The Real Consequences of Banning Abortion

Wednesday, June 08, 2022

Image by Gayatri Malhotra, via Unsplash, license.
Diana Greene Foster, author of The Turnaway Study, which compares the consequences of having an abortion vs. being denied one, offers six predictions regarding what the Supreme Court's expected overturning of Roe vs. Wade will mean for the women who will be denied abortions as a result.

This article is worth a full read for several reasons, the most important of which is that it can help those of us who support reproductive freedom tie this issue to reality.

It's one thing to say, correctly, that an embryo is only a potential human being, and has no rights, and -- again, correctly -- that the only person who should have a say in the matter of whether a woman carries a pregnancy to term should be that woman. But it is quite another to be able to project what that means in real-life terms to someone facing that difficult choice.

Just put the baby up for adoption! (as one Justice basically put it) is a popular, and very thoughtless response to the question. This piece will show just how thoughtless.

Before I list a summary of the predictions of depriving women of control over their own bodies, let me note an observation that comports with my own experience as a young man:
What we found is that decisions about abortion and pregnancy are often driven by the desire to be a good parent. Among people seeking abortion, 60 percent already had children and 40 percent said they want to have a child in the future. Far from being irresponsible, the women we interviewed knew full well what is involved in having children and wanted to wait to do so under the right circumstances. Most commonly, those seeking abortion said they were not financially prepared to take care of a child. Others said it wasn't the right time for a baby or that they wanted to focus on the children they already had. In other words, many people, like my grandmother, choose to wait to have children until they are better able to support a family. [links omitted, bold added]
For me and my girlfriend at the time, it turned out to be a false alarm, but I remember facing the terrifying possibility of having gotten someone I wasn't sure I wanted to marry pregnant at a time I was undecided about having children -- and when neither of us was at all ready to be a decent parent.

The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy are serious, especially for a woman, as we can see from the six predictions, which I list below in bold and briefly summarize in italics (or with a representative quotation). Foster elaborates further on each within the piece:
  1. Wealthier Americans will still get abortions. Lower-income Americans will have children at the wrong time. -- About a quarter of women who might have otherwise had abortions will end up giving birth.
  2. People who are pregnant and don't want to be will face serious physical health risks. -- A full-term pregnancy is riskier to a woman's health than a medically-supervised abortion.
  3. Few people will place their children for adoption. -- "We found that when someone has gone through the literally life-threatening process of staying pregnant and giving birth, the vast majority -- about 90 percent -- choose to parent the child."
  4. More unwanted births now will result in fewer wanted births later. -- This is often due to the lingering financial hardship caused by having an unplanned child.
  5. Those unable to get an abortion will experience economic hardship and curtailed life ambitions. -- Foster notes many hardships for the woman here. All will profoundly also affect any offspring.
  6. More children will be raised in poverty and strain. -- As noted previously, and Foster elaborates on psychological consequences.
Foster ends her piece with a hard-hitting contrast: Between her two grandmothers, one of whom had had an abortion before having her children when she was ready to, and one who placed her own child up for adoption, and whose life was much harder than it might have been, had she been able to have an abortion.

My biggest criticism of the piece is that it never names abortion as a right, which it most certainly is.

Until and unless proponents of reproductive rights stand up for abortion as a right -- and this emphatically excludes forcing other people to pay for it -- they will never gain traction to codify this right into law -- no matter how dire the consequences for those who will suffer directly or indirectly due to its denial.

-- CAV

4 comments:

John Shepard said...

As things stand it seems that the only politically viable alternatives are either to:

1) respect abortion rights to a degree, though not on principle, by not overturning Roe and therefore allowing abortions up to some point of pregnancy, forcing taxpayers to support some abortions as is apparently as it now stands.

Or:

2) repudiate abortion rights federally and in many states, forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term and to give birth, therefore obligating taxpayers to provide for the care of the pregnant woman and for the children she gives birth to.

If a woman does not have the right to choose to abort, then those who force her to continue a pregnancy and to give birth are responsible for their choice. Given that it will be government that will be forcing women to continue their pregnancies and to give birth, then the taxpayers are responsible for the decisions made by their government and in their name.

As I see it, the critical issue is abortion rights, not whether or not taxpayers will be forced to pay one way or the other, because taxpayers will be forced to pay one way or the other given the only politically viable alternatives on the table.

Gus Van Horn said...

It is, but as i argued in CapMag (last link above), I think Dems lose lots of potential support for codifying abortion by package-dealing it with forcing people not involved to pay for it.

John Shepard said...

But perhaps those who balk at supporting the Democrats on abortion because of their legitimate moral offense at the injustice of being forced to pay for the abortions of some (how many, I do not know) women should consider the fact that the alternative means that they are going to be forced and morally should be forced to pay for the care of pregnant women and for raising the children women will be forced to bear.

One way or the other they are going to pay, unjustly or justly, and perhaps they are simply not taking that into consideration, on the view that the law can change, women can be forced to continue their pregnancies and to give birth to children without any responsibility on their part, in spite of the fact that it will be their government forcing women in their name to do so.

At least with respect to being forced to pay for what they should not be forced to support they have a moral argument against having to do so, an argument that is consistent with the principle of individual rights. But they have no such argument for all the abortions that women will not be allowed to get, for the care of the women forced to remain pregnant, for the children they are forced to bear, by the government and in their name (we are not a laissez-faire society, as we should be).

Perhaps if they thought about that, then they would view the issue of a woman's right to abort at the fundamental issue to consider and not hesitate due to the fact that they don't want to support any abortions. In our now advance mixed economy, welfare state, everyone is forced to support things they would not otherwise support. Do we reject the principle of rights because of that with respect to any other issue? Should we?

We're in a mess, given our mixed economy, welfare state, and most often it seems that the solution is to take the next step down the road to totalitarianism. The incentives seem to be in that direction.

If Roe is overturned and abortion is denied to women, more so than it has been (which is the obvious direction we're going), then that will be a wholesale repudiation of the principle of individual rights, not just for women but for every individual.

Gus Van Horn said...

John,

Yes. Your first paragraph makes your point clearer to me. I agree, and that is something I'll remember as this debate goes on, although I'd be careful to avoid looking like I sanction the welfare state.

Thanks

Gus