This article considers the impact of laws and policies that determine who experiences unplanned pregnancy, who has abortions, and how economic status shapes one's response to unplanned pregnancy. There is a well-documented correlation between abortion and poverty: poor women have more abortions than do their richer sisters. Equally well-documented is the correlation between unplanned pregnancy and poverty. Finally, the high cost of motherhood for poor women and their offspring manifests in disproportionately high lifelong rates of poverty, ill-health and mortality for offspring and mothers, alike. Read together, these factors offer a vivid illustration of the medicalization of poverty.
R. K.Jones and J.Jerman, “Population Group Abortion Rates and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion: United States, 2008-2014,”American Journal of Public Health, 107, no. 12 (2017): 1904–1909, at 1906; Abortion Rates by Income Level, Info-graphic, Guttmacher Inst., available at <https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2017/abortion-rates-income> (last visited July 16, 2018).
L. B.Finer and M. R.Zolna, “Declines in Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011,”New England Journal of Medicine374, no. 9 (2016): 843–852, at 848–852.
10.
L. B.Finer and M. R.Zolna, “Shifts in Intended and Unintended Pregnancies in the United States, 2001–2008,”American Journal of Public Health104, no. S1 (2014): 44–48, at 44.
11.
L.B.Finer and M. R.Zolna, “Declines in Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011,”New England Journal of Medicine374, no. 9 (2016): 843–852, at 848–852.
L. B.Fineret al., “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives,”Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health37, no. 3 (2005): 110–118, at 112.
17.
J. D.Gregory, P.N.Swisher, and R.F.Wilson, Understanding Family Law (4th ed. 2013) at §5.05.
18.
For a detailed discussion of this issue, see L.Shepherd, “The Over-Medicalization and Corrupted Medicalization of Abortion and its Effect on Women Living in Poverty,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics46, no. 3 (2018): 672-679.
R.Blanket al., State Abortion Rates: The Impact of Policies, Providers, Politics, Demographics, and Economic Environment, National Bureau of Economy Research, available at <http://www.nber.org/papers/w4853> (last visited July 16, 2018).
22.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
See, for example, NIFLA v. Bercerra (2018), available at <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf>(last visited September 14, 2018) (rejecting California law requiring faith-based centers to inform women of their rights to access abortion).
29.
The following section draws heavily from my book, M.Oberman, Her Body, Our Laws: On the Front Lines of the Abortion War from El Salvador to Oklahoma (Boston: Beacon Press, 2018): at 97-106.
30.
Oklahoma Health Care Authority, “SoonerCare and Insurance Oklahoma Income Guidelines,”Oklahoma Health Care Authority, available at <https://www.okhca.org/individuals.aspx?id=10328> (last visited July 16, 2018).
See DRS, available at <http://www.addicted.org/drug-alcohol-programs-for-pregnant-women-in-oklahoma.html> (last visited July 16, 2018). The website was so riddled with grammatical errors that it inspired little confidence. The page listing treatment programs for pregnant women read, “All throughout the state of Oklahoma are just over 10 different drugs, and alcohol treatment centers and detox facilities set up to treat pregnant women only. These facilities are available as no-cost and low-cost services, along with private options, which are all equipped to treat pregnant women. As most drug rehabs cannot admit a pregnant woman, it is important that these particular services are available and help is gotten right away.”
See National Low Income Housing Coalition, calculating the “housing wage” by tracking the gap between renters' wages and the costs of rental housing, available at <http://nlihc.org/oor/about> (last visited September 14, 2018)
