By: Maria Samofalova
In the United States, a first-trimester abortion can cost up to 50% of someone's monthly income if they are under the poverty threshold (Fuentes 23). The removal of federal abortion protections kills abortion access to females, in turn worsening economic inequality and widening the gender wealth gap. Due to a lack of protections, states have taken it upon themselves to limit abortions severely. Since the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling–the overturn of Roe v. Wade–14 states have banned most forms of abortion, and many others have enforced unrealistic limitations, which force patients to seek required services out of state (Vayo 24). However, for the majority of marginalized females, out-of-state travel is unfeasible due to financial hardship. Most low-income women lack the resources to cover the cost of travel fees and lost wages if they need an abortion out-of-state (Foster et al., 18). Many people who seek abortions struggle financially, and state-level bans exemplify how the legislature shapes healthcare access independently; consequently, making it harder for women to access abortions due to their location (Fuentes 23).
These travel barriers also worsen economic disparities, especially for those commonly targeted by structural violence. Thus, many minority groups undergo difficulties in navigating and accessing reproductive care. The existing political system in which the United States holds reproductive healthcare at a minimal priority is ineffective and immoral. Despite attempts to preserve the rights of women, such as the Women's Health Protection Act, there have not been enough effective movements to reverse the growing destruction of the abortion care industry nationwide.
On top of this, there is extreme political lobbying at hand. The ultra-wealth has a significant influence on legislation, and they push their old social norms to silence marginalized groups (Andaya 16). Ironically, the law ends up in the hands of those who do not apply (Vayo 24).
The removal of federal abortion protections has heightened economic inequalities in healthcare access for women who are susceptible to structural violence (Rahman 22; Foster 18). 75% of women in need of abortion live below 200% of the poverty level and are predominantly Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Pacific Islander. The effect of lifting these abortion restrictions would result in the entrance of 505,000 women between 15-44 in the workforce, earning three billion dollars annually (Rahman 22). Not only is this beneficial to combat wealth and economic inequality, but it is also beneficial to pivot the economic crash experienced over the past few years post-COVID.
Furthermore, this restrictive healthcare adds to the gender wealth gap and continues to make reproductive healthcare less of a priority in the status quo. Challenging the deeply corrupted status quo can ensure genuine autonomy for all females, particularly the 15.4 million women of color in restricted states struggling to get by financially (Robbin 24). In combating the status quo, we will help address the issue of likely death in labor or pregnancy for Black and Indigenous females. Outside of the mortality aspect, 1.3 million transgender men are targeted directly with pregnancy terrors under restrictive abortion care.
To further emphasize, the goal of the anti-abortion agenda is inherently pro-life, yet that is not being achieved under restrictive healthcare. Twenty-five million unsafe abortions occurred between 2010 and 2014. Countries that ban or have strict limitations on abortions now do not prevent abortions; they breed unsafe ones (United Nations 17). Despite strict restrictions, 47,000 fetal deaths have happened, and there is no concrete evidence proving the effectiveness of restrictive healthcare in maximizing life; in fact, the opposite (United Nations 17).
Due to nationwide political discourse, low-income women are disproportionately harmed since they lack the means to travel for abortion care. When abortion access is restricted, women who can not afford to travel are hurt the most, especially those in socioeconomic distress (Fuentes 23). Many women are already struggling to purchase groceries and pay rent, let alone spend money to travel outside of one's state to access what should be a bodily right. Restrictive laws often force patients to travel across state lines or out of the country, essentially denying them not only reproductive autonomy but also stripping them of their right to properly allocate funds and budgeting since they must perform the abortion in any case (Coen Sanchez 22). Naturally, this leads many women to prefer the cheaper option and unsafely do an abortion in the reality of unaffordability. Accessing care is particularly difficult as well: only 33% of the lowest-paid workers have access to paid sick leave, compared to 95% of the highest earners, and the average cost of a first-trimester abortion ($550) amounts to nearly half of their monthly income (Fuentes 23).
Wealthy anti-abortion radicals unfairly influence the legislature, which in turn silences the voice of the women who need protection the most: low-income women. Wealthy people have an abnormally large influence on legislation via political lobbying. For example, when the Republicans held a majority in the Senate, super PACs and ultra-wealthy donors donated unbelievable quantities of money to show support for Trump's confirmation of three Supreme Court nominees. Notably, The Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC, spent 184 million dollars to promote their conservative anti-abortion candidates in 2016 and 2018 (Vandewalker and Ortegon 21). The power held at the top of the socioeconomic food chain is what keeps the monster of discrimination and inequality content. It is when individuals disregard blatant corruption and borderline bribery that democracy and individual rights begin to crumble beneath us. Most ultra-wealthy men believe that gender roles are beneficial. However, the more the United States transitions into a progressive society, the more dehumanizing these reproductive healthcare restrictions are toward low-income women. These activists align more with companies that profit from contraceptives and benefit from abortion restrictions. Thus, it contributes to racial and gender injustices (Coen Sanchez 22). This demographic of ultra-wealthy white men is consistently pushing outdated social norms and fetal personhood onto policy to silence marginalized groups further (Andaya 16). If this continues, marginalized groups will be harmed, affecting low-income women specifically.
Inevitably, abortion access affects economic inequality more than the other way around (Fuentes 23). Restrictive abortion access not only hurts economic inequality even more, but it also helps boost the gender wealth gap, the promotion of socioeconomic discrimination nationwide, monopolization of the ultra-wealthy in the government, and the breach of the right to life. All of these effects occur to preserve life, yet restriction does the opposite (United Nations 17). Roe v. Wade state discourse is a critical example of how, in the current political system, reproductive healthcare is still mishandled and underprioritized (Vayo 24). Low-income women continue to be disproportionately harmed since, without federal protection laws, they are forced to seek alternate solutions like unsafe abortions or travel (Fuentes 23). However, many low-income women cannot afford out-of-state travel (Foster 18). Moreover, it is because the wealthy anti-abortion radicals unfairly influence the legislature that the voices of low-income marginalized communities are silenced. They feed their old social norms and religious ideals into the political system with their money (Andaya 16; Vayo 24), allowing for political corruption and instability and allowing politics to shift to profit and right-wing ideas instead of the well-being of millions of women help the cycle of oppression to continue. The United States must rise above partisan politics and emotional rhetoric to foster meaningful consensus to reform.
References
Andaya, Elise; Mishtal, Joanna. (2016). The Erosion of Rights to Abortion Care in the United States: A Call for a Renewed Anthropological Engagement with the Politics Of Abortion. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, (), –.
https://www.tesble.com/10.1111/maq.12298
Coen-Sanchez, K., Ebenso, B., El-Mowafi, I. M., Berghs, M., Idriss-Wheeler, D., & Yaya, S. (2022). Repercussions of overturning Roe v. Wade for women across systems and Beyond Borders. Reproductive Health, 19(1). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12978-022-01490-y
Cohen, I. G., Murray, M., & Gostin, L. O. (2022). The end of Roe v. Wade and new legal frontiers on the constitutional right to abortion. JAMA, 328(4), 325–326.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.12397
Foster, D. G., Biggs, M. A., Ralph, L., Gerdts, C., Roberts, S., & Glymour, M. M. (2018). Socioeconomic Outcomes of Women Who Receive and Women Who Are Denied Wanted Abortions in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 108(3), 407. https://www.tesble.com/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304247
Fuentes, L., & Center, B. M. (2023). Abortion out of reach: The exacerbation of wealth disparities after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Nations, U. (2017). Women's Autonomy, Equality, and Reproductive Health in International Human Rights: Between Recognition, Backlash, and Regressive Trends
Rahman, A., & Fellow, S. (2022). The economic costs of abortion restrictions.
Robbin, K. G., Klein, J., & Goodman, S. (2024). State abortion bans harm more than 15 million women of color.
https://nationalpartnership.org/report/state-abortion-bans-harm-woc/
Vandewalker, I., & Ortegon, M. (2021). A vocal-and wealthy-minority is controlling abortion access.
Vayo, A. B. (2024). The States of Inequality: Methods for Mapping Legal Pluralism in Reproductive Autonomy. Law & Social Inquiry, 49(1), 209–246.
02/16/2025