Bloomberg News Claims Overturning Roe Is ‘Erasing Decades’ of Women’s ‘Economic Gains’

Bloomberg News made the bold claim that the overturning of abortion-sanctioning was necessary Roe v. Wade (1973). is erasing women’s “economic gains.”

Bloomberg News published a May 3 story headlined, “Abortion Rollback Risks Erasing Decades of Economic Gains for U.S. Women.” The story wailed that “[o]verturning Roe v. Wade risks widening economic inequality in the U.S., threatening decades of gains for women in places where abortion could be all but banned.” But the radical pro-abortion advocates at Bloomberg News didn’t stop there. Even the outlet claimed that the Supreme Court would finally overturn Roe v. Wade Roe would cause an “economic fallout [that] would last a lifetime, weighing on personal finances, states’ social safety nets and potentially labor market participation.” So stopping the slaughter of children would hurt the economy, according to that logic.

Bloomberg tried to present abortion as an economic problem, like if unborn children’s lives could be compared with economic data points in a graph. This article appeared in the news. PoliticoLeaked Supreme Court Draft opinion sharing, reveals court will overturn 1973 Roe V. Wade decision. Justice Samuel Alito slammed RoeThe opinion’s initial draft. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” he wrote. “Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.” 

The article also warned that abortion would lead to women in the United States falling into extreme poverty. “Access to abortion is credited with expanding womens’ roles in economies and labor markets around the world,” Bloomberg reported. “The ability to access safe abortions is what keeps many American women from falling into poverty, according to decades of research.”

No citation was given to back up the claim that there were “decades of research.” 

But that didn’t stop Bloomberg News from quoting pro-death extremists and asserting that abortion was a greater risk for the economy than for unborn children. Diana Foster, director of research at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, a program within the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco, reportedly told Bloomberg News: “This is not good for the economy. You’re removing women from the labor market, and forcing women to raise children who do not have enough resources to provide housing and food.” 

Foster’s argument implied that women must choose between either economic sufficiency or parenthood, but there was a third option that she neglected to mention. 117,470 children were  waiting to be adopted in 2020, according to Statista.

Bloomberg News also spun the abortion news as bad for “Lower-income Black and Hispanic women” who supposedly “are disproportionately affected by restrictions, as they’re more likely to lack the funds and ability to get time off work to travel out-of-state for care.” 

The radical race-baiters at Bloomberg News continued: “Widespread abortion restrictions would disproportionately hurt women of color, who are already further behind their White counterparts in the U.S.”

Conservatives under attackGet in touch with Bloomberg News at letters@bloomberg.net and demand it stop publishing pro-death and pro-abortion propoganda.