The Sociology of Abortion: Who Gets Abortions, and Why?

In light of the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022, debates about the morality of abortion are more relevant than ever. Nearly one in every five pregnant women in the US terminated her pregnancy through abortion in 2020 (Jones et al. 2022). The majority of women who receive abortions are poor, have at least one child, and are single (Jerman, Jones, and Onda 2016; Kortsmit et al. 2020). Evidently, women already in socially vulnerable positions are the most affected by abortion. The pro-choice side often frames abortion as a positive health outcome - receiving an abortion indicates that the woman was able to access a service which she wanted. They seek to expand access to abortion in an effort to promote bodily autonomy. But how can an abortion be a positive health outcome, or even a fully autonomous decision, when the women seeking it are almost exclusively the vulnerable and the desperate, pushed to this option by immensely powerful upstream factors? Perhaps the phenomenon of abortion is not a solution to the “problem” of pregnancy, but a hasty attempt to mask the broader problems of socioeconomic disparities, difficulty in accessing prenatal care, medical mistrust, racism, educational disparities, unsafe neighborhood environments, domestic violence, and poor occupational conditions and living conditions. It is necessary to examine these profound social factors which sway women towards abortion in the first place. Occupational conditions and living conditions are particularly impactful in understanding why women make the decision to have abortions. 

When asked, women who received abortions most often identified four primary reasons for their decision: 40% cited financial reasons, 36% cited inopportune timing, 31% cited reasons relating to the father, and 29% cited existing children. About 40% of these women did not have enough money to meet their basic living needs, which tracks with the 40% of women who cited finances as the primary reason for seeking an abortion (Biggs et al. 2013). Nearly all of these conditions associated with increased risk of abortion indicate a lack of social and financial support surrounding the pregnant woman. The over concentration of black women in low-wage jobs, the lack of marital stability, the lower efficacy of contraceptive use resulting in higher likelihood of existing children, and absence of education all contribute markedly to disproportionate rate of abortions amongst black women in particular (Burnham 2016; Wright 2020; Biggs et al. 2013). 

As mentioned above, a woman’s living situation and job are often cited as reasons for obtaining an abortion (Biggs et al. 2013). Most women who have abortions already have at least one child living with them, and these mothers invest significant time and resources into caring for their child or children. About 86% of women who receive abortions are unmarried and 75% are single, meaning they raise these existing children alone with little to not support from the father and would likely raise prospective children the same way (Jerman et al. 2016; Kortsmit et al. 2020). To compound the likelihood of abortion in black communities, black women are disproportionately employed in low-wage occupations or unemployed (Burnham 2016). Paying the costs of child-rearing on a low-wage job with limited benefits and little to no partner support is far from easy. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates it costs about $233,610 to care for a child from birth through the age of 17 (Lino et al. 2017), and there is no doubt that this amount has only increased since this estimate was made six years ago. It follows that being a minority, having at least one child, and depending on some kind of financial assistance to pay for the procedure are all factors which are associated with repeat abortions as well. Factors that decreased the risk for repeat abortions included having a college degree and living more than 25 miles away from an abortion clinic (Jones et al. 2018). 

These facts and figures paint the heartbreaking, ever so common portrait of the typical woman who seeks an abortion. This woman is poor, single, and a racial minority. She is overwhelmed by rearing existing children with little to no help from the father, and works long hours to provide for herself and her family. This woman is likely resourceful, hardworking, and independent. However, this woman has also been convinced that the obstacles to her raising a child are insurmountable. The stress and pain that lack of social, financial, and institutional support can induce are breathtaking. 

However, women’s illusions of being alone are just that - illusions. There are resources available to pregnant women all across the country which can help them through the process of pregnancy and afterwards as she raises the child. One of the most striking networks is the website Standing With You, which serves as a directory for local and international resources. Pregnant women and their partners can use this directory as a way to locate assistance with housing, school, babysitting, baby supplies, prenatal care, adoption information, and the like. This is just one example of the rich social network which supports pregnant women and their children. Support After Abortion is yet another organization which provides support to women via free counseling services. Both organizations are examples of the Pro-Life movement’s ultimate aim: To spur a cultural revolution in which each person feels a sense of compassion and responsibility for their neighbors - especially the vulnerable ones. 

With a massive number of the 930,160 annual abortions being disproportionately performed on low-income and minority women (Jones et al. 2020), it is clear that the social forces exerted on these women are immense. Minority and low income women are more likely than white, medium-income women to receive abortion procedures in part because of decreased availability of social and financial resources, which could aid them in child-rearing (Jones et al. 2018; Jerman et al. 2016; Burnham 2016; Wright 2020; Biggs et al. 2013). Additionally, they are more likely to tackle barriers to abortion care and suffer negative health outcomes as a result (Kimport and Littlejohn 2022; Fuentes and Jerman 2019; Marmion and Skop 2020). Abortion is one attempt to solve the overarching problems of generational poverty and racial disparities, but it does so by providing the societally vulnerable with access to a procedure that poses significant detriment to their health and well-being as opposed to addressing the broader systemic issues that contribute to disadvantaged women desiring abortion at all.

This article draws on ideas which are discussed more thoroughly in the literature review linked here. 

Works Cited 

Biggs, M. Antonia, Heather Gould, and Diana Greene Foster. 2013. “Understanding Why Women Seek Abortions in the US.” BMC Womens Health 13(29): 1-13

Burnham, Linda. 2016. “Gender and the Black Jobs Crisis.” A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society 18(1): 126-134.

Fuentes, Liza and Jenna Jerman. 2019. “Distance Traveled to Obtain Clinical Abortion Care in the United States and Reasons for Clinic Choice.” Journal of Womens Health 28(12): 1623 -1631. 

Jerman, Jenna, Rachel K. Jones, and Tsuyoshi Onda. 2016. “Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008.” New York: Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved November 2022 (https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014.pdf). 

Jones, Rachel K., Marielle Kirstein, Jesse Philbin. 2022. “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2020.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Epub ahead of print, DOI: 10.1363/psrh.12215

Jones, Rachel K., Jenna Jerman, and Meghan Ingerick. 2018. “Which Abortion Patients Have Had a Prior Abortion? Findings From the 2014 US Abortion Patient Survey.” Journal of Womens Health 27(1): 58-63. 

 Kimport, Katrina and Krystale Littlejohn. 2022. “Abortion as Obtainable: Insights Into How Pregnant People in the United States Who Considered Abortion Understand Abortion Availability.” Contraception 106: 45-48. 

Kortsmit, Katherine, Antoinette T. Nguyen, Michele G. Mandel, Elizabeth Clark, Lisa M. Hollier, Jessica Rodenhizer, and Maura K. Whiteman. “Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2020.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 71(10): 1-27. 

Lino, Mark, Kevin Kucyzynski, Nestor Rodriguez, and TusaRebecca Schap. 2017. “Expenditures on Children by Families.” US Department of Agriculture: Miscellaneous Report No. 1528-201: 1-37. 

Marmion, Patrick J., and Ingrid Skop. “Induced Abortion and the Increased Risk of Maternal Mortality.” Linacre Quarterly 87(3): 303-310. 

US Supreme Court. 2022. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. 

Wright, Kelsey Q. 2020. “Contraceptive Selection and Practice: Associations with Self-Identified Race and Socioeconomic Disadvantage.” Social Science and Medicine: 266.

-Paige Foster is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences studying Psychology and Linguistics