Before Roe/Wade got sunk, it tended to be the opposite: Republicans got slightly more votes than expected. Since the sinking of Roe/Wade, that trend has reversed. But it should not be relied on. Such things can reverse, and Presidential elections can easily go differently from the elections involving less-well-known names. (For example, the year Trump lost was actually a pretty good one for the rest of his party in general. The same separateness this time could give us a good year for most Democrats and a Biden loss.)
Because there is no clear answer.
I'm pretty sure if you looked per capita you'd find that rural areas received a greatly outsized portion. It's just spread too thin to have the desired impact, partly because of the population imbalance inherent in the urban/rural divide, but mostly because all of our programs in that vein are a drop in the damn bucket, and because rural backwoods areas are pretty often corrupt as all hell and the money disappears into the mayor's brother-in-law's pocket as soon as it leaves federal hands. Two of those reasons can be directly affected by voters in rural areas, but which way do you think they come down at the ballot box? The other, yes, boils down to "then move into the damn city where it feels alive, jeez, what do you expect us to do about it?"
