Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2603.00830

Who Benefits? Employer Subsidization of Reproductive Healthcare and Implications for Reproductive Justice

Annie McGrew·Yana Rodgers
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

With the reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022, many U.S. employers announced they would reimburse employees for abortion-related travel expenses. This action complements increasingly common employer policies subsidizing employee access to assisted reproductive technologies such as in-vitro fertilization and egg freezing. This article reflects on why employers offer these benefits and whether they enhance or undermine reproductive justice. From the employer's perspective, abortion and assisted reproductive technologies help women to plan childbearing around the demands of their jobs. Both are associated with delayed childbirth and reduced fertility, which lower the costs of motherhood to employers. However, firm subsidization of these services does not further reproductive justice because it reifies structures which incentivize women to delay childbirth and reduce fertility, and it reinforces economic and reproductive inequalities. We conclude by questioning whether reproductive justice is possible without transforming the economy so that it prioritizes care over profits.

Explore related subjects

econ.GNq-fin.EC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Annie McGrew, Yana Rodgers. 2026-02-28. Who Benefits? Employer Subsidization of Reproductive Healthcare and Implications for Reproductive Justice. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2025.2458271

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Local Media and the Shaping of Social Norms: Evidence from the Ebola outbreak

Media's influence on norms and behavior is widely recognized. Less is known about the role played by media being local. I examine this in a high-stakes context, the Ebola outbreak in Guinea. I exploit quasi-random variation in access to radio and the timing of a public-health campaign aired on community radio. I find that 12-17% of Ebola cases could have been prevented if places with access to a neighboring community radio station had instead had their own. Impacts are driven by radio being local rather than by ethno-linguistic belonging. Local media facilitates coordination in behaviors observed and sanctioned locally.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

Productivity Shocks and Input Misallocation: A Decomposition

This paper asks how much input misallocation productivity uncertainty generates and at which stage of input decisions it arises. I separate revenue productivity by when each component is revealed and trace each into the gap between an input's marginal revenue product and its price. In six European countries, shocks revealed after an input is committed account for 20 percent of capital gap dispersion and 5 percent of labor gap dispersion. An unanticipated one percent rise in productivity raises the capital gap by 0.92 percent and the labor gap by 0.19 percent, because most of the shock passes into the wage.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

When Do Type-Specific Wages Buffer Distributional Incidence in TANK?

When do relative wages buffer the unequal incidence of aggregate shocks? I derive a consumption-gap decomposition and a present-value condition for partial offset in a TANK model. An extension separates wage-setting demand elasticity from substitution between labor segments and allows each segment to contain both financial types. With a zero inherited wage gap and a same-sign discounted wedge, substitution above one gives offsetting earnings reallocation; substitution below one gives amplification. The channel disappears when financial types have identical segment exposure. Numerical experiments assess these mechanisms, shock persistence, policy feedback, and aggregate-IRF matching. In the nested perfect-alignment monetary benchmark, the peak consumption gap is about two-fifths smaller under type-specific wages than under the common-wage closure. These are conditional model comparisons, not empirical effect estimates or welfare rankings.

econ.GN↗