Why Abortion IS a Progressive Economic Issue
Why Abortion IS a Progressive Economic Issue
By BRYCE COVERT APRIL 25, 2017
The Democrats’ unity tour fractured into disunity almost immediately after it began. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont refused to say whether Jon Ossoff, the Democratic candidate trying to win a typically Republican district in Georgia while being outspoken in support of abortion rights, counts as a progressive. He then went on to stump for Heath Mello in Nebraska. Mr. Mello, who is running for mayor in Omaha, has sponsored legislation aimed at restricting women’s access to abortion, including a bill in 2009 that required women to be informed that they could look at ultrasounds of their fetuses. The Democratic National Committee chairman, Thomas E. Perez, didn’t do much to dampen the growing outrage among progressives who see reproductive rights as core to their values. “If you demand fealty on every single issue, then it’s a challenge,” he said last week. It’s not just a misstatement from Mr. Perez or a slight from Mr. Sanders. Democrats, in their post-election soul searching, are trying to learn the lessons from Donald Trump’s jolting victory and how they might win back the presidency. And some — all men so far, it should be noted — argue that the party should move away from so-called social issues like abortion and reproductive freedom.
Instead, these men contend, the party’s focus must be on economics. The glaring mistake they all make, however, is thinking that there is any way to disentangle reproductive rights from economic issues. Economics frequently drive women to seek an abortion in the first place. Unintended pregnancies have become increasingly concentrated among low-income women, who by 2011 were more than five times as likely to experience one as those with greater means. Among women getting an abortion, a 2004 survey found, the most frequently cited reasons were that a new child would interfere with education or work or that women couldn’t afford to have a baby at that time. Abortion rates rose during the recent recession, particularly among low-income women, as they and their partners lost jobs and income.
And economics reverberates throughout women’s lives when they can’t get the abortions they need. In a study of women who sought an abortion, those who were unsuccessful were three times as likely to fall into poverty over the following two years as those women who were able to get one, despite beginning in comparable financial situations. They were also more likely to wind up unemployed. Women who can get the abortions they seek, however, are more likely to follow through on their employment or educational plans. A woman in a precarious financial situation who knows she can’t afford a baby can easily fall farther behind if she has to raise a child, something that costs the average parent thousands of dollars a year. In a country that offers little to no paid leave, child care assistance or other supports, a new child can make it impossibly difficult to hold down a job or get a higher degree.
Democratic Party leaders have frequently tried to play down abortion to win elections. After Democrats failed to take the White House in 2004, Howard Dean, who would soon become chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said, “I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats.” This thinking among Democrats paved the way for debate on the Affordable Care Act to come to a screeching halt when Blue Dog Democrats like Bart Stupak wanted to insert anti-abortion provisions.
. . . .
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/opinion/why-abortion-is-an-progressive-economic-issue.html?_r=0
