Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization fundamentally altered the legal landscape of reproductive rights in the United States. By overturning the nearly 50-year-old precedents of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the ruling eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion and returned the authority to regulate or ban the procedure to individual states.
This decision triggered a swift and dramatic divergence in state-level policies, creating a fractured map of abortion access across the country.
Within months, many states moved to implement pre-existing “trigger” bans or enact new legislation severely restricting or prohibiting abortion. As of early 2025, 14 states enforce near-total bans on abortion, while several others have imposed early gestational limits, some as early as six weeks after the last menstrual period.
At the same time, other states have taken legislative action to protect or expand abortion access, creating a stark contrast in reproductive rights based on geography.
This report moves beyond the immediate political and ideological debates to provide a data-driven, balanced examination of the documented and sometimes counterintuitive consequences of these state-level policies.
The following sections explore the cascading impacts of abortion bans on population dynamics, economic activity, social services, and the legal system, drawing on extensive research from academic institutions, government agencies, and non-partisan think tanks.
State Abortion Laws at a Glance (as of January 2025)
| State | Legal Status | Key Exceptions |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Total Ban | Life of pregnant person |
| Alaska | No Gestational Limit | N/A |
| Arizona | Gestational Limit (Viability) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| Arkansas | Total Ban | Life of pregnant person |
| California | Gestational Limit (Viability) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| Colorado | No Gestational Limit | N/A |
| Connecticut | Gestational Limit (Viability) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| Delaware | Gestational Limit (Viability) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| D.C. | No Gestational Limit | N/A |
| Florida | Gestational Limit (6 weeks) | Life, Rape, Incest, Fetal Anomaly |
| Georgia | Gestational Limit (6 weeks) | Life, Rape, Incest, Fetal Anomaly |
| Hawaii | Gestational Limit (Viability) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| Idaho | Total Ban | Life, Rape, Incest |
| Illinois | Gestational Limit (Viability) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| Indiana | Total Ban | Life, Rape, Incest, Fetal Anomaly |
| Iowa | Gestational Limit (6 weeks) | Life, Rape, Incest, Fetal Anomaly |
| Kansas | Gestational Limit (22 weeks) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| Kentucky | Total Ban | Life of pregnant person |
| Louisiana | Total Ban | Life/Health, Fetal Anomaly |
| Maine | Gestational Limit (Viability) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| Maryland | No Gestational Limit | N/A |
| Massachusetts | Gestational Limit (24 weeks) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| Michigan | No Gestational Limit | N/A |
| Minnesota | No Gestational Limit | N/A |
| Mississippi | Total Ban | Life, Rape |
| Missouri | Total Ban | Life of pregnant person |
| Montana | Gestational Limit (Viability) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| Nebraska | Gestational Limit (12 weeks) | Life, Rape, Incest |
| Nevada | Gestational Limit (24 weeks) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| New Hampshire | Gestational Limit (24 weeks) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| New Jersey | No Gestational Limit | N/A |
| New Mexico | No Gestational Limit | N/A |
| New York | Gestational Limit (24 weeks) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| North Carolina | Gestational Limit (12 weeks) | Life, Rape, Incest, Fetal Anomaly |
| North Dakota | Total Ban | Life, Rape, Incest |
| Ohio | Gestational Limit (20 weeks) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| Oklahoma | Total Ban | Life, Rape, Incest |
| Oregon | No Gestational Limit | N/A |
| Pennsylvania | Gestational Limit (24 weeks) | Life of pregnant person |
| Rhode Island | Gestational Limit (Viability) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| South Carolina | Gestational Limit (6 weeks) | Life, Rape, Incest, Fetal Anomaly |
| South Dakota | Total Ban | Life of pregnant person |
| Tennessee | Total Ban | Life of pregnant person |
| Texas | Total Ban | Life of pregnant person |
| Utah | Gestational Limit (18 weeks) | Life, Rape, Incest, Fetal Anomaly |
| Vermont | No Gestational Limit | N/A |
| Virginia | Gestational Limit (3rd trimester) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| Washington | Gestational Limit (Viability) | Life/Health of pregnant person |
| West Virginia | Total Ban | Life, Rape, Incest, Fetal Anomaly |
| Wisconsin | Gestational Limit (20 weeks) | Life of pregnant person |
| Wyoming | No Gestational Limit | N/A |
Source: KFF, Guttmacher Institute. Note: Legal status is subject to ongoing litigation and may change.
Demographic Dominoes: Births, Deaths, and Migration
The most immediate and direct consequence of restricting abortion access is a change in a state’s population dynamics. While an increase in births is an expected outcome, the data reveal a more complex and often counterintuitive set of demographic shifts, including changes in mortality rates, personal family planning behaviors, and interstate migration patterns that could reshape regional populations for decades to come.
The Post-Ban “Baby Bump”
Following the Dobbs decision, states with abortion bans experienced a measurable increase in birth rates compared to states where abortion access remained protected. A study from the IZA Institute of Labor Economics, using provisional data for the first half of 2023, found that states with abortion bans saw an average increase in births of 2.3%. A separate analysis confirmed this trend, finding a 2% increase in the overall birth rate in ban states during the same period.
The impact of these bans was not uniform across the country. The effects were more pronounced in states where geographic barriers make traveling for out-of-state abortion care more difficult and costly. For instance, the IZA study estimated that Texas experienced a 5.1% increase in births, while Mississippi saw a 4.4% rise.
These findings are consistent with earlier research on Texas’s Senate Bill 8, a pre-Dobbs law that banned abortion after approximately six weeks. An analysis of S.B. 8’s impact showed it led to nearly 9,800 more births than expected in Texas over a nine-month period, a 3% increase.
Furthermore, the increase in births was not evenly distributed across demographic groups. The IZA study identified the largest increases among Hispanic women, who saw a 4.7% rise in births, and women aged 20-24, who experienced a 3.3% increase. This aligns with a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper which also found that the fertility effects of abortion bans were strongest for Black and Hispanic women, unmarried women, and those without a college degree.
This suggests that the burdens of restricted abortion access fall most heavily on populations that already face systemic barriers to healthcare and economic stability.
A Counterintuitive Rise in Mortality Rates
One of the most paradoxical findings in the post-Dobbs era is the correlation between policies enacted to preserve fetal life and subsequent increases in both infant and maternal mortality rates. This challenges the straightforward narrative of “pro-life” policy by revealing complex and often tragic downstream consequences.
A study published in JAMA found that states with abortion bans experienced a relative increase in infant mortality of 5.6%, which translates to an additional 0.33 deaths per 1,000 live births. Across the ban states studied, this amounted to an estimated 478 excess infant deaths.
A significant driver of this increase was a rise in deaths from congenital anomalies, which may have previously been detected and led to a decision to terminate the pregnancy. The impact was also racially disparate, with Black infants experiencing a mortality rate 10.98% higher than expected.
In Texas, the state’s 2021 abortion ban was associated with a 12.9% year-over-year increase in infant deaths, resulting in an estimated 216 excess deaths that likely would not have occurred otherwise.
Regarding maternal mortality, national data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows an overall decline from 22.3 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2022 to 18.6 in 2023. However, this national average masks critical disparities and underlying risks.
A report from the Commonwealth Fund found that even before Dobbs, states with restrictive abortion policies had significantly higher maternal mortality rates (24.2 deaths per 100,000) compared to states with protective policies (15.9). Other research has found that women in states with abortion bans are nearly three times more likely to die during pregnancy, childbirth, or soon after giving birth.
The racial disparities remain stark: the maternal mortality rate for Black women in 2023 was 50.3 per 100,000, a figure dramatically higher than the rates for White (14.5) or Hispanic (12.4) women.
The convergence of these trends suggests a policy paradox where the act of preserving a pregnancy through an abortion ban may inadvertently contribute to a higher risk of death for both the resulting infant and the mother, particularly in states with weaker healthcare support systems.
Behavioral Shifts: Contraception, Sterilization, and Family Formation
The legal uncertainty created by the Dobbs decision has triggered significant shifts in reproductive health behaviors, most notably a sharp turn toward permanent methods of contraception. This reaction suggests a profound loss of confidence among some Americans in their ability to control their reproductive futures through reversible means.
Immediately following the Dobbs ruling, studies documented an abrupt and substantial increase in permanent contraception procedures—tubal ligations for women and vasectomies for men—especially among young adults aged 18-30. One study found that compared to May 2022, just before the decision, rates of tubal sterilizations and vasectomies among young adults had increased by 70% and 95%, respectively, by August 2022. Another analysis showed a sustained 3% monthly increase in tubal ligations in states with abortion bans in the six months following the ruling.
This trend was not uniform across genders. Women sought permanent sterilization at a much higher rate than men, with tubal ligations increasing at more than twice the rate of vasectomies. Demographically, those seeking permanent contraception post-Dobbs were more likely to be female, younger than in previous years, non-Hispanic White, and residing in states where abortion was likely to be banned. Many survey respondents cited fear of losing bodily autonomy as their primary motivation.
Beyond the choice of contraceptive method, the Dobbs decision may be influencing whether some adults choose to have children at all. A study conducted in Michigan found that the percentage of adults identifying as “childfree” rose from 21% before the ruling to nearly 26% after. When controlling for demographic factors, a Michigan adult was 32.8% more likely to be childfree after the decision, suggesting that the uncertainty and perceived risks associated with the new legal landscape may be leading some to opt out of parenthood entirely.
Population on the Move: The “Brain Drain” from Ban States
The fractured legal landscape is also influencing where Americans choose to live, work, and study, leading to a measurable migration away from states with abortion bans. This trend appears to be driven by younger, more educated individuals, raising concerns about a potential long-term “brain drain” from these states.
Research using change-of-address data found that in the year following the implementation of a total abortion ban, states lost a net average of 4.3 people per 10,000 residents due to the ban. This translates to a collective loss of approximately 128,700 residents across the 13 states with such laws in the year after Dobbs. The data indicates that this migration is not random; single-person households are more likely to move than families, suggesting that younger adults are particularly responsive to changes in reproductive rights when making location decisions.
This demographic sorting is especially evident in higher education. A 2024 Gallup poll found that 71% of current and prospective college students say a state’s reproductive healthcare policies are an important factor in their enrollment decisions. This preference is manifesting in application patterns.
One comprehensive study using data from the Common Application found that abortion bans caused a 2.7 percentage point decrease in the proportion of high-achieving women who applied to a university in one of the 13 states with a total ban. The effect was even more pronounced for women applying from states without abortion restrictions, who were 4.5 percentage points less likely to apply to a school in a ban state in 2022. Research from Tulane University similarly found a nearly one-percentage-point relative decrease in the share of female undergraduate applicants in states where abortion became illegal.
This confluence of trends—an outflow of younger, educated individuals and a reluctance of students to attend universities in ban states, coupled with an in-place rise in births among more economically vulnerable populations—points toward a potential “reproductive ghettoization.” Over time, this could lead to a geographic sorting where states with abortion bans face a shrinking tax base and a less-skilled workforce, while simultaneously experiencing greater demand on their public health and social support systems.
Key Demographic Impacts of Abortion Bans
| Metric | Finding in States with Abortion Bans |
|---|---|
| Average Birth Rate | +2.3% overall; +4.7% for Hispanic women |
| Infant Mortality Rate | +5.6% relative increase; +10.98% for Black infants |
| OB-GYN Residency Applications | -6.7% decrease (vs. +0.4% in protected states) |
| Net Population Migration | -4.3 per 10,000 residents (approx. 128,700 people) |
| Permanent Contraception | Tubal sterilizations +70%; Vasectomies +95% (Aug 2022 vs May 2022) |
Sources: IZA Institute of Labor Economics; JAMA; AAMC; Econofact; George Washington University/Contemporary OB/GYN.
The Economic Ledger: Costs and Consequences
The economic impacts of state-level abortion bans are profound and multifaceted, extending from the finances of individual households to the macroeconomic health of entire states. Research reveals significant costs associated with restricting abortion access, though the methodologies for calculating these costs vary widely, reflecting the deep ideological divisions surrounding the issue.
The Individual Financial Crisis
The most direct evidence of the economic consequences of abortion bans comes from the Turnaway Study, a decade-long research project that followed women who sought abortions at facilities across the United States. The study’s design, which compared women who were just under a clinic’s gestational age limit (and received an abortion) with those who were just over the limit (and were turned away), allows for a causal analysis of what happens when a woman is denied a wanted abortion.
The findings paint a stark picture of immediate and sustained financial distress for women who were denied an abortion. These women experienced:
- A 78% increase in the amount of their debt that was 30 or more days past due
- An 81% increase in negative public financial records, such as bankruptcies, evictions, and tax liens, in the years following the denial
- Four times greater odds of living below the Federal Poverty Level compared to women who received an abortion
This economic hardship is not a temporary event but a long-term condition that persists for years. The financial strain also has significant consequences for the entire family unit. The Turnaway Study found that the existing children of women who were denied an abortion were more likely to live in poverty and less likely to achieve developmental milestones when compared to the existing children of women who received a wanted abortion.
A separate working paper from UCR Economics reinforces these findings, showing that the denial of a wanted abortion leads to significantly worse long-term outcomes for existing children. These children are 34.2 percentage points less likely to attend school and 10.2 percentage points more likely to be engaged in child labor. This evidence suggests that abortion denial can trigger an intergenerational transfer of poverty, where the immediate financial crisis faced by the mother translates into diminished human capital and economic opportunity for her children, creating a cycle of disadvantage that can persist for decades.
The Macroeconomic Toll: State-Level Economic Damage
Beyond the household level, abortion restrictions impose significant costs on state and national economies. However, there are two starkly different frameworks for measuring these costs, reflecting the polarized nature of the debate.
The predominant economic model, used by organizations like the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, assesses the impact of abortion bans through their effect on women’s labor force participation, earnings, and, consequently, state and national Gross Domestic Product.
Prior to the Dobbs decision, IWPR estimated that existing state-level abortion restrictions already cost the U.S. economy $173 billion annually. Post-Dobbs, a 2024 analysis from the U.S. Joint Economic Committee Democrats, citing IWPR, found that the 16 states with total abortion bans are costing the U.S. economy $68 billion per year due to reduced labor force participation, lower earnings for women, higher employee turnover, and more lost work hours.
IWPR projects that if all state-level restrictions were eliminated, nearly 597,000 more women would join the labor force, and the national GDP would be almost 0.7% higher. For some ban states, the impact would be even more dramatic; Missouri’s GDP could increase by over 1.3%. In Texas, the estimated annual economic loss from its abortion ban is nearly $15 billion.
A fundamentally different approach is taken by the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee. Their 2022 report calculates the economic cost of abortion not through its impact on the labor market, but through the loss of potential life, using a methodology called the Value of a Statistical Life.
The VSL is a standard metric used by federal agencies like the Department of Transportation to quantify the benefits of mortality-reducing regulations. The JEC report assigns the DOT’s 2019 VSL of $10.9 million to each fetus aborted.
By multiplying this value by the nearly 630,000 abortions reported in 2019, the report concludes that the economic cost of abortion was $6.9 trillion in that year alone, an amount equal to 32% of the U.S. GDP.
This framework argues that any economic gains from women’s increased labor force participation are dwarfed by the economic value of the lives lost.
The vast chasm between these two figures—$68 billion versus $6.9 trillion—highlights that the economic debate is not merely about numbers but about fundamentally different moral and economic premises. One model measures the economic output of living citizens, while the other assigns economic value to potential citizens. Understanding this methodological divide is essential to comprehending the deeply entrenched and often irreconcilable nature of the political discourse surrounding abortion economics.
Competing Models of the Economic Costs of Abortion Bans
| Metric | IWPR / Labor-Based Model | JEC Republican / VSL Model |
|---|---|---|
| Methodology | Calculates economic loss based on reduced female labor force participation, lower earnings, and decreased state/national GDP. | Calculates economic loss by applying the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) to each terminated pregnancy. |
| Primary Focus | Economic output and activity of women in the workforce. | Economic value assigned to potential future lives. |
| Estimated Annual Cost | ~$68 billion (from 16 states with total bans post-Dobbs) | ~$6.9 trillion (based on 2019 national abortion data) |
Sources: Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Joint Economic Committee Democrats; Joint Economic Committee Republicans.
Corporate Recalibration and the Business Climate
The new state-by-state legal landscape has forced businesses to navigate a complex and politically charged environment, leading to direct and indirect economic consequences. Many national corporations have responded to abortion bans by recalibrating their employee benefits and, in some cases, reconsidering their long-term investment and location strategies.
In the wake of the Dobbs decision, numerous major companies—including Apple, Microsoft, Bank of America, Deloitte, JPMorgan Chase, and Nike—announced that they would cover travel and lodging expenses for employees who need to access abortion care in another state. While intended to ensure equitable healthcare access for their workforce, these policies represent a new, direct operational cost for companies with a presence in states with abortion bans.
Beyond benefits, state abortion laws are increasingly influencing corporate decisions on talent recruitment and physical location. Surveys indicate that a majority of younger, educated workers are hesitant to live or work in states with restrictive abortion laws. This sentiment poses a significant challenge for businesses in ban states trying to attract and retain top talent. This concern was voiced publicly by Eli Lilly and Company, one of Indiana’s largest employers. Following the passage of the state’s near-total abortion ban, the pharmaceutical company issued a statement declaring that the law would cause it to “be forced to plan for more employment growth out of our home state.”
This dynamic suggests that abortion bans can function as a “hidden tax” or a negative business incentive. While not a direct levy, these laws create a more complex, costly, and less attractive environment for both employees and employers. The need to fund new travel benefits, coupled with increased difficulty in recruiting a skilled workforce, places businesses in ban states at a competitive disadvantage, potentially driving long-term economic investment and growth toward states with less restrictive policies.
The Insurance Market Maze
State-level abortion bans have introduced significant complexity and potential instability into health insurance markets. The regulatory landscape is now a patchwork of differing state laws governing what services Medicaid and private insurance plans can or must cover.
As of early 2025, 30 states and the District of Columbia restrict Medicaid coverage for abortion to the narrow exceptions permitted by the Hyde Amendment (cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the pregnant person). In contrast, 12 states require both Medicaid and private insurance plans to provide abortion coverage. The private market is similarly fragmented, with 25 states prohibiting plans sold on the Affordable Care Act Marketplace from covering abortion, and 10 of those states extending that ban to all private insurance plans sold in the state.
While direct data on post-Dobbs insurance premium changes is still emerging, several factors suggest potential for future cost increases and market instability. The Guttmacher Institute has noted that the political focus on banning abortion coverage often serves as a roadblock to broader efforts to improve health insurance affordability and access.
Furthermore, the increase in births in ban states, particularly the rise in high-risk pregnancies and births with congenital anomalies that might have otherwise been terminated, is expected to lead to higher overall healthcare expenditures. These increased costs, absorbed by Medicaid and private insurers, could eventually translate into higher premiums for all policyholders. Additionally, physicians in ban states face a new and uncertain legal environment, which may affect medical malpractice insurance rates. OB-GYNs now must weigh the risk of criminal prosecution for providing care against the risk of a malpractice lawsuit for delaying it, a dynamic that could lead insurers to re-evaluate their risk profiles and premiums for providers in these states.
Strains on the Social Fabric: Healthcare, Education, and Justice
The consequences of state-level abortion bans extend deep into the foundational systems of American society. The healthcare sector is experiencing a seismic shift, with growing “maternity care deserts” and a crisis in physician training. Public services like foster care and education face new, often unfunded, pressures. And the justice system is grappling with the costs of criminalization and unprecedented interstate legal conflicts.
The Widening Healthcare Chasm
The restriction of abortion access has triggered a chain reaction that is degrading the broader maternal healthcare infrastructure in many states. This “care cascade” failure begins with the departure of trained professionals and results in diminished access to care for all pregnant people, regardless of their intention to carry a pregnancy to term.
The Growth of “Maternity Care Deserts”
A “maternity care desert” is a county that lacks any hospital offering obstetric care, any birth center, and any practicing obstetrician-gynecologist. According to a 2024 report from March of Dimes, over a third of all U.S. counties (1,104) now fit this definition, affecting over 2.2 million women of reproductive age. These deserts are disproportionately rural and tend to have lower median household incomes.
There is a strong correlation between the presence of maternity care deserts and state abortion laws. States with the most restrictive abortion policies are also those with the most widespread lack of maternity care. The states with the highest percentage of maternity care deserts include North Dakota (73.6%), South Dakota (57.6%), Oklahoma (51.9%), and Mississippi—the state at the center of the Dobbs case. Research from the Commonwealth Fund confirms that states with abortion bans tend to have fewer maternity care providers overall. This lack of access has tangible consequences: women living in these deserts have a 13% increased risk of preterm birth and are more likely to receive inadequate prenatal care.
The Physician Exodus and Training Gaps
A primary driver of these expanding deserts is the departure of physicians from states with abortion bans, coupled with a shrinking pipeline of new doctors willing to train there. The new legal landscape, which can include the threat of felony charges and loss of medical license for providing what was once standard-of-care, has created a chilling effect on the medical community.
Residency Applications: Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges shows a sharp decline in medical students applying for OB-GYN residencies in states with total abortion bans. In the 2022-2023 application cycle, the first after Dobbs, these states saw a 10.5% drop in applicants. This trend continued into the 2023-2024 cycle, with a further 6.7% decrease in applicants to OB-GYN programs in ban states, compared to a small increase of 0.4% in states without restrictions. Surveys of medical students reveal that nearly 60% are unlikely to apply to programs in states with abortion restrictions, citing concerns about their ability to receive comprehensive training and the legal risks involved.
Physicians Leaving Practice: Beyond the training pipeline, practicing physicians are leaving or retiring early from states with hostile legal environments. Media reports and studies have documented an exodus of OB-GYNs and maternal-fetal medicine specialists from states like Idaho, Texas, and Oklahoma. In a stark example, Bonner General Health hospital in Idaho was forced to close its labor and delivery services entirely in 2023, citing the state’s criminalization of physicians and the resulting difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff.
Training Deficiencies: The bans also create a crisis in medical education. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residency programs to provide training in abortion procedures. Programs in ban states are now unable to meet this requirement on-site, forcing them to arrange for their residents to travel to other states to complete their training, adding logistical and financial burdens.
The “Receiver State” Burden
The consequence of collapsing access in ban states is a massive surge of patients traveling to “receiver” states—those that have maintained or expanded abortion protections. This influx is placing an unprecedented strain on the healthcare infrastructure in these states.
Interstate Travel Volume: In 2024, an estimated 155,000 people traveled out of their home state to obtain an abortion, a figure that represents 15% of all abortion patients in the U.S. This is nearly double the 81,000 patients who traveled for care in 2020, before the Dobbs decision.
Key Receiver States: The burden is concentrated in states that border those with bans. Illinois has become a critical access point for the Midwest and South, seeing nearly 35,500 out-of-state patients in 2024. In the first half of 2023, 42% of all abortions performed in Illinois were for out-of-state patients. Other key receiver states include New Mexico, which saw its proportion of out-of-state patients jump from 38% to 74% post-Dobbs, as well as Colorado, Virginia, and Kansas.
Increased Wait Times: This surge has led to dramatically longer wait times for appointments, affecting both out-of-state travelers and local residents. A study at the University of New Mexico’s clinic found that the median wait time for a first-trimester abortion appointment for New Mexico residents skyrocketed from 5 days before S.B. 8 to 23 days after the Dobbs decision. Clinics in Kansas reported wait times increasing to three weeks, where they had previously been able to see patients within a few days.
The Ripple Effect on Public Services
The demographic shifts caused by abortion bans are creating significant, and often unanticipated, pressures on state and local public services. These policies effectively act as an unfunded mandate, increasing demand on systems like foster care, education, and child care, particularly in states that are often the least equipped financially and infrastructurally to handle the additional load.
Foster Care and Child Welfare
A growing body of research indicates a direct link between restricted abortion access and increased strain on the child welfare system. A cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics analyzed over two decades of data and found that the enactment of Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws—a common method of restricting abortion access even before Dobbs—was associated with a subsequent 11% increase in the number of children entering the foster care system.
The study revealed that this impact was not evenly distributed. The increase in foster care entries was more pronounced for children from marginalized communities, with a 15% increase observed for Black children and other children of color. The primary driver for these increased placements was identified as housing inadequacy, suggesting that women who are denied abortions and are already in precarious financial situations are at higher risk of their children entering the foster care system. This creates a policy collision: states that restrict abortion are effectively increasing the number of children born into circumstances of high risk for foster care placement, placing a long-term burden on already strained child welfare systems.
Education System Pressures
The post-Dobbs “baby bump” is projected to have significant long-term consequences for state education systems. While many school districts nationally have been planning for declining enrollment due to a long-term drop in birth rates, states with abortion bans now face the opposite challenge.
K-12 Enrollment: States like Texas, which saw nearly 10,000 additional births in just nine months following its S.B. 8 law, will need to prepare for larger kindergarten classes starting around 2027. This will affect funding formulas, staffing needs, and facility planning in districts that may have been anticipating contraction. This challenge is compounded by the fact that many of the states with the strictest abortion bans are also those that rank in the bottom half of the country for per-pupil education spending, suggesting a potential mismatch between future needs and current investment.
Higher Education: As detailed previously, the impact on higher education is already being felt in application patterns. Universities in ban states are at risk of becoming less competitive in attracting high-achieving female students from out of state, which could affect their institutional prestige, research capacity, and the supply of skilled graduates for the local economy over the long term.
Mental Health
The impact of abortion bans extends to the mental well-being of the broader population, not just those directly seeking an abortion. A study from Johns Hopkins University, analyzing national survey data, found a small but statistically significant increase in self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression among people living in states with trigger laws following the Dobbs decision. The increase was most pronounced among women of reproductive age (18-45). Researchers suggest this could be due to a range of factors, including fear about the potential denial of care, uncertainty about future rights (such as contraception), and a general sense of lost bodily autonomy and security. This population-level effect could lead to increased demand for mental health services in states that have enacted bans.
Healthcare and Social System Impacts in Ban vs. Protected States
| System/Metric | Status in Ban States (Average) | Status in Protected States (Average) |
|---|---|---|
| Maternity Care Deserts | Higher prevalence; 35.1% of all U.S. counties are deserts. | Lower prevalence |
| OB-GYN Workforce | Declining residency applications; physician exodus reported. | Stable or increasing residency applications. |
| Foster Care Entries | 11% increase associated with restrictions. | No associated increase. |
| Per-Pupil K-12 Spending | Rank in bottom half of states (most). | Rank in top half of states (most). |
| Medicaid Expansion | Lower rates of adoption. | Higher rates of adoption. |
Sources: March of Dimes; AAMC; JAMA Pediatrics; ITEP; EPI.
The New Legal Battlegrounds
The post-Dobbs era has ushered in a period of intense legal activity, creating new costs for states and fostering unprecedented conflicts between them. The enforcement of abortion bans has led to expensive court battles, a rise in pregnancy-related criminalization, and a constitutional showdown over the power of states to regulate conduct beyond their borders.
The Cost of Criminalization and Defense
States that have enacted abortion bans face significant and ongoing fiscal costs associated with enforcing these laws and defending them against legal challenges. These costs are borne by taxpayers and divert resources from other public services.
Legal Defense Costs: Defending abortion bans in court is an expensive endeavor. For example, in a series of legal battles over abortion restrictions dating back to 2012, the state of Mississippi spent over $225,000 in attorney time and faced a potential bill of $1.1 million to cover the plaintiffs’ legal fees after losing a case. Similarly, Texas was ordered to pay more than $4.5 million in legal fees to the Center for Reproductive Rights after its 2013 clinic shutdown law was struck down by the Supreme Court. These legal battles are a continuous drain on state budgets.
Enforcement and Criminalization Costs: The criminalization of abortion creates a new category of offenses that the justice system must handle. From 2006 to 2020, even before Dobbs, more than 1,300 people were arrested for their conduct during pregnancy. Post-Dobbs, this trend is expected to intensify, placing new burdens on law enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders, and the carceral system. Some state laws, like Texas’s, impose severe penalties, including fines of at least $100,000 and the potential for life imprisonment for providers. These enforcement actions represent a significant new expenditure for state and local governments.
Interstate Legal Conflict and “Shield Laws”
Perhaps the most counterintuitive legal impact of Dobbs is the erosion of interstate comity and the rise of direct legal conflicts between states. In response to aggressive enforcement measures from ban states, states where abortion remains legal have begun enacting “shield laws.” These laws are designed to protect their own residents and healthcare providers from out-of-state investigations, subpoenas, extradition requests, and civil lawsuits related to the provision of abortion care that is legal within their borders. As of June 2024, 18 states and the District of Columbia have enacted such laws.
This has created a constitutional standoff centered on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 1), which requires states to recognize the “judicial proceedings of every other State”.
The Argument Against Shield Laws: Anti-abortion states argue that shield laws unconstitutionally refuse to enforce valid court orders and judgments from their jurisdictions. For example, if a Texas court issues a judgment against a California-based provider who mailed abortion pills to a Texas resident, they argue California must enforce it.
The Argument For Shield Laws: Proponents of shield laws, and legal scholars analyzing them, point to several established exceptions to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. They argue that out-of-state subpoenas and warrants are not “final judgments” and are therefore not subject to the clause’s strictest command. Furthermore, they invoke the “penal law exception” (states are not required to enforce the criminal laws of other states) and the “public policy exception” (a state can refuse to enforce a law that violates its own fundamental public policy).
This legal “balkanization” creates a chaotic and uncertain environment for providers, patients, and even tech companies that hold user data. It represents a fundamental breakdown in the tradition of interstate cooperation, turning policy disagreements into direct legal confrontations between state governments.
This fragmentation of the American legal system is a profound and systemic consequence of returning the question of abortion to the states.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
