Why the possibility of abortion is a matter of personal finances, says an expert who studies the consequences of unwanted pregnancy

Abortion is an important issue for many voters, especially young women, heading into the November election.

Abortion access is about more than politics or health care; it’s also a matter of personal finances, said Diana Greene Foster, a demographer who studies the effects of unwanted pregnancy on people’s lives.

Foster, a professor at the University of California San Francisco, led The Turnaway Study, an important research study on the consequences of the American economy for Americans who “turned away” from abortion. The study followed 1,000 women over a five-year period ending in January 2016. The women in the study had wanted to have an abortion at some point before the study began; not everyone received one.

More from Personal Finance:
How to reduce health care costs during open enrollment
Ozempic increases your health care costs
Working mothers still have more opportunities to handle childcare

In November, voters in 10 states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York and South Dakota – will choose whether to take federal ballot measures on abortion access. .

Such ballot measures follow the United States Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, a decision that established the constitutional right to abortion in 1973.

Nationwide, women under the age of 30 ranked abortion as the most important issue in their vote on Election Day, according to the KFF Survey of Women Voters, which polled 649 women from September 12 to October 1. It is ranked the third most important issue among women voters of all ages, after inflation and threats to democracy, according to a survey from KFF, a provider of health policy research. beautiful.

Abortion is one of the most important issues for registered Republicans, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 9,720 US adults conducted on Aug. 26. to September 2.

CNBC spoke with Foster about the economics of abortion access and the financial implications of the Roe v. Wade.

The discussion has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Greg Iacurci: Can you describe the number of women seeking abortions in the US?

Diana Greene Foster: Another good thing about the Turnaway Study is that the demographics are very similar to the national demographics of who gets an abortion.

More than half are already raising a child. More than half are in their 20s. A small number are young people, although many people think that young people are the main recipients.

Most people have low incomes. It has become more and more so as time goes by. It is now disproportionately concentrated among people with limited economic resources.

GI: Why is that?

DGF: I think rich people have better access to contraception, even after the coverage mandated by Obamacare. Not everyone benefits from that. Not all countries participate in that.

[Medical providers] still provides contraception. There are 20 states that have laws that say you have to get a year’s supply at a time, but almost nowhere else does it. The law says you should get it, but you don’t. I’ve led studies that have shown that if you have people go back for monthly or quarterly returns, as is commonly done,​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ unplanned pregnancy. The rules have changed, but the practice has not. Access is not yet complete.

Also, some people abort those who were planning to get pregnant because something is wrong with their health, with the health of the fetus, and with their health conditions. So even contraception is not the last solution.

GI: What are the economic results of your research?

DGF: When we follow people over time, we see that people who are denied abortions often say that their family income is below the federal poverty line. They may say that they do not have enough money to meet the basic needs of life such as food, shelter and transportation.

Wanting to take care of the children you already have is a common reason for an abortion. We see that the children there tend to be poor and in families that don’t have enough resources if their mother can’t have an abortion.

[They’re also] they are more likely to be fired, have a bigger debt if they are denied an abortion.

GI: Can we measure those effects?

DGF: For example, six months after seeking an abortion, 61% of those who refused an abortion were below the poverty line compared to less than half – 45% – of those who did. they aborted. High chances of being less than [federal poverty line] he persisted for four years.

And based on credit reports, we find that women denied abortions experienced a significant increase in their debt in the past 30 days or more, to an average of $1,749.70, a 78% increase compared to and their pregnancies. [average]. The number of civil records, such as bankruptcy, eviction and court orders, increased significantly for those denied an abortion, by 81%.

GI: Why does this happen?

DGF: Having a child is a big investment. Deciding to be a parent depends on the amount of social support and housing security and access to health care, and our country is not set up to provide those things for people of this level. below.

GI: Your study took place during Roe v. Wade was still the law. Must be it is no longer the case. How do you expect these economic outcomes to be affected?

DGF: In The Turnaway Study, people were denied an abortion because they were too far along in the pregnancy, but now you can be denied an abortion at any time during the pregnancy in something like 13 states. Hence, it may affect a large group of people.

But there have been other changes related to tools to help people navigate with information about how to order abortion pills online. So, it is not the case that everyone who wants to have an abortion is carrying a pregnancy to term.

There have been many attempts to undermine state laws, and I think the Turnaway Doctrine really reveals why. People understand their situation and are highly motivated to get care, even when their country tries to prevent it.

GI: What are the financial implications that some women in those countries may face?

DGF: I am studying the economic costs of Roe’s termination and travel [expense]. The fee has increased by $200 for foreigners. People delayed more than a week.

Under Roe, people could drive to an abortion clinic or hitch a ride; [after Roe ended,] they were more likely to travel by air, having to take multiple modes of transportation. More than half fell asleep. They traveled an average of 10 hours. That means taking time off from work, too. Thus, it increased the cost significantly for those who traveled to have an abortion.

There are people who ordered pills online and didn’t [included] in education. For those people, the cost may come down, because it is possible to buy pills online for less than $30.

But you have to know about it, and you have to have an address, and you have to have internet, and it takes a level of knowledge to be able to pull that off. There may be a need for follow-up medical care, so you must be able to get that.