rate was 4 times that of other women.(1) On the surface it may seem obvious that “preventing” the arrival of another child by means of abortion would enable women to work or pursue education, and eliminate the cost of having and raising a child.  But what is the actual result when poor women have abortions?

       While poverty provides pressure toward having abortions, it turns out the abortion makes is more difficult for a woman to escape poverty, resulting in a vicious cycle. Studies have shown that detrimental psychological effects of abortion on women can make them less able to be successful in their school and career, less able to maintain a permanent relationship, more likely to have problems with drugs or alcohol, and likely to eventually become a single mother after repeat abortions.(2) All these effects contribute to long term poverty.  In fact, women who have abortions are more likely to require welfare assistance, and the odds of requiring assistance go up with each subsequent abortion.(2)

       So, if a community truly wants to help women out of poverty, abortion is not the answer. Abortion is both wrong, and ineffective in alleviating poverty.  The solution to poverty is not to give poor parents permission to kill their unborn children.

1.  R. Jones et al. in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Sept./Oct. 2002, pp. 226-35 at 231. Cited in “poverty and Abortion, a Vicious Cycle”, http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/2014/poverty-and-abortion.cfm  

 2.  Reardon, David C. "Abortion and the Feminization of Poverty", retrieved from https://afterabortion.org/abortion-and-the-feminization-of-poverty-2/  on 8/18/21, originally published in The Post-Abortion Review 1(3), Fall 1993.