Limiting access to abortion is bad for the economy, experts say

Reproductive rights activists in New York are concerned about the loss of access to abortion in some parts of the United States. Economists are also concerned, because restricting reproductive freedom comes at an economic cost to the nation.

The U.S. Supreme Court may be about to overturn the historic Roe v. Wade from 1973 the next month, as indicated by a recently leaked draft opinion. Thirteen states enacted laws that would immediately ban abortion if the decision was overturned.

The decision is widely considered to be more ideologically and politically motivated, rather than being motivated by an attempt to protect women from worse outcomes. This can include financial hardship, restricted ability to obtain higher education and move up the socioeconomic ladder, as well as poorer overall health outcomes for women who rely on clinics for preventive care.

All of this would affect the state of the workforce, economic output and increase the need for government support, economists say.

The consequences are likely so far-reaching and far-reaching that it’s difficult to quantify them, said Jason Lindo, an economics professor at Texas A&M.

It also comes at a time when women’s participation in the workforce, which dropped sharply during the Covid recession, has yet to recover to pre-pandemic levels.

The economic burden

Taking away a woman’s right to choose whether and when she has a child has serious consequences for her career and economic circumstances, Lindo told CNN Business .

Last week, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told lawmakers at a hearing that restricting women’s reproductive rights would have “very damaging effects on the economy.”

“Roe v. Wade and access to reproductive health care, including abortion, helped increase workforce participation,” Yellen said. “This allowed many women to finish school. This increased your earning potential. It allowed women to plan and balance their families and careers.”

Last year, after Texas lawmakers decided to effectively ban abortion in the state, 154 economists filed a amicus curiae (any institution whose purpose is to provide subsidy to court decisions) to the Supreme Court in support of maintaining reproductive freedoms in the United States so that women can realize their full economic and educational potential.

Data from the prominent Turnaway study at the University of California at San Francisco shows that household finances are a major driver of the decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

An analysis of data from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that the majority of women seeking to terminate a pregnancy close to gestational limits had incomes below the poverty line.

Women who were denied abortion, meanwhile, had higher rates of poverty, higher unemployment, and greater need for government assistance. That, in turn, affects their children’s economic well-being and prospects, economists say.

“There is a huge [corpo de] literature showing the long-term effects of the economic circumstances of the home in which a child grows up. It goes on and on,” Lindo pointed out.

Health and safety

Economists are also concerned that general care for women’s health will suffer as a result of restricting or banning abortions. For many women, clinics that offer family planning services are also often the local option for preventive care, including cancer screenings and Pap smears. Having easy access to these clinics plays a crucial role in your healthcare.

“As the distance to the nearest clinic increases, preventive care rates decrease,” said David Slusky, an associate professor of economics at the University of Kansas. And that can lead to worse health outcomes.

“If a woman of childbearing age dies, it has huge economic consequences,” he added. “He is someone in whom society has invested and who has many productive economic years ahead of him.”