The Economic Consequences of Abortion Restrictions: A Growing Divide
The landmark Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, has had and will continue to have economic repercussions, particularly for women’s workforce participation, educational attainment, and financial stability. This article examines how abortion access—or lack thereof—affects poverty rates, gender wage gaps, and state economies, reinforcing long-standing economic disparities.
For decades, the debate around abortion in the United States has been framed in moral, religious, or ideological terms. Abortion policy’s role as an economic issue often goes unmentioned, although it directly affects labor markets, poverty rates, and women’s long-term financial stability. In the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the federal right to abortion, this economic impact of abortion has become impossible to ignore.
While some may argue that abortion is primarily a matter of personal ethics, the economic data tells a different story. Abortion access has long been linked to increased labor force participation, higher educational attainment, and improved financial security—particularly for low-income women. Conversely, abortion restrictions have historically been associated with lower wages, higher poverty rates, and decreased economic mobility. The years following Dobbs have reinforced these trends, with state-by-state disparities in abortion access creating new economic divides.
The question now is not whether abortion restrictions impact the economy, but how significant those effects will be—and who will bear the brunt of them.
The Economic Link
In the lead-up to Dobbs, 154 economists submitted an amici curiae brief to the Supreme Court warning that eliminating abortion rights would have severe economic consequences. The brief, citing decades of research, demonstrated that abortion access plays a critical role in women’s workforce participation and financial independence.
Historically, abortion legalization has been linked to higher labor force participation rates among women. A study by Angrist and Evans (2000) found that young women who had access to abortion were more likely to enter and remain in the workforce, leading to higher lifetime earnings. The effects were particularly pronounced among Black women, whose workforce participation rates increased by 6.9 percentage points, compared to 2 percentage points among all women following the legalization of abortion in the 1970s (Amici Curiae Brief, 2021).
The explanation is simple: when women have control over their reproductive choices, they can better plan their careers and invest in their education. By contrast, being forced to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term often results in financial instability, job loss, and reduced long-term earnings.
Of course, access to abortion was not the sole factor driving women’s economic progress during this period. Technological advancements, the expansion of white-collar jobs, shifting social and cultural norms, greater access to contraception, and anti-discrimination policies all played significant roles in increasing women’s workforce participation. However, even in the presence of these broader changes, economists have been able to isolate and measure the causal effects of abortion legalization by analyzing state-by-state differences in policy. These natural experiments show that abortion access independently contributed to improvements in women’s economic outcomes, particularly for those in lower-income brackets.
Now, in the post-Dobbs era, these economic disparities are once again becoming stark, as restrictive abortion laws disproportionately impact women with the fewest financial resources.
The Motherhood Penalty: Widening Economic Disparities
The motherhood penalty—the economic disadvantage women face in the workforce after becoming mothers—is a well-documented issue in labor economics. Unlike fathers, whose earnings remain largely unchanged after having children, women often experience a substantial drop in income and career advancement opportunities.
Mothers in the U.S. earn 30% less than their childless counterparts over their lifetimes, largely due to career interruptions, reduced hours, and employer discrimination (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019). While the motherhood penalty exists regardless of abortion policy, abortion restrictions make it even more severe by increasing the number of women who are forced into unplanned pregnacny before they are financially ready.
The Turnaway Study, which tracked women who were denied an abortion due to gestational limits, found that these women were three times more likely to be unemployed six months later. They also experienced a 78% increase in past-due debt and a significant decline in credit scores compared to women who were able to obtain an abortion (Foster, 2020).
These financial setbacks don’t just affect individual women, they impact families, communities, and even state economies. Women with fewer economic resources have less to spend on education, healthcare, and child development, reinforcing cycles of poverty. By limiting women’s ability to control the timing of motherhood, abortion restrictions amplify the financial consequences of the motherhood penalty, making economic mobility even harder to achieve.
State-by-State Economic Disparities Post-Dobbs
The most immediate consequence of Dobbs has been the growing economic divide between states with and without abortion protections.
As of early 2024, 14 states have enacted near-total abortion bans, while others have imposed severe restrictions (Guttmacher Institute, 2024). While abortion restrictions are correlated with higher poverty rates and lower earnings, these states also tend to have weaker social safety nets, fewer worker protections, and lower public investment in childcare and healthcare—factors that also contribute to economic instability.The economic fallout is already becoming apparent:
Higher Poverty Rates: States with the strictest abortion laws tend to have higher rates of child poverty and maternal economic instability. In Mississippi, where abortion is now illegal, the child poverty rate stands at 27%—one of the highest in the country (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023).
Lower Earnings for Women: Women in abortion-restricted states have lower median earnings than their counterparts in states where abortion remains legal (Joint Economic Committee Report, 2023).
Worsening Maternal Health Outcomes: States with abortion bans also tend to have fewer maternity care providers, leading to higher maternal mortality rates. Black women in these states face particularly severe risks, with maternal mortality rates nearly three times higher than those of white women (CDC Maternal Mortality Report, 2023).
Conversely, states that have expanded abortion access—such as California, New York, and Illinois—are seeing higher rates of workforce retention among women and better economic stability for families.While abortion restrictions are correlated with higher poverty rates and lower earnings, these states also tend to have weaker social safety nets, fewer worker protections, and lower public investment in childcare and healthcare—factors that also contribute to economic instability.
These disparities are not incidental; they reflect the structural impact of abortion policy on economic opportunity. As more data emerges, it’s likely that these state-by-state economic differences will continue to widen.
Can the Economic Fallout Be Mitigated?
The economic consequences of abortion restrictions are not inevitable. While reversing Dobbs may not be politically feasible in the near future, there are policy measures that could help mitigate the economic harm:
Expanding Paid Family Leave: The U.S. is one of only nine countries worldwide without federally mandated paid maternity leave (OECD, 2023). Implementing national paid leave policies could help alleviate some of the economic burdens associated with forced pregnancy.
Investing in Childcare Support: Childcare costs in the U.S. have risen by more than 200% over the past three decades, making it difficult for low-income mothers to remain in the workforce (Center for American Progress, 2023). Increased subsidies and childcare tax credits could help offset this financial strain.
Ensuring Access to Contraception and Reproductive Healthcare: While abortion restrictions have increased, access to contraception remains inconsistent, particularly in rural areas. Expanding family planning services could help reduce unintended pregnancies and their associated economic costs.
Reassessing State-Level Abortion Bans: Some states may reconsider strict abortion bans in response to economic pressures. A recent poll found that 62% of business leaders believe abortion restrictions negatively impact workforce retention and hiring (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2024).
Without intervention, the economic impact of restrictive abortion policy will only grow. The burden will not be evenly distributed—it will fall most heavily on low-income women, single mothers, and marginalized communities.
The flip side:
While some argue that restricting abortion increases birth rates and could potentially expand the future workforce, economic research challenges the long-term viability of this claim. Proponents suggest that higher birth rates contribute to labor market growth and overall economic productivity. However, empirical evidence indicates that the economic hardships caused by unplanned births—particularly for low-income families—significantly outweigh any speculative workforce benefits.
Studies show that women who are denied abortions and forced to carry unplanned pregnancies to term often experience severe financial instability. They are more likely to be unemployed, rely on government assistance, and accumulate significant debt. The economic strain on these women has cascading effects on their children, who are more likely to grow up in poverty, have lower educational attainment, and face long-term barriers to upward mobility.
Additionally, research suggests that higher birth rates do not necessarily translate to positive labor market outcomes. A larger workforce does not automatically lead to economic growth if those entering the labor force lack the necessary education, stability, and resources to contribute productively. In fact, the economic burdens imposed by unintended childbearing can perpetuate intergenerational cycles of poverty, ultimately straining public resources rather than boosting economic prosperity.
While the argument that abortion restrictions can increase the labor force exists, available data indicates that the short-term and long-term economic consequences—job loss, reduced earnings, higher poverty rates, and decreased economic mobility—undermine any potential benefits. The financial burden falls disproportionately on low-income families, reinforcing economic disparities rather than alleviating them.
Conclusion: The Economic Stakes of Abortion Policy
The idea that abortion is purely a moral issue ignores a critical reality: abortion access is an economic issue, with profound implications for labor markets, income inequality, and financial security.
The post-Dobbs landscape has created a clear economic divide between states that protect abortion rights and those that restrict them. As women in restrictive states face lower wages, higher poverty rates, and worsening health outcomes, these disparities will continue to shape the nation’s economic future.
If policymakers are serious about economic opportunity and upward mobility, they must recognize that reproductive rights are not just a social issue—they are a fundamental pillar of economic well-being.
References
Angrist, Joshua D., & Evans, William N. Schooling and Labor Market Consequences of the 1970 State Abortion Reforms. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2000. https://www.nber.org/papers/w5406
Center for American Progress. The True Cost of Child Care: The Rising Prices Parents Pay. 2023. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/true-cost-child-care/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2023. 2023.https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/maternal-mortality/
Foster, Diana Greene. The Turnaway Study: Ten Years, a Thousand Women, and the Consequences of Having—or Being Denied—an Abortion. Scribner, 2020.
Guttmacher Institute. State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy. 2024. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions
Kleven, Henrik, et al. Children and Gender Inequality: Evidence from Denmark. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019.https://www.nber.org/papers/w24219
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Labor Market Consequences of Abortion Access. 2021. https://www.nber.org/papers/w5406
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Paid Parental Leave Policies: International Comparisons. 2023.https://www.oecd.org/gender/parental-leave/
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Women in the Workforce: Earnings and Employment Trends. 2023. https://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm
U.S. Census Bureau. Child Poverty Rates by State, 2023. 2023. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/09/child-poverty-rates-highest-in-southern-states.html
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Business Case for Reproductive Rights: Workforce Retention and Economic Implications. 2024.https://www.uschamber.com/reports
U.S. Joint Economic Committee. Economic Impacts of Abortion Access and Restrictions. 2023.https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/reports
Meyer, Erin E., Srinivasan, Anjali, & Sabharwal, Neha. Brief of Amici Curiae Economists in Support of Respondents in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, September 20, 2021