# data[].attributes.headline
우진 민승 우성 자경 지니

# data[].attributes.subject
우진 민승 우성 자경 지니

# data[].attributes.headline
wide swath of the Deep South and Midwest

# data[].attributes.subject
wide swath of the Deep South and Midwest

# data[].attributes.body
미국 땅의 midwest part과 Deep south part의 wide swath(넓은 지대, 지역) = 가난하고, 경제적으로 가장 취약한 여성들이 이 지역에 다수 있다.

the poorest, the most vulnerable, the most financially fragile women in a wide swath of the Deep South and the Midwest- will not receive their health care services.

Deep South 그리고 Midwest의 가장 가난하고, 취약하며, 경제적으로 취약한 여성들은 의료 서비스를 받지 않을 것이다.

# data[].attributes.body
앞 문장에 1973년 여성의 노동 참여율을 40%에서 60%까지 올린 결과, outcome

Abortion bans could thwart or even reverse some of those gains.
낙태법 금지는 여성의 노동 참여율을 올린 성과들을 방해하거나 되돌릴 수도 있다.

# data[].attributes.body
~에 의해 주도된

As the US faces an ongoing labor shortage-one led in part by women who have left the workforce to care for children and elders during the pandemic-the supreme court's expected decision will excaberate the situation and potentially change women's experience for years to come.
미국이 아이를 돌보고 판데믹 도중 노인들을 돕기 위해 일자리를 떠난 여성들에 의해 어느 부분 주도된 끊임없는 노동력 부족을 마주함으로서 대법원의 예정된 결정 (abortion 반대)는 현 상황을 악화할 것이고 잠재적으로 여성들의 경험을 앞으로 몇년간 바꿀 것이다.

# data[].attributes.body
the Supreme Court case(1973) that the constitution protected a woman’s right to have an abortion prior to the vialbility od the fetus

미국 대법원이 1973년 내린 임신중절에 관한 합헌 판결으로, 임신중절 수술은 태아가 형성되기 전에 행해져야 한다는 조건을 가짐 (조건부 합헌 판결) ( 낙태할 권리 법으로써 존중 )
그러나 도브스 대 잭슨 여성건강기구 사건으로 무효화됨

**아래 게시물에 단어 포함된 문장 해석 있음

# data[].attributes.headline
overturn : 뒤집다, 번복하다                             effectively : 실질적으로, 사실상                                      

# data[].attributes.subject
overturn : 뒤집다, 번복하다                             effectively : 실질적으로, 사실상                                      

# data[].attributes.body
--> Roe vs. Wade is now overturned, which will soon effectively make abortion illegal in about half of US states.

: 웨이드 판결이 번복되었으며 이로 인해 머지않아 미국 전체 주 중 반 정도 되는 주들이 낙태를 불법화할 것이다.

# data[].attributes.body
→ If that happens, historical data tells us that not only will this affect women personally, but it will jeopardize their professional lives, too.

: 낙태가 정말 불법이 된다면, 이때까지의 데이터가 말해주는 것처럼 낙태의 불법화가 여성에게 개인적인 방면으로 영향을 끼칠 뿐만이 아니라 그들의 직장생활 또한 위태로워지게 만들 것이다.

(직역: 만약 그 일이 일어난다면, 역사적인 데이터는 이것이 여성에게 개인적으로 영향을 끼칠 뿐만이 아니라 그들의 직장생활까지 위태롭게 할 것이라고 말한다.)

# data[].attributes.headline
That decision : 웨이드 판결을 번복한 것 (임신중절권 보장의 무효화)

# data[].attributes.subject
That decision : 웨이드 판결을 번복한 것 (임신중절권 보장의 무효화)

# data[].attributes.body
→ That decision, a draft of which was leaked to Politico in May and released in its final form Friday, affects a woman’s likelihood to work at all, what type of job she takes, how much education she receives, how much money she makes, and even the hopes and dreams she has for herself.

: 5월에 판결의 초안이 Politico (미국의 정치 저널리즘 회사)에 유출되어 금요일에 최종적으로 발표된 웨이드 판결의 번복은 어떤 직업을 갖는지, 얼마나 교육을 받는지, 얼마나 많은 돈을 버는지와 같이 여성의 일에 대한 가능성에 전부 영향을 끼치고,  심지어는 여성이 스스로 갖는 희망과 꿈에까지 영향을 미친다.

# data[].attributes.body
And taking away the ability to make that decision stands to upend decades of progress women have made in the workforce, which has cascading effects on women’s place in society.

: 임신중절을 할 수 없게 만드는 것은 여성들의 사회적 지위에 많은 효과를 내는, 그리고 여성들이 노동의 현장에서 만들어낸 진보의 몇 십년을 거꾸로 뒤집는다 (뒤엎었다; 즉, 여성들이 만들어낸 진보[여성의 권리, 일할 수 있는 자유 등]를 모두 수포로 돌아가게 만든다---->아이를 낳고 난 뒤 여성의 경력단절 등의 문제 유발)- 김나연 .

# data[].attributes.headline
Dobbs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization : 웨이드 판결이 번복된 재판

# data[].attributes.subject
Dobbs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization : 웨이드 판결이 번복된 재판

# data[].attributes.body
= Dobbs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (웨이드 판결이 번복된 재판)
= pending U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi state law that banned abortion operations after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy (2018년에 제정된 임신 15주 이후에 받는 임신중절 수술을 금지하는 미시시피의 법안이 헌법에 부합하는가를 다룬 미국 대법원 재판 )

# data[].attributes.headline
위 세 단어 포함한 문장 해석 

# data[].attributes.subject
위 세 단어 포함한 문장 해석 

# data[].attributes.body
We know all this because of decades of research on how abortions bans hurt women–research that Myers, along with more than 150 other economists, outlined in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Dobbs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Mississippi case that’s responsible for upending Roe v. Wade.

: 우린 모두 낙태가 어떻게 여성에게 피해를 줄 수 있는가에 대해 수십년간 진행된 연구 때문에  낙태 불법화가 여성에게 어떤 영향을 미치는지 알고 있다–Dobbs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization 에서 진행된 대법원 재판에 Myers를 비롯한 150명의 다른 경제학자들이 제출한 (윤곽을 드러낸), 웨이드 판결이 번복되는데 영향을 미친 (책임이 있는) 미시시피 낙태법에 대한 법정 의견서

# data[].attributes.body
The Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) estimated that state-level restrictions have cost those economies $105 billion a year in reduced labor force participation, reduced earnings, increased turnover, and time off among prime working-age women.

: 여성정책연구소(IWPR)는 주 차원의 규제로 인해 그들의 경제가 노동력 감소, 소득 감소, 이직률 증가, 주요 취업 연령 여성의  휴가 등으로 연간 1,050억 달러의 손실을 입었다고 추정했다.

# data[].attributes.body
One paper by economist Ali Abboud that looked at states where abortion was legal before Roev. Wade found that young women who got an abortion to delay an unplanned pregnancy for just one year had an 11 percent increase in hourly wages compared to the mean
-> 경제학자 Ali abboud가 쓴 논문에서는 Roev. wade 전에 낙태가 합법이었던 주에서 예상하지 못한 임신으로 1년을 연기하기 위해 낙태했던 여성은 평균에 비해 11% 높은 시급을 받았다.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lost income: 분실소득 (: 분실, 사망, 질병등으로 인해 취득할 수 없게된 소득)

# data[].attributes.subject
Lost income: 분실소득 (: 분실, 사망, 질병등으로 인해 취득할 수 없게된 소득)

# data[].attributes.body
Lost income doesn't just affect women who have unwanted pregnancies, but also their familes and their exising children.
-> 분실소득은 원하지 않는 임신을 한 여성에게만 영향을 주는 것뿐만 아니라 그들의 가족들과 기존의 아이들에게도 영향을준다.

# data[].attributes.body
Having children significantly affects the types of jobs women get, often steering them to part-time work or lower-paying occupations.
아이를 갖는것은 상당한 영향을 끼친다 여성이 가질 수 있는 직업의 종류에, 종종 그들을 비정규직 과 인금이 적은 직업으로 몰고간다.

# data[].attributes.body
Perhaps most insidiously, lack of abortion access seriously restricts women's hopes for their own careers. -> 아마도 가장 교활하게, 낙태접근의 부족은 여성의 경력에 대한 희망을 제한한다.

# data[].attributes.body
A 1996 study by Joshua Angrist and William Evans looked at states that liberalized abortion laws before Roe v. Wade and found abortion access leads to higher education rates and labor-market outcomes.
1996년 Joshua Angrist 과 William Evans 과 진행한 연구에서 그들은 Roe v. Wade 판결전 에 낙태법이 완화된 주들을 보면서그리고 발견했다 낙태 접근이 높은 교육 등급 과 노동시장 결과로 이어진다.

# data[].attributes.body
As the US faces an ongoing labor shortage - one led in part by women who have left the workforce to care for children and elders during the pandemic-

일부 여성이 팬데믹 기간(코로나) 동안 아동과 노인을 돌보기 위해 직장을 떠났는 것과 같이, 미국이 계속되는 노동력 부족에 직면함에 따라

# data[].attributes.body
Abortion access is a major force that has driven up women's labor force participation.

낙태의 접근은 여성의 경제활동 참가율을 견인한 주요한 동력이다.

# data[].attributes.body
That difference remained significant for four years after these women were denied abortions, *a gap that could affect their employment prospects even further into the future.

그 차이는 이 여성들이 낙태를 거부당한 후 4년 동안 유의미하게 유지되었으며, 그 차이는 미래의 고용 전망에 더욱더 영향을 미칠 수 있다.

* a gap: 낙태를 거부당한 사람들과 낙태를 받은 사람들 각각 정규직으로 고용될 가능성의 차이

# data[].attributes.headline
TRAP laws (Targeted regulation of abortion providers): 낙태제공자에 대한 표적 제한법 

# data[].attributes.subject
TRAP laws (Targeted regulation of abortion providers): 낙태제공자에 대한 표적 제한법 

# data[].attributes.body
While broader abortion bans are now possible in any state that wishes to enact one, plenty of individual states have already enacted TRAP laws that make getting an abortion more difficult.
반면에 넓게 낙태 금지는 현재 가능하다 아무 주에서 원한다면 제정할 수 있다, 많은 개인의 주들은 이미 제정했다.낙태를 더 어렵. 게하는 TRAP law 를.

laws single out the medical practices of doctors who provide abortion and  impose on them requirements that are different and more burdensome than those imposed on other medical practices.

TRAP laws 는 낙태의 의료행위를 제공하는 의사들을 걸러내고

의사들에게 요구 사항을 부과한다 다른 의료 행워에 부과되는 요구상항 보다 다르고 부담스러운.

# data[].attributes.body
Limiting women's autonomy over their reproductive rights reinforces the unequal status(affects a woman's likelihood to work at all, what type of job she takes, how much education she receives, how much money she makes ~~~, "childbearing is the single most economically important decision most women make.") of women in ways that are both concrete and ephemeral.
-  여성의 생식권에 대한 자율성을 제한하는 것은 여성의 불평등한 지위( 여성의 일할 가능성, 그녀가 어떤 종류의 직업을 갖는지, 얼마나 많은 교육을 받는지, 얼마나 많은 돈을 버는지에 영향을 미친다. " 출산은 대부분의 여성들이 하는 가장 경제적으로 중요한 결정이다.")를  구체적이고 일시적인 방식으로 강화한다.

# data[].attributes.headline
Birth control pill: 피임약과 같이 임신을 통제할 수 있는 약

# data[].attributes.subject
Birth control pill: 피임약과 같이 임신을 통제할 수 있는 약

# data[].attributes.body
We know a lot from previous research on the initial expansion of birth control pills and abortion care in the '70s that...
- 우리는 많은 것을 1970년대의 피임약과 낙태치료의 첫 확장을 통해 알 수 있다.

# data[].attributes.body
This could lead to more occupational segregation - women's overrepredentation in certain fields like health care and teaching, for example...
: 의료나 교육분야에 대한 여성의 과도한 대표성은 직종분리로 이어질 수 있다.
--> 여성이 의료와 교육 분야에서 과도한 대표성을 띄기 때문에, 직종이 분리된다.
--> 이러한 직종분리는 여성의 경험, 위치를 고려하였음에도 불구하고 여성의 임금을 낮추게 된다.

# data[].attributes.body
This could lead to more occupational segregation - women's overrepredentation in certain fields like health care and teaching, for example...
: 이것은 직종분리로 이어질 수 있다. 의료나 교육분야에 대한 여성의 과도한 대표성은...
-->과한 대표성: 여성노동력이 의료와 교육분야에 쏠리게 되면서, 대표성을 가지게 되는 것.

# data[].attributes.body
Limiting women’s autonomy over their reproductive rights reinforces the unequal status of women in ways that are both concrete and ephemeral, C. Nicole Mason, president and CEO of IWPR, told Recode.
-> 재생산 권리에 대한 여성의 자율성을 제한하는 것은 구체적이고 일시적인 방식으로 여성의 불평등한 지위를 강화한다 라고 IWPR의 사장 그리고 CEO인 C. Nicole Mason은 기록했다.

# data[].attributes.headline
IWPR (institute war & peace Reporting) = 전쟁 및 평화 보고 기관 - The IWPR estimates that if existing abortion restrictions went away, women across the US would make $1600 more a year on average. 

# data[].attributes.subject
IWPR (institute war & peace Reporting) = 전쟁 및 평화 보고 기관 - The IWPR estimates that if existing abortion restrictions went away, women across the US would make $1600 more a year on average. 

# data[].attributes.body
IWPR(전쟁 및 평화 보고 기관)은 기존의 낙태 제한이 없어지면 미국 전역의 여성들이 평균적으로 연간 1600달러를 더 벌 수 있을 것이라고 추정한다.

# data[].attributes.body
"We know a lot from previous research on the initial expansion of birth control pills and abortion care in the '70s that, when women have a little more certainty over their family planning, they just make choices differently," Bahn told Recode.

반 총장은 리코드와의 인터뷰에서 "70년대 피임약과 낙태 치료의 초기 확대에 대한 이전 연구에서 여성들이 가족 계획에 대해 조금 더 확신을 가질 때, 그들은 단지 다른 선택을 할 뿐이라는 것을 많이 알고 있다"고 말했다

Recode(래코드) 복스에서 만든 기술관련 IT인터넷 매체

# data[].attributes.headline
autonomy : 자율권 / reproductive rights : 재생산 권리 / unequal : 불평등한 / concrete : 구체적인 / ephemeral : 일시적인

# data[].attributes.subject
autonomy : 자율권 / reproductive rights : 재생산 권리 / unequal : 불평등한 / concrete : 구체적인 / ephemeral : 일시적인

# data[].attributes.body
Limiting women’s autonomy over their reproductive rights reinforces the unequal status of women in ways that are both concrete and ephemeral, C. Nicole Mason, president and CEO of IWPR, told Recode. -> 여성의 자율권에 대한 재생산 권리를 제한하는 것은 여성의 불평등한 지위를 구체적이고 일시적인 방식으로 강화한다. IWPR의 사장 겸 CEO인 니콜 메이슨은 Recode에게 말했다.

# data[].attributes.headline
이번 주 안으로 할 일

# data[].attributes.subject
이번 주 안으로 할 일

# data[].attributes.body
- ClassCard: Food Crisis, Abortion 단어 학습하고 시험 치기
- Abortion 기사 전체 복습해두기
- 말하기 수행평가 주제 올리기
- Padlet 노락딱지 붙은 사람 수정해두기

# data[].attributes.headline
A 우진 서윤 시현 강민B 지

# data[].attributes.body
A 우진 서윤 시현 강민
B 지은 우성 나연 효준
C 예림 가윤 다연 자경
D 지니 수빈 민승 성아

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.vox.com/recode/23074696/abortion-illegal-supereme-court-women-work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story is part of a group of stories called

Uncovering and explaining how our digital world is changing - and changing us.

Roe vs. Wade is all but certain to be overturned, which could effectively make abortion illegal in about half of US states. If that happens, historical data tells us that not only will this affect women personally, but it will jeopardize their professional lives, too.

That decision, a draft of which was leaked to Politico earlier this month, affects a woman's likelihood to work at all, what type of job she takes, how much education she receives, how much money she makes, and even the hopes and dreams she has for herself. In turn, her career affects nearly all other aspects of her life, from her likelihood to live in poverty to her view of herself.

And taking away the ability to make that decision stands to upend decades of progress women have made in the workforce, which has cascading effects on women's place in society.

As Caitlin Myers, a professor of economics at Middlebury College, put it, "Childbearing is the single most economically important decision most women make."

We know all this because of decades of research on how abortion bans hurt women - research that Myers, along with more than 150 other economists, outlined in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Mississippi case that's likely to upend Roe v. Wade. In addition to long-term studies specifically looking at outcomes of women who were unable to get an abortion versus those who did, there's even more robust data around the negative causal effects of having children on women in general. It's also just common sense, according to Jason Lindo, a professor of economics at Texas A&M University.

"Anyone who has had kids or seriously thought about having kids knows it's super costly in terms of time and money," Lindo said. "So of course restrictions that make it harder for people to time when they have kids or which increase the number of children that they have is going to have serious impacts on their careers and their economic circumstances."

Even in the absence of a national ban, state anti-abortion measures have been a huge burden on women and society at large. The Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) estimated that state-level restrictions have cost those economies $105 billion a year in reduced labor force participation, reduced earnings, increased turnover, and time off among prime working-age women.

An abortion ban won't affect all women equally, either. Myers says that in regions of the country where abortion is banned and where travel distances will increase for women to be able to get an abortion, about three-quarters of women seeking abortions will still do so. That means roughly a quarter of women there - in Myers's words, "the poorest, the most vulnerable, the most financially fragile women in a wide swath of the Deep South and the Midwest" - will not receive their health care services.

As the US faces an ongoing labor shortage - one led in part by women who have left the workforce to care for children and elders during the pandemic - the Supreme Court's expected decision will exacerbate the situation and potentially change women's experience in the workforce for years to come.

1) Women's labor force participation could go down

Abortion access is a major force that has driven up women's labor force participation. Nationally, women's labor force participation rates went from around 40 percent before Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973 to nearly 60 percent before the pandemic (men's participation was nearly 70 percent at that time). Abortion bans could thwart or even reverse some of those gains.

Using data from the Turnaway Study, landmark research that compares outcomes over time for women across the country who received or were denied abortions, University of California San Francisco professor Diana Greene Foster and fellow researchers found that six months after they were denied an abortion, women were less likely to be employed full-time than those who received an abortion. That difference remained significant for four years after these women were denied abortions, a gap that could affect their employment prospects even further into the future.

2) Lower educational attainment

Education rates are foundational for career prospects and pay. A 1996 study by Joshua Angrist and William Evans looked at states that liberalized abortion laws before Roe v. Wade andfound abortion access leads to higher education rates and labor-market outcomes. American University economics professor Kelly Jones used state abortion regulation data to determine that legal abortion access for young women who became pregnant increased their educational attainment by nearly a year and their likelihood of finishing college by about 20 percentage points. The evidence is largely driven by the impacts on young Black women.

Other research by Jones and Mayra Pineda-Torres found that simple exposure to targeted restrictions on abortion providers, or TRAP laws, reduced young Black teenagers' likelihood of attending or completing college. In turn, lower education affects which jobs women are qualified for.

3) The types of jobs women get will be more restricted

Having children significantly affects the types of jobs women get, often steering them to part-time work or lower-paying occupations. While a broader abortion ban is on the horizon, plenty of individual states have already enacted TRAP laws that make getting an abortion more difficult. This legislation has also provided a natural experiment for researchers like Kate Bahn, chief economist at research nonprofit Washington Center for Equitable Growth, who found women in these states were less likely to move into higher-paid occupations.

"We know a lot from previous research on the initial expansion of birth control pills and abortion care in the '70s that, when women have a little more certainty over their family planning, they just make choices differently," Bahn told Recode.

This could lead to more occupational segregation - women's overrepresentation in certain fields like health care and teaching, for example - which reduces wages in those fields, even when accounting for education, experience, and location.

4) All of the above negatively affect income

Curtailing which jobs women get, taking time out of the workforce, receiving less education - all of these hurt women's pay, which is already lower on average than men's.

One paper by economist Ali Abboud that looked at states where abortion was legal before Roe v. Wade found that young women who got an abortion to delay an unplanned pregnancy for just one year had an 11 percent increase in hourly wages compared to the mean. Jones's research found that legal abortion access for pregnant young women increased their likelihood of entering a professional occupation by 35 percentage points.

The IWPR estimates that if existing abortion restrictions went away, women across the US would make $1,600 more a year on average. Lost income doesn't just affect women who have unwanted pregnancies, but also their families and their existing children. Income, in turn, affects poverty rates of not only the women who have to go through unwanted pregnancy, but also their existing children.

5) Lack of abortion access limits women's career aspirations

Perhaps most insidiously, lack of abortion access seriously restricts women's hopes for their own careers. Building on her team's research in the Turnaway Study, Foster found that women who were unable to get a desired abortion were significantly less likely to have one-year goals related to employment than those who did, likely because those goals would be much harder to achieve while taking care of a newborn. They were also less likely to have one-year or five-year aspirational goals in general.

Limiting women's autonomy over their reproductive rights reinforces the unequal status of women in ways that are both concrete and ephemeral, C. Nicole Mason, president and CEO of IWPR, told Recode.

"That's a very psychic, emotional, psychological feeling - to feel and understand that my equality, my rights, are less than my male counterparts," she said. "The law is making it so. The Supreme Court is making it so."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 ways abortion bans could hurt women in the workforce

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Uncovering and explaining how our digital world is changing - and changing us. Roe vs. Wade is all but certain to be overturned, which could effectively make abortion illegal in about half of US states. If that happens, historical data tells us that not only will this affect women personally, but it will jeopardize their professional lives, too.

# data[].attributes.body
문장: Nationally, women’s labor force participation rates went from around 40 percent before Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973 to nearly 60 percent before the pandemic (men’s participation was nearly 70percent at that time)

해석: 국가적으로 여성 노동력 참가자 비율은 Roe v. Wade 이전엔40%를 맴돌았고, 펜데믹 이전까지 약 60%를 지나고 있었다.( 그 시기에 남자 노동 가능 참가자들은 70% 가까이 되었다.