Introduction
“Abortion is murder.” It’s a rhetoric that is shoved down people’s throats constantly. And who better to be doing that than those who believe they are minimally impacted by the consequences of that statement.
People advocating for the restriction of reproductive rights are under the illusion that the consequences will not affect their demographic in any way, shape or form. It’s the delusional belief that they are somehow “above” and “better” than those that it will impact. Unfortunately, the reality is far more dystopian than they care to realise.
Understanding Reproductive Rights
That being said, reproductive rights are not limited to just abortion. It includes access to contraceptives, fertility treatments, maternal healthcare, protection from coerced sterilisation and mutilation, among others. The very core of it lies in the fact that it is a choice. A choice of whether to or not to exercise a right provided to a citizen by the government.
The development of the term “reproductive rights” was along with human rights at the United Nations’ 1968 International Conference on Human Rights. It grew as a subset of human rights. Initially, the term was used to refer to the right of parents to determine, freely and responsibly, the number and spacing of their children (as mentioned in the Proclamation of Tehran). It evolved closer to its modern meaning in the UN’s “Decade of Women” (1975–1985) during which women’s mental, sexual, and gynecological health was at the forefront, as one of the main priorities of the UN.
The main focus of different nations when it comes to reproductive rights, unsurprisingly, tends to differ. Like sexual violence in armed conflict (in the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan), maternal mortality (in Afghanistan). The One-Child Policy in China presented a unique dichotomy in the country, though abortion was promoted and made widely available, it came with strings attached as women were often fined, or forcibly sterilised if they were getting an abortion after already having a child.
In third world countries, there is a trend which suggests a correlation to more lenient abortion laws owing to a multitude of factors, but this does not mean that safe abortion services and facilities are made widely available in those countries. As in the case of Zambia, the law stipulates that only a registered medical practitioner can legally perform an abortion, not midwives or nurses, making it inaccessible to those who need it the most. This results in an abnormally high rate of abortion related maternal mortality (about 30%), despite having a liberal abortion law.
Economic Impact of Restrictions
Restriction of reproductive rights places a huge economic burden on individuals forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. The opportunity cost of raising children is the reason fertility does not have a fixed relationship with economic well-being.
The indirect effect of restriction of reproductive rights is the decrease in labour force in an economy. It decreases women’s participation in the workforce, and limits their income potential. By putting strict limitations on women’s reproductive rights, economies lose out on widespread economic growth that is driven by women’s contribution to workforce productivity. The female labor-force participation rate is a major determinant of economic growth.
It causes significant strain on the healthcare system, as the cost of managing complications in unsafe, unwanted and high risk pregnancies, is like a match to a flame in an underfunded healthcare system.
There is an increase in long term macroeconomic losses, as a consequence of people being unable to achieve their full potential due to a prolonged lack of reproductive autonomy. Women tend to abandon their higher education if they become pregnant, and the economy fails to harness valuable human capital from that population demographic as a result. Completing an education also increases lifetime savings, leading to a better quality of life, post retirement or in old age.
Not to mention, the funds being spent on the enforcement of these restrictive laws, which have no long term addition to economic welfare. The money being poured into law enforcement and the legal system in pursuit of enforcement of these laws, in place of setting up safe and secure facilities for protection of reproductive rights , is economically unwise, illogical and irrational.
The cost of welfare programs is vastly outweighed by the potential tax revenues from empowered, economically active individuals participating in society.
The parental pay gap displays that while the mother’s earnings tend to decrease with each specific child, the father’s income remains largely unaffected.
Even while women are working and earning more than their male partners, they tend to give up a larger share of their time to caregiving regardless. While their male counterparts tend to enjoy more leisure time.
Some women eschew what the Nobel laureate economist Claudia Goldin calls “greedy jobs.” These jobs often require people to commit to a gruelling, often unpredictable schedule in exchange for high remuneration and return. They often refer to demanding, high paying jobs in the financial and/or legal sectors. Men are often more willing to take on such jobs as there exists a certain unsaid expectation that their spouse/extended family or hired help will manage their care responsibilities when they arise.
According to one recent study, higher-earning women experience a 60% drop in pre-childbirth earnings compared to their male partners.
The restriction of reproductive rights is a poverty trap for families who cannot support unwanted pregnancies. They become trapped in a vicious cycle of generational poverty due to being unable to access proper family planning facilities. Oftentimes, if the situation grows dire enough, the child(ren) may have to be placed with the state, due to their biological parents being financially unable to provide for them. This causes severe mental agony to both the child and the parents/ caregivers, and leads to further deterioration of their quality of life.
Not to mention, this increases reliance on social systems, increasing the burden of maintenance of these agencies on the government. Incurring yet another indirect economic cost of oppression of reproductive rights.
Conclusion
For women throughout the world, reproductive rights are the cornerstone of economic freedom. The choice is a provision of economic justice. Not to mention, prioritising reproductive healthcare is a critical step towards sustainable development. Protecting reproductive rights is not just a moral imperative but also a strategic economic investment for the government and a step towards the betterment of the economy as a whole.
The restriction of reproductive rights does not have isolated consequences on a particular group of people, but rather has an interconnected and interwoven impact on individuals, households, societies and nations.
