Guaranteed Income Programs Are Necessary After the End of Federal Abortion Access
In the months since the fall of Roe v. Wade, state-level abortion bans or restrictions have stripped millions of people of their right to elective abortion care in 18 states and counting. Additional bans and restrictions from anti-choice legislators threaten millions more.
Despite bans where they live, many people experiencing an unwanted pregnancy can still cross state lines for care or purchase abortion pills online. But research shows that these bans will prevent many low-income or otherwise vulnerable people from obtaining desired abortions.
Three quarters of Americans seeking abortion care are already considered low-income, so more people carrying unwanted pregnancies to term will likely raise the child poverty rate in the US. In fact, the Turnaway Study from the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) research program at the University of California, San Francisco, shows that women denied an abortion who carry an unwanted pregnancy to term are four times as likely to live below the poverty line. At the same time, states with limited abortion access typically offer fewer public benefits and have higher maternal mortality rates.
Forcing people to bring children into the world seems to be a medieval form of cruelty, but forcing poor people to give birth without providing the means to help them care for the child is even more sinister.
Fighting to reverse these bans is a necessary and critical action, but in the interim, we must also focus on providing respite for people who fall prey to the inhumanity of such laws. The reversal of Roe demands a revamp of America’s safety net programs and a reimagining of what the government should do to protect its most vulnerable. It is time for states to provide guaranteed income for low-income families.
State governments that force people to become parents should provide flexible financial assistance to those who are unable to afford such a life-altering expense. Cash-assistance models, which have gained popularity nationwide, could be one way to do this. Though politically challenging, Republicans and Democrats may be able to get behind such a proposal.
Unrestricted monthly cash payments provide people with direct, flexible, and dignified assistance that supports financial stability and wealth building, thus bucking the trend of difficult-to-navigate public benefit programs that deliver insufficient aid. Research has shown that when people receive cash, they spend it on necessities such as food, utilities, and housing. Periods of economic distress that are caused by a loss of work or unplanned pregnancy demand these flexible resources. Cash is also critical in planning for the future, investing in one’s career, and promoting economic mobility.
Data has shown that economic mobility in America is often a myth more than a reality, as poor children become poor adults. Not only has child poverty had huge impacts on the health and development of the young, it also reduces the economic prosperity of the country. According to one study, the reduced future earnings of children born into poverty combined with increased health and crime costs decreased the size of the US economy by about $1 trillion in 2015. More children being born into poverty is a problem for today and a problem for America’s future.
At the federal level, a permanent expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) would serve a similar purpose as guaranteed income, providing nearly all American families with monthly funds per child, whether or not they have earned income or owe income taxes. The 2021 American Rescue Plan Act’s expansion of the CTC during the pandemic kept over 3 million children out of poverty each month, making it one of the most effective antipoverty programs in recent history. The CTC should be expanded again, but the scope of financial insecurity created by a loss of bodily autonomy demands state action as well, especially because of the active role state governments have had in creating these circumstances.
In recent years, more than 100 state- and city-led guaranteed income programs have popped up across the US to supplement existing safety net programs and provide basic income to low- and no-income groups. As Teen Vogue has reported, some programs are already focused on providing guaranteed income to new and expecting mothers, including one program in New York that offers $1,000 monthly for three years.
Programs like these have generated positive results, with recipients reporting more financial security, reduced food insecurity, and greater employment prospects. A recent study even found that cash assistance to poor mothers leads to increased brain function in babies.
Guaranteed income programs continue to disprove cynics who are opposed to providing people with “free handouts.” Despite concerns about work disincentives, research shows that reducing financial insecurity can create time and space for people to find better jobs, ultimately creating pathways to economic opportunity. On the flip side, underfunded public benefit programs present individuals with steep benefits losses at certain income thresholds, potentially incentivizing them to stay in lower-income jobs to keep their existing benefits.
These arguments are rarely made in good faith, but for any concerned economists out there, it’s important to note that directing dollars toward a small subset of the population avoids the potential inflationary effects of blanket measures like universal basic income. Providing capital to lower-wage people, especially those in unemployed or underemployed categories, can trigger what’s known as a multiplier effect on the economy, wherein people use the funds to purchase goods and services, thus bolstering the overall economy. Recent programs like pandemic-related stimulus payments have demonstrated the effectiveness of direct payments in stimulating the economy, simultaneously helping to reduce American poverty levels. Given these social and economic benefits, programs such as these can possibly pay for themselves.
Existing welfare programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) are meant to provide cash relief to low- or no-income residents. But despite its federal funding, states can decide how their limited TANF budgets are dispersed. With such freedom of choice comes inequality, as many states refuse to adequately fund cash payments and instead use the funds for abstinence-only sex education or pro-marriage advertising.
According to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, as of 2020, only 21 out of 100 families living in poverty received TANF assistance. For the majority of states that have restricted abortion access, TANF’s safety net is even more tattered. The five states with the smallest TANF cash benefits all ban or restrict abortion, while unforgiving sanctions, strict eligibility criteria, and limited budgets ensure that less than 10% of impoverished residents receive TANF assistance in eight other ban states. Even with a reinvigorated program, more unplanned births in a post-Roe America suggest that TANF would not be large or flexible enough to support more families in poverty, demanding another solution.
States that have passed abortion bans are not ready for a coming spike in the number of poor children. The piecemeal solutions that Republican leaders have proposed, like removing a tax on diapers or launching a website that connects families to resources, are not enough. The frayed social safety nets found in most states with abortion bans must be bolstered by cash assistance programs, Medicaid expansion, living wages, subsidized childcare, and affordable housing, among other solutions. Without more support, disaster looms for low-income families forced to bring children into the world. If right-to-life conservatives truly value every human life, providing the financial means to live with dignity and afford basic necessities should be a logical next step.
Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take
Will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy