All opinions expressed in this article are solely the opinions of the contributors.
With the recent reversal of Roe v. Wade, a number of high-profile companies have come out in support of employees seeking access to abortions. Netflix, Nike and JPMorgan Chase are only some of the firms announcing policies to cover travel, in some cases, up to $10,000. Straight Arrow News contributor Adrienne Lawrence believes some of these seemingly altruistic moves are actually financially motivated:
While these companies are doing the right thing in terms of using their resources to ensure employees have complete health care access, let’s not lose sight of the self-serving nature of such a decision. The reality is that these companies have a financial incentive to pay for abortion care for their employees. Basically, it cost more for these employers not to. Think about it. Paying for an employee’s travel costs — and possibly a medical abortion — likely wouldn’t exceed a few thousand tax-deductible dollars — if that. A company stands to lose far more if it must provide maternity leave, particularly if the company offers paid leave. Not to mention dodging costs associated with potential turnover should the employee wish to quit because they do not want to live in a state where their reproductive rights are so limited.
On that note, it’s not lost on me that several of these companies created the very issue they now are purporting to rescue their employees from. Remember, some of these companies who have come out in support, also relocated to red states recently to enjoy business-related tax breaks. For example, within the last year, hedge fund giant Citadel relocated from Chicago to Miami, and Tesla from the San Francisco Bay Area to Austin, Texas. The economic benefits of moving to a red state may be countered by the inability to keep and/or attract viable talent willing to gamble with their human rights.
These are things companies do not necessarily want to entertain given the costs to their business. That reality undoubtedly played a role in their decision to offer employees and their dependents abortion access. It’s not an exercise in ethics but simply a cost-benefit analysis.
