grossly impact the overall domestic product and labour productivity, while increasing income inequality. These effects have subsequent generational consequences, as there is an evident correlation between income inequality and societal issues such as crime, high levels of debt, and economic instability.
Income inequality is a key issue to focus on, as it is low-income women that are being affected most in this specific context. The overturning of Roe v Wade does not incite a mandatory federal ban on abortion, but it does means that individual states now have the right to make their own decision on the ruling of abortion. A wealthy woman living in Texas (a state that historically has more restrictive views on abortion) likely holds the power and privilege to travel to a different state to access this form of healthcare, bypassing the limitations of abortion with ease. Whereas lower-income citizens affected by the ruling, may not have access to this power. The overturning of Roe v Wade is a horrific event to the social progress of women, but in terms of economic progress, it is far more intersectional.
A current event that supports this perspective lies within American corporations, such as Disney sponsoring employees seeking access to abortion. While this initiative may be supported by responsible corporate governance and empathy, often decisions are made due to the impact on the company’s bottom line. American corporations are simply recognizing and acknowledging the impact that forced birth will have on their business operations, workforce, and profitability.
Increasing the Gender Pay Gap
In today’s environment, women enduring unplanned pregnancies will either exit the workforce, or in many cases be unable to strive towards higher paying positions. Studies discussed in the New York Times and published in both the American Economic Review and The National Bureau of Economic Research demonstrate that the gender pay gap widens significantly during the age range of 20-30, as many women without children continue to earn nearly the same compensation as men. This research reveals that the gender pay gap is largely related to motherhood, creating a strong correlation between abortion rights and gender pay equity.
On a national level, this issue identifies that generally men are the higher earners. An increase in the unfortunate reality of the gender pay gap will subsequently increase the national poverty rate, due to the individual impact on the working woman. The decline in female engagement within the workforce will result in fewer mentors, fewer advocates and a smaller support system for women in full. This reality leads to the deterioration of women feeling confident in the workplace, while also shifting the general expectations for educated women trying to penetrate their competition. therefore leading to an utter disaster for the modern working woman.
Beyond the Individual
Although this issue is focused on individuals who have the capacity to give birth, the problem certainly does not end here. To be blunt, the economic prosperity of American families will be harmed. Sixty percent of people seeking abortions are already parents, and the added financial responsibility of another child will negatively impact the opportunity granted to the family. Think of funding education, which on a national level creates spillover benefits for the general economy.
Further, for low-income women that rely on welfare and other government programs, there will be an increased dependence. Specifically in this current inflationary period, where people are struggling to make ends meet, government programs are being relied on to a great extent, this ruling only increases the prevalence of this.
While this article was written through an economic lens, the right to abortion should not solely be argued based on profitability and economic benefits. However, there are two sides to the coin that involve both social and economic factors. There is no arguing that individuals have strong opinions regarding abortion based on religion, personal values, and experiences, but we must also view this issue in full, as the spillover effects both economic and social are colossal.