Written by Julia Holman
The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization reversed the constitutional right to abortion access that had been guaranteed since 1973 (Boyle & Weiner, 2024). This landmark decision has garnered international attention and has been the subject of immense debate. This article aims to analyze the economic impacts of this ruling. From financial ramifications at the individual level to broader trends in workforce participation, Dobbs v. Jackson has had monumental consequences across the nation.
As of 2023, eighteen states had total abortion bans, as defined by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Only 13 states were classified as protected, with the remaining states falling somewhere in between (IWPR & Mahoney, 2024, p. 9). Poorly written laws and inconsistent guidance have left healthcare workers unclear about when they can perform reproductive care without risking legal consequences such as imprisonment (Boyle & Weiner, 2024). A national study conducted by KFF finds that 61% of OBGYNs in states with abortion bans are somewhat or very concerned about personal legal risks when making decisions about patient care (Frederiksen et al., 2023, p. 11). Additionally, 18% of OBGYNs in states with total abortion bans and 23% of OBGYNs in states with gestational restrictions, cite the abundance of legal regulations as a reason they do not perform abortions (Frederiksen et al., 2023, p. 9). These concerns exacerbate the impacts of abortion restrictions when patients with legally ambiguous situations are denied care due to fear of repercussions.
As a result of the volatile and restrictive nature of abortion access in the United States, countless individuals are forced to incur hefty costs traveling thousands of miles to receive care. Since the Supreme Court ruling, the proportion of women traveling out of state for abortions has doubled. In 2020, one in ten women left the state for abortions (Forouzan et al., 2023). By the first half of 2023, one in five sought care out of state. Illinois, which borders three states with total abortion bans, and New Mexico, which borders two, saw the greatest increase in abortion patients from other states (Forouzan et al., 2023).
The Dobbs v. Jackson ruling disproportionately impacts marginalized communities as they are less likely to have the resources to afford transportation and lodging costs or have the ability to take extended periods of time off work. In 2023, 20.6% of Black Americans and 16.6% of Hispanic Americans were below the poverty threshold, compared to 9.5% of White individuals (Poverty Rate by Race/Ethnicity, 2024). This makes travel costs a larger barrier, on average, for members of racial and ethnic minority groups.
Women of racial and ethnic minorities in the United States are also more likely to experience unintended pregnancies. Black women ages 15-44 have an unintended pregnancy rate of 79 per 1000, Latina women have a rate of 58 per 1000, and White women experience unintended pregnancies at a rate of 33 per 1000 (Jackson et al., 2017, p. 274). The most common causes of unintended pregnancies are contraception non-use or contraceptive failure, both of which are more common among ethnic minorities (Jackson et al., 2017, p. 274). Health insurance disparities, income inequality, and a legacy of discrimination by healthcare providers collectively hinder marginalized communities from accessing quality health and family planning care (Fuentes & Boston Medical Center, 2023). While women of color are more likely to need abortions, they also have more limited opportunities to access them. About 60% of Black women aged 18-49 live in states with abortion restrictions compared to 53% of White women (Hill et al., 2024), once again illustrating the disproportionate impact Dobbs v. Jackson has on marginalized communities.
In addition to social and psychological impacts, women who are forced to carry through with unintended pregnancies as a result of abortion bans often face profound economic consequences. According to a 2017 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the estimated cost of raising a child born in 2015 through age 17 is $233,610 (Parker, 2015). With 60% of women seeking abortions already raising at least one child, the financial burden of providing for additional children is immense (Sanger-Katz et al., 2021). Notably, states with stricter abortion restrictions also tend to have weaker social safety services. For example, zero states with abortion bans offer paid family leave to new parents and many abortion-hostile states have refused to expand Medicaid. Additionally, most states with abortion bans lack universal pre-K, making it harder for mothers to work full-time jobs (Badger et al., 2022).
On a broad scale, there is evidence that Dobbs v. Jackson has already impacted labor force participation. According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, of the 20 states with women’s labor force participation rates below the 2023 national average, 13 had total abortion bans (IWPR & Mahoney, 2024, p. 16). The institute’s model estimates that if abortion restrictions were lifted, labor force participation would increase among women of reproductive age. Specifically, they estimate that an additional 360,588 women would have entered the workforce in 2023 had reproductive health restrictions been removed (IWPR & Mahoney, 2024, p. 16). Abortion restrictions threaten the strong and diverse talent pool that is critical to promoting economic progress and innovation in the United States (IWPR & Mahoney, 2024, p. 14).
There are also early signs of shifts in the healthcare industry. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, medical school graduates have become less likely to apply to residency programs in abortion-hostile states. Specifically, between 2023 and 2024 there was a 4.2% drop in U.S. MD senior residency applications in states with near-total abortion bans. In states where abortion is protected, the drop in applicants was only 0.6% (Orgera & Grover, 2024). If this trend continues, the United States may face a shortage of healthcare workers in states with abortion restrictions.
The economic impacts of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization extend far beyond the individual level, shaping workforce trends and exacerbating economic inequality. As legal battles persist and political leaders continue to reform abortion access, the economic implications will remain a key point of analysis.
References
Badger, E., Sanger-Katz, M., Miller, C. C., & Washington, E. (2022, July 28). States with abortion bans are among least supportive for mothers and children. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/28/upshot/abortion-bans-states-social-services.html
Boyle, P., & Weiner, S. (2024, November 11). Bans on abortion and transgender care have criminalized medicine, putting patients and doctors at risk. AAMC. https://www.aamc.org/news/bans-abortion-and-transgender-care-have-criminalized-medicine-putting-patients-and-doctors-risk
Forouzan, K., Friedrich-Karnik, A., & Maddow-Zimmet, I. (2023, November 29). The high toll of US abortion bans: Nearly one in five patients now traveling out of state for abortion care. Guttmacher Institute. https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/12/high-toll-us-abortion-bans-nearly-one-five-patients-now-traveling-out-state-abortion-care
Frederiksen, B., Ranji, U., Gomez, I., & Salganicoff, A. (2023, June 21). A national survey of obgyns’ experiences after dobbs – Report – 10168. KFF. https://www.kff.org/report-section/a-national-survey-of-obgyns-experiences-after-dobbs-report/
Fuentes, L. & Boston Medical Center. (2023, January 17). Inequity in US abortion rights and access: The end of Roe is deepening existing divides. Guttmacher Institute. https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/01/inequity-us-abortion-rights-and-access-end-roe-deepening-existing-divides
Hill, L., Artiga, S., Ranji, U., Gomez, I., & Ndugga, N. (2024, April 24). What are the Implications of the Dobbs Ruling for Racial Disparities? KFF. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/what-are-the-implications-of-the-dobbs-ruling-for-racial-disparities/
IWPR, & Mahoney, M. (2024, October 28). The economic and workforce impact of restrictive abortion laws – IWPR. IWPR – Institute for Women’s Policy Research. https://iwpr.org/the-economic-and-workforce-impact-of-restrictive-abortion-laws/
Jackson, A., Wang, L.-F., & Morse, J. (2017). Racial and ethnic differences in contraception use and obstetric outcomes: A review. Seminars in Perinatology, 41(5), 273–277. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2017.04.003
Orgera, K., & Grover, A. (2024, May 9). States with abortion bans see continued decrease in U.S. MD senior residency applicants. Research and Action Institute. https://www.aamcresearchinstitute.org/our-work/data-snapshot/post-dobbs-2024
Parker, T. (2025, January 22). How much does it cost to raise a child in the U.S.? Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/090415/cost-raising-child-america.asp
Poverty rate by race/ethnicity. (2024, October 25). KFF. https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
Sanger-Katz, M., Miller, C. C., & Bui, Q. (2021, December 14). Who gets abortions in america? Statistics about the typical patient. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-gets-abortions-in-america.html
(N.d.). https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/menstruation-matters-for-the-realization-of-human-rights/