The Connection Between Reproductive Health Care and Intimate Partner Violence
Zoe Josifek, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy
Note: This article was written by a student of Dr. Meghan Cohen, in the class, Global Human Rights Advocacy. The Highlander is proud to serve as a platform for guest contributions and encourages collaboration between our community and our publication.
Research increasingly shows that abortion bans and the defunding of reproductive health organizations correlate with a rise of intimate partner violence (IPV) and increase the chances of vulnerable women and adolescents being entrapped in cycles of relational abuse. A 2024 Health Research increasingly shows that abortion bans, and the defunding of reproductive health organizations, correlate with a rise in intimate partner violence (IPV) and increase the chances of vulnerable women and adolescents being entrapped in cycles of relational abuse. IPV is described as a pattern of coercive and assaultive behavior that may include physical injury, psychological abuse, isolation, sexual assault, and reproductive coercion.
A 2024 Health Economics Journal identifies that the restriction of healthcare resources has impacts on IPV across the board of reproductive-aged women, but significantly more for those ages 18-24. Rising IPV against this demographic of women is a result of the lack of and the defunding of healthcare globally, but also on a local scale. In the same 2024 Health Economics Journal mentioned previously, crime data collected from the years 2000 to 2016, show that mandatory waiting periods (MWP), where a patient is required to seek some form of counseling before being allowed to receive an abortion, are associated with a 15% increase in IPV. It was mentioned in the journal that the financial burden, secrecy, and lack of control over reproductive decision making can create tension within a relationship, increasing the potential of physical and emotional abuse. Restrictive abortion policies are likely to reinforce operating household power differences by placing additional economic and emotional strain on individuals already threatened within the relationship.
As access to reproductive healthcare becomes increasingly limited, pressures can play a part in increases in reported IPV cases at both local and national levels. However, anti-abortion opponents believe that having access to reproductive healthcare options is objectively immoral. A 2021 Georgetown Journal points out that the most common argument against a woman’s right to choose is the belief that abortion is “murder, no matter the biological stage.” Philosopher Don Marquis argued in his 1989 essay “Why Abortion is Immoral” that abortion takes away and deprives one of the future and what value it could hold in the future. Marquis believes that abortion does not necessarily affect the healthcare practitioner aborting the fetus or the one making the decision to abort a fetus, but the actual fetus itself, as it will never have an opportunity to live and make decisions for itself. Marquis’ argument is built on a foundation of philosophical views, not through objective health data. For those who view abortion as morally incorrect, it does not change the fact that abuse is a widespread problem globally, which is not only a criminal justice concern but also a public health issue among women.
The defunding of reproductive healthcare organizations that provide reproductive resources shifts the moral issue by ignoring the immorality of rising IPV due to reproductive restrictions. Mallory, a 19-year-old college student living in Texas, shares her experience with IPV and abortion access through a story published by Planned Parenthood. Mallory’s story describes how she found out she was five weeks into a high-risk pregnancy against her will, from her abusive boyfriend. Mallory decides that it is for the best for her own health and well-being to proceed with an abortion via abortion pills from a well-known reproductive healthcare provider. Between the high-risk pregnancy and the IPV Mallory was facing, her life was on the line, and if she had not had access to reproductive healthcare, she would not have had the choice to have a thriving future, as she would have been stuck in an abusive relationship with an unintended child. Mallory’s story is not an abnormality. Her story parallels many other real-life experiences across the world, with a small portion documented by news sites such as PBS News Hour and the 19th, where survivors explained that access to abortion was their way of escape from an abusive partner.
The increase in IPV is not just a notional statistic. It is a classmate, a coworker, the waitress at your neighborhood restaurant, a sister, a daughter. If reproductive healthcare options are restricted and defunded because abortions deprive a fetus of a future, there must also be another question asked: what future is a woman guaranteed when they are forced to birth a child resulting from violence or coercion? By forcing women to birth children against their will, society risks the continuing cycle of trauma, economic dependency, and vulnerability, which limits safety and well-being.