In a previous article, we examined how SQ 832 risks undercutting economic stability by making it harder for those with the least experience to enter the workforce. Access to work is foundational because it determines whether people can realistically support themselves and carry the responsibilities placed in front of them.

That reality extends beyond the labor market. It reaches into some of the most consequential decisions a person will ever face, including whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

There is a tendency to speak about abortion as though it exists in isolation, framed primarily as an expression of personal autonomy. A closer look at the research presents a more complicated reality.

A peer-reviewed study published in Cureus in 2023 found that 60 percent of women who had abortions reported they would have preferred to give birth if they had received more emotional support or had more financial security. Additionally, 67 percent described their abortion as inconsistent with, or in violation of, their own values and preferences, or as unwanted or coerced.

That finding tells us that, for many women, abortion is shaped by circumstances that narrow what feels possible, particularly when financial stability is uncertain or support is lacking.

When a woman does not know how she will provide for herself, much less for a child, the range of perceived options begins to contract. Decisions begin to reflect what appears manageable 

within those constraints, rather than what might otherwise be chosen under more stable conditions.

This is where the connection to SQ 832 comes into focus.

Policies shape conditions, and conditions shape decisions. When a policy raises the cost of labor and reduces access to entry-level work, the effects show up in fewer opportunities for those trying to gain a foothold, reduced hours for those already on the margin, and increasing instability for individuals who are already vulnerable.

As David Bahnsen argues in Full-Time: Work and the Meaning of Life, the United States is facing a significant decline in the number of men who are working, particularly among younger men. He speaks directly to the Church on this point, calling attention to the moral and social consequences of a society in which fewer men are engaged in productive labor. He also notes that for those trying to gain skills and enter the workforce, government price controls in the form of minimum wages present a real barrier. When access to work becomes more limited, it affects not only individual stability but also the ability of men to take responsibility, form families, and provide for them.

For those operating close to the edge, even small disruptions in income or hours can create immediate instability, making it more difficult to plan, provide, and carry additional responsibility.

That instability moves into households that are already stretched, into relationships that may already be fragile, and into the personal calculations individuals make when they are trying to determine what they can realistically carry.

For a pregnant mother or the father responsible for that child, those pressures converge in a particularly acute way. As work becomes harder to find and financial stability becomes more uncertain, it becomes increasingly difficult for either of them to believe they can provide, support a family, or sustain what is in front of them. The decision is shaped by what appears sustainable within those constraints.

At the same time, the pathway to abortion has become increasingly accessible. The practical barriers to ending a pregnancy have been reduced at the very moment when, for many, the conditions necessary to sustain one are becoming more difficult to secure.

If a majority of women who have abortions say they would have preferred to give birth under conditions of greater support or financial stability, then policies that erode that stability influence the environment in which those decisions are made and shape how those decisions are experienced. That reality is shaped by the economic stability—or instability—of both parents.

Scripture speaks directly to this reality—how seriously God views the vulnerability of others, and how He orders a society to ensure access to provision through work.

In Matthew 18:6, Jesus warns, “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” That warning reflects the seriousness with which God views any condition that leads the vulnerable toward harm.

At the same time, God’s law consistently emphasizes provision through access to work, not dependence. In Leviticus 19:9–10, Israel is commanded not to reap to the edges of their fields or gather the gleanings of the harvest, but to leave them for the poor and the sojourner. The instruction does not remove the need for work; it preserves the opportunity for it. The poor were not handed provisions detached from effort; they were given access to sustain themselves through it.

Taken together, these principles establish a pattern. God cares about what people are driven toward, and He cares about the conditions that shape those decisions. He commands His people to structure society in a way that does not place unnecessary burdens on the vulnerable, while ensuring that provision remains tied to dignity, responsibility, and work.

Many who support policies like SQ 832 do so out of compassion for those who are struggling, but without a clear understanding of the consequences those policies produce. The relevant question is whether the outcome reduces pressure or adds to it.

That standard applies just as much to policies we support as those we oppose. Oklahoma has continued to take steps in the right direction with various measures reinforcing the state’s commitment to protecting life—policies that reflect a recognition that access and availability shape outcomes.

But that same clarity has to extend beyond the point of intervention. If we are willing to act to limit access to abortion, then we have to be just as clear-eyed about policies that shape the conditions leading up to that moment.

Policies that limit access to work narrow opportunities. Policies that increase financial instability intensify pressure. When those pressures converge in the lives of a pregnant mother and the father responsible for that child, the decision they face is shaped long before the moment when abortion is presented as a solution.

A consistent pro-life posture requires more than addressing abortion at the final stage. It requires attention to the conditions that make it more likely in the first place. A society that restricts abortion on one end while advancing policies that make work less accessible and stability harder to secure is working at cross purposes.

For those who support and praise the pro-life policies we’ve seen adopted in Oklahoma, that commitment should carry through. It requires equal opposition to policies that increase the financial and economic pressures that lead many women to conclude they have no real alternative.

SQ 832, the California-style minimum wage model with an uncapped, perpetual escalator tied to the out-of-control rising costs of large, liberal, high-cost cities, will limit access to work for many Oklahomans, undermining their ability to bear God’s image through productive labor. It will also increase financial strain, fear, and instability—conditions that will make pregnant mothers and fathers more susceptible to the pressures and deceptions that present abortion as a solution to the kinds of harm SQ 832 will cause. As Christ followers who are pro-life and pro-work, we must vote No on SQ 832 and work to defeat it.