By Linda Burstyn for Ms. Magazine
Broadcast version by Roz Brown for New Mexico News Connection/Public News Service

Bad Business: Anti-abortion lawmakers harm companies operating in their states-so why are these radical politicians still receiving corporate funding?

When Georgia and Texas passed their draconian anti-abortion laws in 2019, Susan Lerner had a tough decision to make. As CEO and cofounder of the popular women's clothing line Michael Stars, she knew she might alienate a portion of her customers if she made a public statement against the laws. But her company's corporate identity was built around empowering women and girls, so she signed a public petition declaring her company's support for legal abortion.

It's not just a moral issue for Lerner, whose corporation has its support for women and girls displayed prominently on its website. "Democracy and capitalism can't afford not to have women in the workplace," she says. "People want to buy from a brand that walks the talk."

Why is it so hard for other corporations to "walk the talk"?

Economic Havoc

"The attack on abortion is bad for business," says Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability, an organization that tries to bring transparency to corporate political spending. "It has a chilling effect on the overall economy and society-an economy and society that need to be healthy in order for the companies to grow and thrive."

According to an extensive report conducted by the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR), if all state-level abortion restrictions were eliminated, there would be an estimated half million (505,000) more women ages 15 to 44 in the labor force.

IWPR also estimates that state economies will lose $105 billion per year under abortion bans. And the states that stand to lose the most are the ones that have recently put bans in place: Texas will lose $14.6 billion per year, Florida will lose $6.6 billion, and Missouri will lose $5.3 billion.

"Abortion restrictions are going to depress economic growth and GDP [gross domestic product] by keeping women out of the workforce during their most productive years," explains Shelley Alpern, director of corporate engagement at Rhia Ventures, a socially conscious investment firm.

Of course, the women who will lose their jobs are not simply workers- they're also spenders. When states deliberately create conditions that reduce family incomes and bring more poverty to the customer base, it stands to reason that the impact will be felt by the companies within that state.

And there is no doubt that these laws bring poverty for the women who are denied abortions.

As Caitlin Myers, economics professor at Middlebury College and the author of the amicus brief in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court case, says: "The decision of when and whether and under what circumstances to become a mother is the single most impactful economic decision a woman will make in her lifetime."

A study from the University of California, San Francisco, that followed 1,000 women over the course of five years found that those who wanted an abortion and were denied one experienced an increase in household poverty that lasted at least four years, compared to similar women who were able to get the abortion they sought. Years after the abortion denial, those same women were more likely to not have enough money to cover basic living expenses and they had four times greater odds of living below the federal poverty level.

The study also found that after being denied an abortion, a woman's credit score lowered, her debt increased and she was more likely to stay in contact with a violent partner for the next five years rather than raise the child alone.

When a woman seeking an abortion is forced to bear a child, the costs to her and her family-and eventually the cost to the economy-can extend for a lifetime.

Tough to Attract Talent

Studies have found that because of the anti-abortion laws in states like Texas, Mississippi, Florida and Oklahoma, corporations will have a hard time finding top employees-women and men-who want to work there.

A survey by Tara Health Foundation and Morning Consult found that 97 percent of respondents who accepted a position that required them to relocate considered the social policies of that state before making their decision. By a 2- to-1 margin, employed adults said they'd prefer to live in a state where abortion is legal and accessible.

According to a Rhia Ventures report, 56 percent of college-educated women say they would not apply to a job in a state that has recently banned abortion, and 61 percent of women surveyed said they would be discouraged from taking a job in a state that has tried to restrict abortion.

"Studies show that majorities of men and women will cross these states off their lists," Alpern says. "Having employees who can't control their own family-planning trajectories means having a workforce where there's unexpected ... and elevated turnover. What you're going to see is a brain drain. Top talent from the best schools are not going to want to go work in those states."

Because the far-reaching health and legal ramifications of these laws have not yet been widely felt or realized, it's reasonable to predict that there will be a significant increase in the numbers of employees refusing to work in states with restrictive abortion laws as those ramifications become more widely known.

So Why Fund Anti-Abortion Lawmakers?

Some of the leaders of these major corporations may have a predisposition to support the Republican Party, no matter the consequences. For example, the senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs at AT&T is Ed Gillespie, former chair of the Republican National Committee. It's not surprising that with Gillespie influencing corporate donations, AT&T is one of the biggest donors to Republican state legislators who are at the forefront of pushing the abortion bans.

For other companies, it's more complicated.

"The companies we talk to and the people we talk to there can't stand that so many stakeholder groups come to them to solve social problems," Alpern says. "[As they see it] they're there to make their widget of choice. But it's a different world now. There's no going back to the time when people don't look to corporations to solve social problems."

Will anything make corporations stop giving to these legislators? Perhaps consumer boycotts, employee and shareholder actions in protest and, of course, the eventual loss of profit will finally do the trick.

"What you'll see if this situation continues is that companies will think twice about expanding in an abortion-ban state and you'll see boycotts of these states when it comes to conventions and conferences," Alpern says. "What would be best for the country and for families would be for companies to use their voices to weigh in with lawmakers to say we can't remain here in a state that has these extremist policies about abortion. Corporations have been subsidizing these lawmakers and we're asking them to reverse course. It's for their own good."

And by the way, Michael Stars, the women's clothing company that advocated for abortion back in 2019? Since taking a stand, it has gained thousands of followers.

"We received so much support from customers when we went public with our support for the ERA and reproductive freedom," says Lerner, the cofounder. "They told us that they love buying our clothing, not only for its style and quality but also because they know they are supporting a company that shares their values."

This story was originally reported and written by Linda Burstyn for Ms. Magaine.

An Arizona election official shared his concerns at a recent national conference about threats to safe and fair elections.

Multiple experts at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law event said they are worried about democracy as the next presidential election approaches. The conference topic was, "Can American Democracy Survive the 2024 Elections?"

Stephen Richer, county recorder for Maricopa County, a Republican who took office after the 2020 election, said he fears election denialism has become integral to the Arizona GOP, and the state has become "the global hot spot" for conspiracy theories.

Richer argued it has created what he calls an "incentive structure" for politicians to simply go along with.

"I am deeply, deeply pessimistic, because this is a necessary ingredient for winning a Republican primary in the state of Arizona is to say that the 2020 election, and now the 2022 election, were 'stolen' in order to win a Republican primary," Richer explained.

Richer shared some voicemail messages with the crowd, in which election deniers threaten him and his office for alleging election tampering.

Richer pointed out it is not helpful when election administrators have to deal with what he calls "a group of partisan warriors," with no election expertise, peddling false claims. But he noted one positive aspect to come from the election denialist movement is the general public has become more informed about the postelection procedures in Arizona, meant to verify election integrity.

"People became more aware of the postelection audits that are in fact done, because Arizona has long done postelection audits," Richer emphasized.

Speakers at the conference agreed misinformation is one of the root causes of the problems the nation is facing. They also called on the federal government to invest in, and enact more, legal and administrative protections for election workers.


get more stories like this via email

Voting rights advocates in Massachusetts are applauding Governor Maura Healey's budgetary backing of new policies stemming from last year's passage of the VOTES Act. The law expands early voting options and allows all voters to cast their ballot by mail for any reason, but some municipalities are struggling to handle the expansion of mail-in voting for local springtime elections, citing a lack of personnel.

Common Cause of Massachusetts Executive Director Geoff Foster said timing of the governor's funding could not be better.

"Lack of resources or staff hopefully shouldn't be the reason why municipalities are opting out of what's a really valuable expansion to our voting laws," he said.

Healy has dedicated $5 million for grants to cities and towns to more easily manage ballot requests. 37% of Massachusetts voters cast their ballots by mail in last year's midterm elections.

Registered voters will now receive a letter in the mail each year offering the chance to opt in to mail-in voting, which can also be done online. Foster said the policy aims to improve turnout among those who may struggle with child care, work multiple jobs or those with physical challenges.

"To be able to bring democracy literally home to your kitchen table potentially to fill out a mail ballot at home at a time that that works for you, I mean that's just a win all around for our democracy," Foster said.

There is still work to be done, Foster said. The VOTES Act changed the cut-off date for voter registration from twenty days prior to an election to ten days, but voting advocates say they will continue to push for same-day voter registration. With some 150 bills meant to restrict voter access already introduced nationwide this year, voting advocates say Massachusetts is on the right track.


get more stories like this via email

Texas' GOP-dominated legislature is considering bills to flip the script on powers traditionally afforded home-rule cities, instead forcing them to abide by state regulations. Two bills have been introduced this session to curb local laws governing safety, the environment and discrimination.

Rick Levy, president of the AFL-CIO Texas branch, said the proposed legislation is extremely far-reaching, and would force the hand of cities across the state.

"Under the current system, home-rule cities have the ability to do anything they're not prohibited from doing. This would make them basically seek permission from the state to do anything," he said.

The Republican bill sponsors say regulatory powers should be returned to the state so small businesses can operate under consistent regulations. Unions represented by the AFL-CIO and other labor groups say the proposals could undo hard-fought measures to protect workers.

As written, Levy said the bills also would affect non-discrimination ordinances - including those that cover gay, lesbian and trans people.

"To the extent that those differ at all from state law, or federal law, in terms of the clarity of their protections for lesbian and gay folks or anything that goes beyond that would be immediately pre-empted - so it's a pretty draconian effort," he said.

After Alaska, Texas is the second largest state geographically and Levy said he has always been impressed that lawmakers come together to represent such diverse interests. He does not believe they should dictate what elected officials in various cities are allowed to do.

"And just to kind of impose the will of a very small sector of the population on every community in the state - in their zeal to crush any kind of dissent or any kind of diversity they're really stepping on what it means to be Texan," he said.

The proposed legislation comes after Austin, known for its progressive policies, lost the ability to enforce a ban on plastic bags after it was challenged and the Texas Supreme Court ruled it violated state law.