Abortion Is An Economic Issue

We shouldn’t forget that in the post election blame game

abortion pills, Image: VAlaSiurua , CC

Post election, progressives have argued that Harris spent too much time talking about fracking and military preparedness, and not enough talking about pocketbook issues. Centrists have argued that Harris spent too much time talking about trans issues and marginalized people, and not enough talking about pocketbook issues.

Both of these narratives have little to do with the campaign we actually saw, in which Harris spoke extensively about lowering housing costs, helping first time home buyers, and fighting for the middle class.

Memory holing Harris’ actual economic proposals is frustrating and silly. But it doesn’t seem likely to do long term damage since there’s at least a general agreement that helping working people and the middle class is in fact a good thing.

But there is one aspect of the “Harris didn’t talk about economics” consensus that is disturbing. Abortion, in these discussions, tends to be treated as a side issue disconnected from the concerns of working people and from economic well being. And that’s fucked up.

—

If this were a paywalled piece, I would paywall it here. But! I hate paywalling things. So, if you find my writing valuable, and/or read this entire article, consider becoming a paid subscriber so I do not have to paywall articles like this? There’s a sale now; 40% off, $30/year. So it’s a good time to come on board!

—

Abortion Is An Economic Issue

I think everyone would agree that Harris made abortion a central issue in the campaign. She mentioned “Trump abortion bans” at every opportunity and regularly blamed Trump (rightly) for the Supreme Court picks that led to the end of Roe and paved the way for draconian state restrictions. Democrats hoped that state abortion rights ballot measures would boost Harris in states like Arizona and Florida—and though they didn’t win her the election, many of the measures themselves passed, even in very red states like Missouri.

Abortion tends to get bracketed as an “identity politics” issue, or as a culture war issue. But part of the reason Dobbs is so unpopular is because, among its other horrors, loss of access to reproductive care is economically devastating.

The Economic Policy Institute has a good summary of the brutal financial burdens that result when women are forced to bring unplanned and unwanted pregnancies to term.

Some of the economic consequences of being denied an abortion include a higher chance of being in poverty even four years after; a lower likelihood of being employed full time; and an increase in unpaid debts and financial distress lasting years. Laws that restrict abortion providers, so-called “TRAP” laws (targeted regulation of abortion providers), have led to women in those states being less likely to move into higher-paying occupations…. The ability to delay having a child has been found to translate to significantly increased wages and labor earnings, especially among Black women, as well as increased likelihood of educational attainment.

For some women and families lack of reproductive health options can have even more devastating effects. States with restrictive abortion laws have a 7% increase in maternal mortality. Looking at particular policies produces stark contrasts; for instance, states which restrict Medicaid funding had 29% higher maternal mortality than states which did not.

Maternal mortality rates in the US were already at 22 per 100,000 births in the US, much higher than for those of comparably wealthy countries, and rates for Black women are especially dismal. There’s surprisingly little recent US data on how maternal deaths affect the economic stability of the families and children left behind, but it stands to reason that the sudden loss of earnings and/or childcare is a major burden on many families.

Whose pocketbooks are we talking about?

Harris’ campaign focused more on the health dangers of abortion restrictions, especially on two heartbreaking cases in Georgia where the state’s abortion ban prevented two women from receiving care, leading to their deaths. The longterm damage to women’s economic standing and career options were less of a focus, in part no doubt because these consequences are seen as less sympathetic. Many conservatives believe that pregnant women should be willing, and if not willing, forced, to prioritize a blob of fetal tissue over their careers.

Democrats and progressives, though, should in theory be better than that. We should know that abortion rights are a pocketbook issue for anyone who can get pregnant, and for their partners, parents, and children. When assessing Harris’ campaign, we should be acknowledging that abortion rights are crucial for economic wellbeing. To say that Harris didn’t campaign on pocketbook issues is to say that abortion is not a pocketbook issue. Which it is.

So why have many pundits ignored the Democrats’ support for abortion rights when they (wrongly) insist that Harris failed to campaign on economic issues? The answer I think is that economic populist arguments tend to center an imagined typical worker, who is iconically white, and perhaps even more iconically male.

Economic policies that help the “typical” worker are seen as mainstream and universal; economic policies that help other groups—like, say, affirmative action or laws against homophobic discrimination in the workplace—are seen as niche “identity” questions. This is especially the case for centrist pundits. But in the heat of recriminations and jockeying to gain ground even progressives may fail to see some “identity” based appeals as core economic issues.

You can’t have economic progress without rights

Democrats can be timid about connecting economic wellbeing with social justice and civil rights, because they worry that any mention of non white male identity will lead to powerful white male backlash. Again, this is why Harris probably played down the economic effects of abortion in her messaging.

In the second, wretched Trump era, though, it’s going to become painfully clear that when you’re denied equal rights, you’re also denied economic opportunity. You can work hard, but that’s not going to matter much if Trump revokes your legal immigration status or deports your spouse. You can go to school and get a degree to teach, but that won’t help you if LGBT people and Black people are purged from secondary and post secondary education. And, once more, if reproductive care—maybe including birth control—is banned, the financial fate of women and pregnant people becomes extremely precarious.

Centrists are berating Harris for running an identity based campaign she didn’t run, and fulminating about how Democrats need to do more to connect to their core voters (which almost always means white men) and spend less time catering to special interests. But there’s nothing special or unusual about wanting to have bodily autonomy so you can pursue your dreams without being forced against your will into either a health crisis or a financial one. I’m all for demanding Democrats embrace a more progressive economic agenda. But we should remember that that agenda has to include equal rights for all, or it’s just another way to funnel money to the haves and grind down the have nots. Patriarchy is a class system too.