In the 45 years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, public debate in the U.S. about abortion has been dominated by misconceptions, misunderstanding, and misinformation. Women and health-care providers are slandered as cold-blooded murderers eager to find the cruelest possible ways to end pregnancies. Men are absent from the debate about whether to limit or prohibit access to abortion — a visitor from another planet might well assume that women spontaneously initiate pregnancies, unassisted.
The reality, of course, is quite different. Women do not casually terminate pregnancies. When women do not have access to the health care they need, there can be terrible consequences. U.S. health-care providers are harassed, threatened with violence, and even murdered. Male U.S. politicians freely discuss criminally punishing women for having abortions, without considering what responsibility men ought to bear.
When women do not have access to reproductive health care, including abortion, there is an economic cost.But one key part of this controversial issue is rarely discussed: When women do not have access to reproductive health care, including abortion, there is an economic cost — not only to women, but to employers and the larger workforce.
Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision to resign from the Supreme Court has focused attention on the real possibility that his successor will provide a fifth vote to overrule Roe v. Wade. If that happens, each U.S. state would be able to enact laws making abortion a crime in most circumstances.
Columbia Law professor Katherine Franke predicts that, “If women can’t control their…bodies — and [if] it’s a crime to do so, we’ll…see a drop in women in the wage labor market, in politics, as heads of corporations.” Moreover, women who don’t have access to abortions when they need them are also more likely to fall into poverty. A 2018 study by the American Journal of Public Health reports that women who were unable to obtain an abortion were four times more likely to have a household income below the poverty line and three times more likely to be unemployed after six months.
A decision to overrule or further undermine Roe v. Wade would be a giant step backwards for women in the U.S. workforce, and indeed as members of U.S. society. Will businesses be able to retain and recruit talented employees — women and men alike — in states that limit women’s rights? Meanwhile, businesses that continue to operate in such states will incur additional costs. For example, employees who get pregnant might go to other states or countries to gain access to the health care they need, missing work for the time needed to travel. Others who are unable to afford or obtain the necessary medical care could see their health put at risk, which also means time lost at work.
It’s worth recalling remember a similar moment in 1992 when the Supreme Court seemed poised to overrule Roe v. Wade. Justice Kennedy, in fact, provided a swing vote for a narrow 5-4 majority that upheld the 1973 ruling. At the time, Kennedy and two other justices explained that “An entire generation [had] come of age free to assume Roe's concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions…”
Now, 45 years after Roe v. Wade, these words ring even truer. As they consider President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Court, U.S. senators should weigh the economic costs to a post-Roe v. Wade America where states can pass laws essentially restricting women’s ability to participate in the workforce and contribute to U.S. productivity.
Chris Edelson is an assistant professor of government in American University’s School of Public Affairs. He is the author of “ Power Without Constraint: The Post 9/11 Presidency and National Security ” (University of Wisconsin Press, 2016).
