In this article, the authors focus on the socioeconomic impacts of either approval or denial of abortion services. The authors concede that there are apparent socioeconomic implications in either case of approval or denial of abortion services. Financial hardships, precisely the cost of raising children makes the primary motive behind the termination of pregnancy (Foster, Diana Greene, et al., 407). The authors observe that most women who seek abortion services are faced with economic hardships (Foster, Diana Greene, et al.,411). The study points to more socioeconomic challenges that result from denying women abortion services, and these challenges extend many years, and it is thus conclusive that the laws that impede women’s right to abortion only contribute to worse economic outcomes among these women, and hence overall economic development of the country.
The authors present a study conducted for five years beginning in 2010. The authors deduct the socioeconomic challenges that emanate or may result from either side of the abortion debate. Several elements to determine the socioeconomic aspects that are triggered by approval or denial of abortion are reviewed in this study including the changes in household structure, health insurance, and public assistance, income and poverty, and employment. These facets make important determinants of socioeconomic status in the society, and thus measuring them aids the research team with a more transparent image of the impacts of policies towards or against abortion in the society.
Having been conducted over a long period, the study makes an important asset to the research on the socioeconomic impacts of abortion in the society. This study highlights the specific socioeconomic changes that are registered among women who are allowed to secure an abortion, compared to those that are denied, thus providing a clear image of either decision. This makes the article a critical resource for completing the study that looks into the socioeconomic impacts of abortion with an advantage of comparing it with an otherwise decision.
This article mainly highlights the challenges that abortion patients in Texas have had to deal with, following a 2013 legislative process that saw more than half of all facilities that provided abortion closing. The authors observe that over the last six years leading to 2016, the government implemented measures to discourage abortion, including measures such as logistic complications, and also making the process very expensive (Gerdts, Caitlin, et al., 857).
In this article, the authors present the social and economic impacts of abortion as triggered by policies in Texas. The study was conducted between May and August of 2014, and the researchers were seeking to collect relevant information regarding the challenges that came with the closure of the health facilities that offered abortion services. Among the challenges highlighted in this article is the distance covered to access these services after the shutdown of more than half of the facilities, and this was measured by obtaining residence zip code (Gerdts, Caitlin, et al., 858). Besides the distance covered as a socioeconomic challenge, other measures obtained in this study include the out-of-pocket costs, delays experienced in getting abortion appointment, overnight stays at the facilities and failing to secure the preferred type of abortion.
This research is imperative in determining the socioeconomic impacts of abortion in the USA. The authors focus on the various direct and indirect effects of legislation that are mainly aimed at restricting women’s right to abortion. Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider (TRAP) has been shown to have an impact on the ability of patients to seek abortion services, and through comparison of when the facilities are enough, and when they are not, the authors can highlight the need streamlining regulations with the needs of the people for the socioeconomic challenges/burdens to be alleviated.
- Gerdts, Caitlin, et al. “Impact of Clinic Closures on Women Obtaining Abortion Services After Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 106, no. 5, May 2016, pp. 857–864. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303134.
- Foster, Diana Greene, et al. “Socioeconomic Outcomes of Women Who Receive and Women Who Are Denied Wanted Abortions in the United States.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 108, no. 3, Mar. 2018, pp. 407–413. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.304247.
- “Induced Abortion: Risks That May Impact Adolescents, Young Adults, and Their Children: American College of Pediatricians – August 2016.” Issues in Law & Medicine, vol. 33, no. 1, Spring 2018, pp. 85–112.
- Jatlaoui, Tara C., et al. “Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2014.” MMWR Surveillance Summaries, vol. 66, no. 24, Nov. 2017, pp. 1–44. EBSCOhost, doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6624a1.