Brittany Mostiller, like most women who seek an abortion, had already had children when she became pregnant again. She says, “I had two small daughters under 5 years old. I shared a two-bedroom apartment in my sister’s house.”
Also, she had just lost her job as a Greyhound bus greeter overnight. She received unemployment benefits that were much lower than her wages, with almost all of them going towards rent and utilities. She says, “I don’t even know if I had a phone at that time.” To save money, she said that if I had one it was “certainly on and off”.
Mostiller was concerned about finding another job during pregnancy and being able then to take time off to look after a baby. She knew first and foremost how costly it was to have children. She didn’t want to compromise the health of her two children to have a third.
It turned out that she could not afford an abortion. In Illinois, 15 years ago, abortion wasn’t covered by Medicaid.
Mostiller continued with her pregnancy, but she was hospitalized at 32 weeks. She was then intubated a week later. She began working as a cashier shortly after giving birth to her third child. However, she could only work 20 hours per week. Her financial difficulties began to grow.
She says that she defaulted on student loans she was navigating. She had been studying to become a paralegal, but she left school without a degree. In just over a year, she had also failed to make her credit card payments. This eventually led to her meager paychecks being garnished. She had three jobs at one time, one full-time and one part-time. It was difficult to keep up with it all. It was definitely difficult.
Mostiller has made significant improvements to her life, ironically by having another unplanned child. She discovered a local group that helped poor women pay for abortions and now she works with the National Network of Abortion Funds. Women seeking abortions share her concerns about falling into poverty. They are supported by a lot of research.
Five states and the District of Columbia allowed abortions for many years before the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court. Middlebury College economist Caitlin Mister says that this allowed researchers to compare the economic and demographic outcomes of women in these states with other states and then look at what happened following Roe.
Myers claims they had profound effects and were able document how they were separate from the changes taking place in society.
First, legalizing abortion drastically reduced the number of girls and women who had children aEUR” and were married aEUR”. Myers states that abortion access also provided a significant boost to women’s financial prospects. “This allowed them to get more education and to pursue more professions, which in turn helped to avoid poverty.” They also provide the same economic benefits to their children who they have had later.
Myers was the leader of an amicus brief composed by 154 economists in the Mississippi abortion case before Supreme Court. However, she claims that their findings were ignored.
Julie Rikelman, Center for Reproductive Rights, argued against Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15-weeks. She stated, “The data have been very clear over 50 years that abortions have been critical for women’s equal participation” Chief Justice John Roberts interrupts her and asks, “What kinda data is that?” The Chief Justice John Roberts interrupted her to ask, “What kind of data is that?”
Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion shows that Roe’s supporters claim that women will not be able to compete with men at work if they don’t have access to abortion. The “countervailing arguments” of abortion-rights supporters about modern developments are then cited by Justice Samuel Alito. He cites a change in attitudes towards unmarried women pregnant with children, federal and state laws that prohibit discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy, and “that leave to give birth and for childbirth are now protected by law in many instances.”
Myers claims that this is not true for the majority of women who seek abortions. They are often poorer than women of color and have a greater chance of getting pregnant.
She says that “this population of women… does not have access to paid parental leaves, or affordable child care.” Even those who are eligible for child care have difficulty scheduling because many of them work shifts, which can lead to very irregular schedules.
Opponents of abortion rights see this all differently. Janet Yellen, Treasury Secretary, told a Senate panel recently that Roe being overturned would “set women back many decades”, which was rebuffed by Tim Scott, a Republican Senator from South Carolina.
“Did your employer say that ending the lives of children is good for the labor force participation rates?” He asked him pointedly. He said it was “callous” as well as “harsh” to try to frame the “painful truth” of abortion in this way.
He said that he was a Black man who was raised in poverty by his mother. “I’m grateful to be here as a United States senator.”
Scott’s success is not typical for those who are denied an abortion. Jason Lindo, an economist at Texas A&M University says that the financial consequences can extend well beyond the lives of these women and their children.
He says that “there’s a lot of empirical evidence showing that these kids have adverse outcomes.” “When they are grown up, they’re less likely than their parents to get a higher education, to become involved in crime, and to have lower adult earnings.”
Continued research continues into the economic consequences of abortion. The landmark Turnaway Study tracked women over a decade, and found that those who were denied abortion were four times more likely to live in poverty many years later.
Economists now have more opportunities to conduct “natural experiment” studies, as Texas and increasing numbers of other states have restricted abortion in recent years. According to one analysis from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, such measures can cost local and state economies $105 billion each year by reducing women’s participation in the labor force and their earnings.
Myers, a Middlebury professor, says that Roe will not be overturned.
Based on the evidence so far, she believes that even if half of all states have abortion bans, three quarters of women who seek abortions in these states will still be able to travel to another state and get an abortion. It will be mainly women with the means to access abortion, which will lead to “a dramatic increase of inequality of access.” According to her research, 20% of women could not reach a provider if they travel more than 100 miles.
Myers estimates that around 100,000 women of lower income would be prevented from getting an abortion in the first year following Roe’s repeal. This number could rise if more states restrict abortion via mail, or if there is a long backlog of women seeking assistance in other states.
Again, Lindo and she stress that the effects don’t end there. They also extend to children who women have already had or will have in the future. According to them, it is clear from empirical evidence that cutting abortion access for more women would lead to a widening of already severe economic and racial inequalities for future generations.
