Reproductive freedom was always an economic issue

A version of this column originally appeared in Michigan Advance.

The Michigan League for Public Policy is urging voters to vote yes on Proposal 3-Reproductive Freedom for All on November 8th to protect reproductive freedom in Michigan. As new research from the League illustrates, the economic costs to women of restricting abortion access are too great to leave up to partisan politics.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s July decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization upended nearly 50 years of protection under Roe ensuring the right to access abortion care. This right was immediately threatened as states began introducing legislative restrictions on abortion and enforcing “trigger bans,” laws in state constitutions set to take effect in the event Roe was overturned.

Michiganders also face uncertainty over a 1931 abortion ban which is still being litigated, demonstrating the need to permanently protect reproductive healthcare through a constitutional amendment. During this year’s midterm elections, Michigan is one of three states where voters will have the opportunity to amend the state constitution to establish an explicit right to abortion. 

As we draw nearer to Election Day, countless polls have debated which issue will be at the forefront of voters’ minds when they cast their ballots—the economy or abortion. But we know that for women throughout the state, the two are inextricably linked. 

Reproductive healthcare is an economic issue for women. Nearly 1 in 6 pregnancies in Michigan ends in an abortion, but the vast majority–96.8% of abortions–are not covered by insurance. At the same time, many families with children struggle to afford housing and child care.

Access to reproductive healthcare and the ability to make decisions about family planning impact an individual’s ability to remain in the workforce, pursue higher education and demand higher wages. Women especially face difficult choices about when to tell their employer about a pregnancy, whether to continue working after giving birth and how to navigate a disjointed child care system. 

Pregnant workers often need small accommodations during the workday, such as more bathroom breaks, schedule changes for prenatal visits, less lifting or more sitting. Not all pregnant people needing accommodations at work request them, but those who do are often denied or, in many cases, are dismissed. 

Despite the prohibition established under the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, discrimination targeting pregnant people continues to be widespread. Charges of pregnancy discrimination are disproportionately high among Black women, who account for only 14% of the female labor force but 37% of such complaints. 

The situation does not improve after giving birth, at which point mothers may be passed over for promotion, experience an unwanted reduction in hours or responsibility or loss of pay. While women are routinely paid less, earning just 73 cents for every dollar earned by a White man, the wage gap is even worse for working mothers, who are typically paid just 58 cents for every dollar earned by a working father. That adds up to a wage gap of $1,417 every month for mothers working full-time, year-round, and those lost wages go up significantly for mothers of color. 

Working women also face additional responsibilities, as married and partnered women continue to take on more of the home production and child care work compared to men. The COVID-19 pandemic magnified these differences, driving women out of the workforce as they took on more responsibilities at home. One survey found that more than half of mothers who quit their job during the pandemic attributed their decision to school or child care closures. 

Given the many challenges already facing working women and mothers, the economic costs of restricting reproductive healthcare would be great. Michiganders, not legislators, can and should be trusted to make the health and economic decisions that are best for themselves and their families.

Proposal 3, which enshrines the right to an abortion into the Michigan Constitution, is not just about the right to privacy, personal freedom or compassion for pregnant people; it’s also about ensuring economic well-being for women, children and families across the state. 

Under Proposal 3, abortion will continue to be highly regulated in Michigan. Parental involvement in the reproductive health of minors is already legislated and will remain the same. But the only way to truly protect reproductive healthcare, and the financial repercussions that come with it, is to vote YES on Proposal 3.

We invite voters who want to learn more about Prop 3 to read the text of the proposed amendment and learn more about the importance of reproductive freedom for women’s economic security, racial equity and the overall well-being of Michigan’s families and children.