Skip to main content
Hamburger Menu Close



Commentary: US Supreme Court decision on abortion could hurt more than just women

Giving American women the ability to control their reproductive lives is good for their well-being, families and the economic health of the United States, says a law professor.

Commentary: US Supreme Court decision on abortion could hurt more than just women

People march through 8th Street in downtown Boise, Idaho, Tuesday, May 3, 2022, in response to the news that the U.S. Supreme Court could be poised to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade case that legalised abortion nationwide. (Sarah A. Miller/Idaho Statesman via AP)

BALTIMORE, Maryland: A leaked draft suggests the United States Supreme Court is ready to overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark case that gave women the right to terminate a pregnancy.

But reproductive health isn’t just about abortion, despite all the attention the procedure gets. It’s also about access to family planning services, contraception, sex education and much else – all of which have also come under threat in recent years.

Such access lets women control the timing and size of their families so they have children when they are financially secure and emotionally ready and can finish their education and advance in the workplace. After all, having children is expensive, typically costing almost US$15,000 a year for a middle-class family. For low-income working families, childcare costs alone can eat up over a third of earnings.

And that’s why providing Americans with a full range of reproductive health options is good for the economy, at the same time as being essential to the financial security of women and their families. Doing the opposite threatens not only the physical health of women but their economic well-being too.


A Supreme Court majority acknowledged as much in 1992, stating in its Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey decision: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”

But in recent years, the right to control their reproductive health has become increasingly illusory for many women, particularly the poor.

Given their focus on limiting access to abortion, you might assume that conservative politicians would be for policies that help women avoid unintended pregnancies. But conservative attacks on birth control are escalating, even though 99 per cent of sexually active women of reproductive age have used some form of it such as an intrauterine device (IUD), patch or pill at least once.

In addition to its widely recognised health and autonomy benefits for women, contraception directly boosts the economy. In fact, research shows access to the pill is responsible for a third of women’s wage gains since the 1960s.

And this benefit extends to their kids. Children born to mothers with access to family planning benefit from a 20 per cent to 30 per cent increase in their own incomes over their lifetimes, as well as boosting college completion rates.

Not surprisingly, in a 2016 survey, 80 per cent of women said birth control had a positive effect on their lives, including 63 per cent reporting that it reduces stress and 56 per cent saying it helps them to keep working.


Still, there is a class divide in contraception access, as evidenced by disparities in the 2011 rate of unintended pregnancies – the latest data available. While the overall rate fell to 45 per cent in 2011 from 51 per cent in 2008, the figure for women living at or below the poverty line, although also decreasing, was five times that of women at the highest income level.

One reason for this disparity is the cost of birth control, particularly for the most effective, long-lasting forms. For instance, it typically costs women over US$1,000 for an IUD and the procedure to insert it, amounting to about one month’s full-time pay for a minimum-wage worker lacking insurance coverage.

Supporters of abortion rights and anti-abortion rights protesters gather for a protest at the Indiana Federal Courthouse in Indianapolis, Tuesday, May 3, 2022, in response to the news that the U.S. Supreme Court could be poised to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide. (Michelle Pemberton/The Indianapolis Star via AP)

These costs are significant, given that the average American woman will have about two children and will thus need contraception for at least three decades of her life. Unfortunately, publicly funded family planning meets only 54 per cent of the need, and these funding streams are under constant attack by conservatives.

Not surprisingly, health insurance makes a difference, and women with coverage are much more likely to use contraceptive care. And yet about 6.2 million women who need contraception lack insurance coverage. Further, this coverage can be denied to millions of employees and their dependents who work for employers claiming a religious or moral objection under a Supreme Court ruling in 2020.

Another key to reproductive health – and one that isn’t discussed enough – is sexual education for teenagers.

For years, the public has spent up to US$110 million a year on abstinence-only programs, which not only fail to reduce teen birth rates but also reinforce gender stereotypes and are rife with misinformation. Low-income minority teens are particularly subject to these programs.

Teens without knowledge about their sexual health are more likely to get pregnant and less likely to work, spiraling them to the bottom of the economic ladder.


Then there’s the issue of abortion. Let’s start with the cost. Half of women who obtain an abortion pay more than one-third of their monthly income for the procedure.

The longer a woman must wait – either because state law requires it or she needs to save up the money, or both – costs rise significantly.

Studies show that women who cannot access abortion are three times as likely to fall into poverty as women who obtained abortions.

In addition to the financial burden, many states are enacting laws designed to limit abortion access. These laws hit low-income women particularly hard. Since Roe was decided, states have enacted 1,320 restrictions on abortion, including waiting periods, mandatory counseling sessions, and onerous restrictions on clinics. In 2021 alone, states passed 90 such laws.

Another way in which US policy on abortions exacerbates economic inequality, especially for women of colour, is through the ban on federal funding.

It has been so since the 1976 enactment of the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal Medicaid funds from being used for abortions except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk.

Denying poor women coverage for abortion under Medicaid contributes to the unintended birth rates that are seven times as high for poor women as for high-income women.

If Roe v Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court – the chief justice confirmed the leaked draft’s authenticity but said the decision wasn’t final – poor women would be affected the most. Women who are denied abortions are more likely to end up in poverty, be unemployed and turn to public assistance.

By contrast, economists have established that the legalisation of abortion led to improved educational, employment and earnings outcomes for women, as well as for their children.

Politicians cannot promise to grow the economy and simultaneously limit access to abortion, birth control and sexual education. America’s economic health and women’s reproductive health are linked.

Michele Gilman is the Venable Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law. This commentary first appeared on The Conversation.
Source: CNA/ch