Roe @ 36: Poverty and Reproductive Freedom

From Feministe I see that next Wednesday, the first full day under an Obama Administration (Yippee!), Roe v. Wade was passed 36 years ago.  Citing the ever exceptional research from the Guttmacher Institute, here are some important highlights to consider for women's rights, reproductive justice and anti-poverty activists alike.

In 2000, 2% of all U.S. women of reproductive age had had an abortion.  Since abortion was legalized, about 20% of all pregnancies end in abortion.  Yet "stark" economic and ethnic/racial disparities exist:

• "poor women are four times as likely to have an unplanned pregnancy, three times as likely to have an abortion and five times as likely to have an unplanned birth."
• In 2000, "Women who are aged 18-29, unmarried, black or Hispanic, or economically disadvantaged—including those on Medicaid—have higher abortion rates."
• "Abortion rates for women with incomes below 200% of poverty and for women with Medicaid coverage increased between 1994 and 2000...the abortion rate among poor teenagers increased substantially."

The most commonly cited reasons for abortion were "that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%) [or] that she could not afford a baby now (73%)".

Now, before (and don't even start!) any commenters try to use this data as evidence of behavioral or value differences between poorer and more affluent women (or among women of color - don't even think about it), consider why the abortion rates might vary between women who have financial access to contraception through their employer-based healthcare or through private doctors and women who rely on publicly funded family planning:

Publicly funded family planning clinics provide contraceptive services to [only] seven million women each year. Without these services, unintended pregnancy rates would be nearly 50% higher for all women and about two-thirds higher among low-income women.

1.4 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely result in about 640,000 unintended births and 600,000 abortions, are averted each year because of these services.

Research shows that these services save $4.3 billion in public funds. Nationally, every $1.00 invested in helping women avoid pregnancies they do not want saves $4.02 in Medicaid expenditures that otherwise would be needed.

each $20 million increment in new funding under the Title X family planning services program alone would help women avoid another 17,200 unintended pregnancies, including 7,000 that would end in abortion.

Expanding eligibility for Medicaid-covered family planning services nationwide to the same income eligibility levels used for pregnant women would yield even greater results, further reducing unintended pregnancy and abortion by 15%, while achieving an additional $1.5 billion in net savings annually.

(My edits and emphases throughout)

The abortion rate is at its lowest level since 1974, which some people like to hail as progress.  Maybe, but is it successful like welfare reform?   Meaning, are abortion rates declining because women have full access to contraception and are making fully informed decisions about their reproductive options?  Or is it because we continue (trying) to restrict access to family planning, contraception and legal medical services - including abortion, forcing more and more women to give birth whether or not they and their loved ones are ready to bring a child into the world?

(For those of you who want to go "but, but, but adoption!" - this is a conversation, albeit a difficult one, about unintended pregnancies.  Read more here about the fallacy of the abortion versus adoption argument.)

(photo by infowidget)