In addition to the moral and political debates over abortion access,
there is an economic argument to for people living in states without
access to abortions. The financial consequences can be long lasting.
My colleague Ali Rogan has more.
The legalization of abortion in the 19 seventies had a dramatic effect
on when and under what circumstances. Women become mothers. A large
body of research over the 50 years since has shown how unwanted pregnancies
can affect women's education, employment and earning prospects.
Caitlyn Noel's. Myers, an economist at Middlebury College, joins
us to discuss what we know about the economic effects of limiting
access to abortion. Caitlin thank you so much for joining us. A lot
of the costs of having a child seems self evident. I think to a lot
of people. It's obviously very expensive undertaking.
But there is empirical data that shows how being denied an abortion
can transform a person's financial well being. Tell us about that
data.
Sure so economists know that whether and wind to have a child is
one of the most economically significant decisions that a woman will
make in her lifetime. And we also know that women who are seeking
abortions
Tend to be disproportionately at vulnerable moments in their lives.
They are disproportionately low income. Most of them are already
parenting. Many of them are experiencing disruptive life events like,
um, being behind on the rent or losing a job. One really influential
study. The turn away study followed hundreds of women who were seeking
abortions.
And some of these women were arriving at abortion providers just
past the gestational age, cut off to obtain the abortion and were
turned away from the provider as a result, and they saw that for
the months and years leading up to that pivotal moment in their lives.
All of these women had very similar financial circumstances.
But at this moment with a group of them was turned away from the
abortion they wanted to have they experienced about an 80% increase
in adverse credit events like bankruptcies compared to the women
who received the abortions that they wanted. Now on the flip side,
Of course, it seems that the way that this ruling came down means
That access to people in certain socio economics. Certainly certain
racial subgroups are going to be able to maintain access, even if
restrictions in the state in which they live Titan, so I'd love to
ask. Is that access really going to become stratified?
Depending on what socio economic and what Rachel groups people fall
into. We have a lot of empirical evidence to suggest that the answer
is, yes, that the Dobbs decision and the overturning of Roe isn't
going to eliminate abortion, abortion access for all American women,
but rather it's going to create really substantial inequality.
In access. What we've seen suggests that about three quarters of
the women who live in areas where access is about to decline.
Are still going to find a way.
They are going to, uh, scrimp. They are going to struggle, but they
are going to find a way to make those trips to the states where abortion
remains legal.
But about a quarter of women based on what we know are likely to
end up trapped, trapped by poverty, trapped by their personal circumstances,
like being in abusive relationships and are unlikely to be able to
get out.
And perhaps not surprisingly, the women who end up trapped are disproportionately
poor. They're disproportionately young. They're disproportionately
women of color.
And to that, to that point, there are some abortion funds that have
said, you know, there are organizations that say they're going to
help support women to make sure that they can afford the abortions.
But they don't necessarily mention some of those hidden costs that
you mentioned the cost of childcare while pursuing an abortion. The
cost of travel Do you anticipate that those hidden costs are going
to be things that prevent some people from pursuing abortions?
Yeah, we We've seen it before. Even with the presence of these types
of funds in these types of access, and I don't mean to imply they
won't make a difference to people's lives. These funds absolutely.
Are going to end up helping women who otherwise could not travel
find a way out. But it's also the case that making trips like these
these will be trips for many women of hundreds or even thousands
of miles round trip, and many of these are women who have a hard
time often taking time off work.
Who are living on the financial margins who are having trouble finding
child care for their Children. And so there are so many of these
hidden costs that it seems quite likely that a large number of women
will, despite access to these types of resources still struggle to
find a way out.
And very quickly. I want to ask you in the Dobbs case, Lawyers for
the state of Mississippi argued that policies like parental leave
and childcare, which weren't as prevalent when Roe was initially
decided.
Quote, facilitate the ability of women to pursue both career success
and a rich family life. Putting aside the fact that not everybody
wants both of those things. What's your response to that? The reality
is most American women still don't have access to paid family leave
particularly poor women, particularly low income women who are seeking
abortions and even if they find a way to subsidize or pay for childcare,
many of these women
Working what's called Shift work. They have very unpredictable schedules,
which make it really difficult to schedule childcare. So I'm not
denying that.
All sorts of policy advances have facilitated work Life balance,
but I also think that parents still face substantial logistical and
financial challenges, and that
There's their even greater for low income families. Caitlin Knowles
Myers, economist at Middlebury College. Thank you so much for your