By now everyone who reads this column has read countless op eds about the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, a decision that is either outrageous or commendable depending on one’s perspective. As many pundits have observed, the elimination of Roe does not make abortion illegal. Rather, it gives states the chance to determine whether they will allow the procedure or not.
In anticipation of the Dobbs decision, anti-abortion states tried to outdo each other in the passage of Draconian laws penalizing women who seek abortions. Before the Supreme Court decided against Roe, Texas passed its bounty law whereby citizens who report on abortions being sought by their neighbors can receive up to $10,000. And, as The New York Times reported in September after this law was passed, other states seeking to have the toughest pro-life laws in the nation are passing similar laws with higher bounties, harsher penalties for the women seeking abortions and the medical staff who offer them, and more restrictions on out-of-state travel associated with seeking abortions.
Politicians who advocate pro-life legislation claim these laws are being passed in the name of protecting unborn children. Once children are born, however, many if not most of the states that insist that mothers give birth to children are shredding the safety nets for children born into poverty and in many cases refusing to accept federal funds for medical care. The state of Texas exemplifies this kind of hypocrisy. Elizabeth Williamson’s New York Times article earlier this month, “Who Will Care for Texas’ Post-Roe Babies”, describes the predicament an abused wife faced when she attempted to get an abortion in that state. Williamson offered examples of the frayed-to-non-existent social safety net in that state for children who are born into poverty:
Texas is one of the most dangerous states in the nation to have a baby. The state’s maternal mortality rate is one of the worst in the country, with Black women making up a disproportionate share of deaths. The state’s infant mortality rate, at more than five deaths per thousand births in 2020, translates into nearly 2,000 infant deaths annually.
Texas opted not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, which helped lead to hospital closures and the formation of rural health care “deserts,” where obstetricians are scarce and prenatal care scarcer still. More than a quarter of women of childbearing age are uninsured, the highest rate in the nation. Medicaid covers low-income women through pregnancy and for two months postpartum, compared with 12 months in most states.
A proposal in the Texas House to expand postpartum coverage to 12 months was cut to six months by the State Senate. Tens of thousands of children born to low-income parents languish on the waiting list for subsidized child care.
Given Texas’ failure to provide assistance to children born into poverty combined with data indicating that 49% of those currently getting abortions are below the poverty level, an increase in the economic divide is sure to follow now that Roe is overturned. This is shameful given the relatively low costs associated with supporting mothers who will now be required to carry an unwanted child to term. The Times article describes the costs experienced by Blue Haven, a privately funded religiously affiliated home for parents who originally sought abortions but ultimately chose to have the child. Blue Haven “provides housing, help with household bills, job training, and financial and other counseling for up to a year or more after delivery for pregnant women with existing children.” The Times cited the cost for these services as “about $2,500 per family per month for housing and utilities, plus gas and unexpected household expenses.”
In a state that refuses to expand Medicaid and thereby forfeited over $100 billion in federal funds since 2014, a state that seeks to criminalize and presumably incarcerate mothers who seek abortions at a cost of more than $22,000 per year, and a state that offers $10,000 bounties to citizens who report abortion-seekers to State officials, $2,500 per month to help an indigent family is affordable.
But there is a way that Texas taxpayers could help offset the costs associated with raising unwanted children: they could aggressively seek the identities of the fathers of these children and require their financial support. Given national data indicating that 46% of women seeking abortions are unmarried, it seems reasonable to expect absent fathers to accept fiscal responsibility for children they helped create. If a woman is now mandated to carry a child to term the child’s father should be mandated to help support that child. Utah, hardly the most progressive state in the nation, already has a law in place that requires fathers to pay half of the medical costs associated with pregnancy and Pennsylvania legislators introduced a bill in the last session that would hold fathers responsible for unwanted pregnancies.
One underemphasized element of the Dobbs decision is the transfer of decision-making on abortion to state legislatures, a transfer that should encourage voters to pay close attention to elections in 2022.
This transfer of decision-making on abortion means that laws in Texas, Utah, and Pennsylvania could have an impact on our region, especially in New Hampshire where, according to the anti-abortion organization, Americans United for Life, the legislature has eight anti-abortion bills under consideration for the 2022 session.
As Barack Obama stated at the outset of his two terms, elections have consequences. The Dobbs decision makes that observation more relevant than ever. It’s possible that the demise of Roe will help restore the urgency for voters to participate in elections, especially in states like New Hampshire where a woman’s right to choose is effectively on the ballot.
The writer lives in Etna.