By Mikaela Steckelis
Problem
Reproductive health rights, particularly abortion care access, in the United States are slowly being repealed. This has major implications for women’s rights, the health of pregnant people, and the economy. With the possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned in the summer of 2022 by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, there is the potential that all state laws restricting abortions will be legal. Wisconsin and its female population are not insulated from this reality despite an existing-choice executive branch. Wisconsin already has codified anti-abortion laws that are currently unenforceable, but come an overturning of Roe, that law would go back into effect and harm women and other pregnant people.
Wisconsin cannot allow pregnant people to resort to unsafe, illegal abortion if they wish to terminate their pregnancies. To force people to resort to a dangerous alternative to abortion is inhumane and unjustifiable for Wisconsinites, protecting women and other pregnant people should be a priority. It is crucial that this law is repealed from the Wisconsin statutes in order to allow pregnant people to have their full rights and be protected from the overwhelmingly negative effects of abortion restrictions. In addition to being bad for pregnant peoples’ health, abortion restrictions are harmful to the economy, both individual and statewide. Abortion restrictions, particularly those as old as that of the Wisconsin code, should not remain on the books to harm the state and its citizens.
Background
Before the American Civil War, about 173 years ago, Wisconsin passed a restrictive law that changed the abortion landscape. This law, Section §940.04 of the Wisconsin code, defines a fetus as “a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive”. (§940.04(6)). Given this classification of personhood, §904.04 places a class E felony on abortion providers in the instance that they perform an abortion on a “quick child”, or a child that can move within the womb of the pregnant person. (§940.04(2)). §904.04 does not include exceptions for rape or incest as a reason for obtaining an abortion. Larkin v. McCann (1974) made the law unenforceable under the Roe v Wade protections granted to abortion access in the United States, but these protections may not be upheld for much longer. In 2021, the Supreme Court heard Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, a case that has the possibility to overturn the Roe precedent and allow the law to be enforceable again. Wisconsin Attorney General, Josh Kaul, has said that he will not prosecute those who violate the law but that does not stop the law from hindering abortion access. (Bauer, 2021). Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin’s CEO Tanya Atkinson has said that if the law were to go back into effect, Planned Parenthood would cease providing abortions. (White, 2021).
Abortion restriction has a proven health cost for those who are denied care. A recent World Health Organization study estimated that limiting abortion in the United States would cause a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths. (Roeder, 2021). Meanwhile, in-clinic abortions are very safe and have fewer complications than a wisdom tooth removal procedure. (Bixby Center, 2022).
What is discussed less is the economic impact of abortion restrictions, both on the individual and the state. Among those who choose abortion to end their pregnancy, 75% are low-income or poor. (Sanger-Katz, Miller, Bui, 2021). Prenatal care, childbirth, and rearing are major expenses, and for those who are low-income, it can cause further economic stress. The economic stress of being refused an abortion has been proven through studies. After being refused an abortion, women were four times as likely to live below the federal poverty line as those who had obtained an abortion. Women who were denied care after seeking abortions reported not having enough money to afford basic living expenses five years after their attempt at getting an abortion. (Cohen, 2018). Additionally, those who have missed the opportunity to have an abortion have 81% more negative public record inquiries such as bankruptcies and evictions and 78% more past due debt. When pregnant people are not granted the opportunity to obtain an abortion, it costs states $105 billion dollars in lost revenue because of fewer people working. (IWPR, 2021). This inability to work also increases the need for welfare usage because the people who cannot work due to the inability to obtain an abortion have a more difficult time supporting themselves.
A strain of economic literature has suggested that there are cost savings to society from abortion services that reduce the need to spend on social programs, medical, and welfare. In a study conducted by Murthy and Creinin, they estimated that for every dollar spent on abortions for low-income people, $4 was saved by the state. When the state does not have to provide post-abortion care after a pregnant person takes it upon themselves to terminate their pregnancy, the state saves much more money. Unplanned births also cause states to spend more than $1.2 billion combined annually for their Medicaid programs because they did not have a publicly-funding family planning service. (Meulen Rodgers, Coast, Lattof, Poss, Moore, 2021). This sum alone is incredibly taxing on states, which is entirely preventable if abortion restrictions that created inaccessible care were abolished.
In addition to medical costs that the state absorbs because of post-abortion care, it also pays for attorney fees because of lawsuits brought against them. In Wisconsin in 2016, for example, $1.6 million was spent on attorney fees because the court mandated the state to pay for providers’ attorneys. (Keating, 2019). The cost of limiting abortions is significant for states, and in the interest of lowering state spending, an easy solution would be to repeal state law on abortion limitations.
In reviewing states that allowed abortion, a study noted that there was a 22-24% increase that Black women graduated high school when they could obtain an abortion. Graduating high school drastically improves both the lives of those who graduate and the community they are in because they have more opportunities. If Wisconsin had a 22-24% increase in Black women graduating high school from 64.1% of Black students graduating high school, there could be almost a $17.8 million dollar increase in GDP. Additionally, both federal, state, and local tax revenue would increase by over $2 million. (The Graduation Effect, 2022). Children whose mothers did not obtain an abortion were more likely to live in poverty and require social services from the state they live in, whereas those whose parents could have lower rates of single parenthood and lower rates of welfare receipt. (Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, 2021). By allowing people to have reproductive freedom, Wisconsin would benefit greatly and have less money spent on welfare and other social safety net programs. This data proves that allowing abortions to proceed can have a net positive effect on the economy, rather than being harmful or saving money.
Recommendation
When it comes to the issue of reproductive health and its necessity to be upheld, there are a number of possible solutions for Wisconsin. In considering these possibilities, there are criteria that should be best met in order to be the best solution for the state and its citizens. These include cost-effectiveness and political feasibility. It is important to note that the Wisconsin legislature consists of a conservative majority in both houses, with 61 Republicans in the Assembly and 21 Republicans in the Senate. Any action that is proposed would need to conform to a standard that would pass the legislature, but also be feasible to pass the liberal executive branch.
The Wisconsin legislature could do nothing, but as noted above, that is a costly avenue. This proposal does have political feasibility, however, because no action entails that nobody has to agree on policy or push a political ideology. As a conservative-majority state, however, within the tenets of the Republican ideology is to limit spending whenever possible, thus not acting would go against the majority’s values.
Alternatively, the legislature could pass a bill that would allocate money for travel and accommodations for pregnant people, which would allow them to travel to a state in which they could have an abortion. Again, this would be costly for Wisconsin, in addition to posing a great burden for the people who wish to receive an abortion. This bill also may not be a solution because the people who receive the funding would either get the money beforehand and could use it for other purposes, or would have to request a refund from the state which would be wildly inefficient. The legislature would never approve a law such as this because it would include significant spending and the continuation of abortion access, both of which do against the majority’s values.
A realistic solution would be to fund better sex education in schools in order to teach people who can get pregnant how to avoid unintended pregnancies. Under these circumstances, there would be no need to alter current laws, but rather implement more laws that would change the curriculum in schools to include a more comprehensive set of sexual education guidelines. This, however, is not proven to solve the problem of reducing pregnancy. There is no definitive study that has proven that mandatory sexual education has had an effect on adolescent fertility. (Patton, Bullivant, Soto, 2020). This policy would also take a relatively long time because agreement among the legislature about what is appropriate to teach is contentious.
What is most feasible to remedy the solution is to repeal the statute through the legislature. There are two notable means by which the legislature could repeal Section §904.04 of the Wisconsin code. One could be through acknowledgment of the defunct nature of the statute and repeal it based on modern standards of social values such as valuing a person’s right to choose what they want to do with their body or equal rights. This is a strategy that the Wisconsin Assembly is currently utilizing through Wisconsin AB 713 (2021). This legislation assesses §904.04 and repeals it, implementing new standards that are more up-to-date with modern opinions on abortion. This bill, however, failed to pass through the Senate because of political ideology on abortion access.
The most effective way in which Wisconsin could repeal §904.04 is through realizing the economic impact and utilizing that rationale to convince the conservative majority to repeal it. Wisconsin spends $2,430 per capita on welfare, which could be reduced if abortion restrictions were repealed. (Urban Institute, 2022). Conservative ideology dictates that the states should avoid spending money on welfare programs, thus it would be a net positive if the abortion restrictions were repealed because as noted above, abortion restriction has a major impact on the economics of people who are denied an abortion. If Wisconsin wishes to reduce its social spending, it could do so by repealing abortion restrictions, notably §904.04, because it would have the largest impact on abortion access in the instance that the Supreme Court of the United States repealed Roe v Wade this summer.
Bibliography
Bauer, Scott. 2021. “Attorney General Josh Kaul Won’t Enforce Any Wisconsin Abortion Ban”. Madison.com https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/attorney-general-josh-kaul-wont-enforce-any-wisconsin-abortion-ban/article_6df6789a-20ca-5459-92d6-ed202dd48ebd.html
Bixby Center. Accessed 2022. “Abortion restrictions put women’s health, safety and wellbeing at risk”. https://bixbycenter.ucsf.edu/sites/bixbycenter.ucsf.edu/files/Abortion%20restrictions%20risk%20women%27s%20health.pdf
Cohen, Ronnie. 2018. “Denial of abortion leads to economic hardship for low-income women”. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-abortion-hardship/denial-of-abortion-leads-to-economic-hardship-for-low-income-women-idUSKBN1F731Z
Keatin, Dan. 2019. “Abortion restrictions are costing states millions of dollars — in fees for the other side” Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2019/09/23/abortion-restrictions-are-costing-states-millions-dollars-fees-other-side/
Lutz, William. 2021. “IWPR Research Shows Negative Impact of Abortion Bans on State Economies”. Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Press Release. https://iwpr.org/media/press-releases/iwpr-research-shows-negative-economic-impact-of-abortions-bans-on-state-economies/
Moore, Brittany., Meulen Rodgers, Yana von der., Coast, Ernesta., Lattof, Samantha., Poss, Cheri., 2021. “History and scientific background on the economics of abortion”. Plos One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257360
Paton, Dan., Bullivant, Stephen., Soto, Juan. July 2020. “The impact of sex education mandates on teenage pregnancy: International evidence”. Health Economics, vol 29, issue 7. Pp 709-807. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4021
Roeder, Amy. 2021. “The negative health implications of restricting abortion access”. Harvard T.C. Chan School of Public Health. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/abortion-restrictions-health-implications/
Sanger-Katz, Margot., Miller, Claire., Bui, Quoctrung. 2021. “Who Gets An Abortion in America?” New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-gets-abortions-in-america.html
Urban Institute. 2022. State and Local Finance Initiative- Wisconsin. https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/projects/state-fiscal-briefs/wisconsin
White, Laurel. 2021. “A 172-year-old abortion law could go back into effect in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Public Radio. https://www.wpr.org/172-year-old-abortion-law-could-go-back-effect-wisconsin
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/193084/20210920175559884_19-1392bsacEconomists.pdf