The Supreme Court's recent ruling, Roe v. Wade's repeal, has far more implications than women's access to abortion. Decades of economic research show that limiting their power over when and with whom they form families and relationships threatens their livelihoods and even their lives.
Perhaps the most obvious study has nothing to do with abortion. It was a revolution in divorce, and more specifically in family law, and about 50 years ago, the first her Roe v. Wade decision. Instead of requiring both parties to agree to the dissolution of the marriage or to prove that the other is at fault, the state allows either spouse to act unilaterally. It gave women the power to get out of unhappy or abusive marriages.
Different states enacted the changes at different times, creating a natural experiment that economists have studied to untangle the effects on divorce rates, women's incomes and retirement security. But the most disturbing and disturbing result was the mortality rate: 10 women died at the hands of their spouses, and 8 committed suicide (no affect on men). Reports of domestic violence against women also decreased.
Abortion also gives women the power to end a relationship. If you have children with someone, you must be with them for at least 18 years through guardianship, visitation and alimony. In surveys, 31% of women seeking an abortion cited 'partner-related reasons', such as not wanting to have children with the man, wanting to end the relationship, or believing the father won't care about you. Of these, about 8% cited violence as the main reason. Twice more people said their partner had physically assaulted them in the past six months.
Projecting about 1 million abortions in the United States in 2020, this finding equates to about 25,000 cases directly related to abuse and about 50,000 cases where the mother was recently abused. Homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant and postpartum women, with 16% more deaths for her than nonpregnant women of the same age.
Those familiar with contract negotiations will recognize that both divorce and abortion are about bargaining power, and the politics involved is about exit possibilities. Unilateral divorce made it easier to end marital relationships. Supreme Court decisions shift bargaining power from women to men, making it more difficult to prevent parenthood. This will have serious consequences for women's physical safety and well-being. While this may be the most severe impact, it is not the only one.
As access to abortion expanded in the 1970s, the impact was clear. Greater control over the time of motherhood has improved economic outcomes for women. Recent studies show the economic damage of denied abortions. Women who turned away from abortion clinics because they were past their eligible pregnancies had less employment, had more debt, and attended more public programs than women who were able to have abortions.
Policy makers could, at least in theory, mitigate the employment and income impact of having children. That includes providing universal paid leave, free childcare, mandatory sick leave for all workers, and the right to work part-time. The United States has done nothing of this. But only abortion rights can change the balance between men and women, allowing men and women to be freed from relationships that neither wants. That door is now closed state by state.
Kathryn Anne Edwards is an economist at the Rand Corp. and a professor at the Pardee Rand Graduate School. ©2022 Bloomberg. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency.
Related Articles- Pitts: Trump fell under malignant influence? Seriously?
- Mathews: Let Californians vote in Florida — and vice versa
- Brooks: Americans are hungry for change, so get ready for more turmoil
- Skelton: Would California abortion ballot measure allow late-term abortions?
- Opinion: Climate change failures are robbing future generations of choices