The Economic Impacts of Overturning Roe

Memo
Published July 14, 2022

The Economic Impacts of Overturning Roe

Economic Impact Overturning Roe
HG Series Abortiononthe Ballot A
Abortion on the Ballot
View Series
Photo of Curran McSwigan
Curran McSwigan
Senior Economic Policy Advisor
  • Curran McSwigan, Senior Economic Policy Advisor

Jump to section…

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn Roe v. Wade ensures for the first time in almost 50 years that there are women living in the U.S. without legal access to abortion services. While this rollback of a constitutional right has moral implications for our country, the economic implications also cannot be ignored. Central to the Dobbs case is the argument that there is no link between a woman’s access to abortion services and her ability to fully engage economically and socially in society, a viewpoint with which the majority of justices seem to agree.1Yet, extensive research done by economists and other scholars directly contradicts this argument. Instead, those researchers find that a woman’s ability to access all forms of reproductive health care directly impacts her economic life and future—and the future of local, state, and national economies.

Further proof of Roe’s impact is also evident in the huge economic strides women made over the last five decades. Between 1970 and 2020, the number of women in the workforce with bachelor’s degrees quadrupled, women’s labor force participation rate increased 30%, and the gender pay gap shrank by almost 40%.2Access to comprehensive reproductive health care, alongside other important victories for women’s rights, opened a door to economic opportunity that the Dobbs’ decision works to ram shut.

As we highlight below, the overturning of Roe v. Wade has significant economic impacts. Namely, it decreases female labor force participation and educational attainment, reduces career advancement and earning potential, increases financial distress and rates of poverty, worsens health outcomes, and hurts women of color and low-income women the most.

What does the overturning of Roe v. Wade mean from an economic perspective?

1. A decrease in female labor force participation and fewer opportunities for career advancement.

  • Access to legal abortion services increased the probability of a woman working 40 weeks or more per year by almost 2 percentage points.3 For Black women, participation increased by 6.9 percentage points.4
  • In states with “Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers” (TRAP) laws, women are less likely to move between occupations and into higher-paying roles.5
  • On the flip side, public funding for medically necessary abortion services boosts occupational mobility and access to insurance coverage for contraceptives increases transitions into paid employment.6
  • Estimates suggest that access to abortions for women ages 15 to 19 increases the probability of their working (at age 24 to 44) by 38% and more than doubles the probability of their working in a management position.7
  • State-level abortion restrictions currently cost their own economies $105 billion per year.8
  • Estimates suggest lifting state-level abortion restrictions would mean 505,000 more women would enter the labor force, already employed women would see $102 billion in higher earnings, and the US GDP would increase by half a percent.9

2. Lower educational attainment, especially for women of color.

  • The legalization of abortion increased the probability that Black teenage women graduated high school by around 23 percentage points and attended college by around 25 percentage points. 10
  • One study found an outright abortion ban would decrease accumulated schooling by 9.5% and lifetime earnings by 3.3% for women who would have sought abortion services.11

3. More financial distress and reduced earning potential throughout women’s lives.

  • Women who were denied abortion services saw a 78% increase in instances of significant overdue debt and an 81% increase in negative financial records such as bankruptcy and evictions. These instances of distress also persisted for years. 12
  • For women experiencing a pregnancy before the age of 20, access to abortion services is estimated to increase their lifetime earnings by between $11,000 and $15,000 a year. 13
  • For Black women experiencing a pregnancy before the age of 24, access to abortion services is estimated to increase individual earnings annually by between $23,000 to $28,000 a year. This represents an increase of between 75% and 100%.14

4. Higher poverty for women and children, as well as further economic harm for low-and middle-income women.

  • The legalization of abortion reduced the number of children living in poverty and receiving social services. 15
  • Almost 50% of abortion recipients live below the poverty line and nearly 60% already have one child. 16
  • One study found that six months after being denied an abortion, women were three times more likely to be unemployed and four times more likely to be below the poverty line than women who were able to access abortion services. 17

5. Women, especially women of color, will face worse health outcomes.

  • Nationally, 15.6% of individuals aged 19 to 34 lack health insurance, meaning many women face significant barriers to contraceptive affordability and accessibility. 18
  • Black women experienced a 28% to 40% decline in maternal mortality due to the legalization of abortion. 19
  • According to economists’ estimates, the overturning of Roe means 120,000 women who want to obtain an abortion this year will be unable to reach a provider. 20
  • On average, women will now have to travel 100 miles further to reach the nearest abortion provider.21

Conclusion

The evidence is clear—by overturning Roe, the Supreme Court has not only stripped women of a constitutional right, but also dealt them a devastating economic blow. Even before this ruling many women across the country had difficulty accessing these services due to economic factors and prior limitations. Now, they face even steeper barriers to achieving economic security, mobility, and opportunity.

Endnotes

  1. Myers, Caitlin Knowles and Morgan Welch. “What can economic research tell us about the effect of abortion access on women’s lives.” Brookings, 30 Nov. 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-can-economic-research-tell-us-about-the-effect-of-abortion-access-on-womens-lives/. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Women in the labor force: a databook.” Mar. 2022, https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2021/home.htm. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022; and Author’s calculations based on “The Wage Gap Over Time: In Real Dollars, Women See a Continuing Gap.” National Committee on pay Equity, https://www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022; and Author’s calculations based U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Women in the labor force: a databook.” Mar. 2022, https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2021/home.htm. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022 and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics “Employment status of the civilian noninstituional population 16 years and over by sex, 1970-2009 annual averages.” Women in the Labor Force: A Databook (2010 Edition). 2010, https://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook2010.htm, Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  3. “The Economic Effects of Abortion Access: A Review of the Evidence.” Fact Sheet, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Jul. 2019,  https://iwpr.org/iwpr-issues/reproductive-health/the-economic-effects-of-abortion-access-a-review-of-the-evidence-fact-sheet/. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022. And; Kalist, David E., “Abortion and Female Labor Force Participation: Evidence Prior to Roe v. Wade,” Journal of Labor Research 25, no. 3, Sep. 2004, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-004-1028-3, Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  4. “The Economic Effects of Abortion Access: A Review of the Evidence.” Fact Sheet, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Jul. 2019,  https://iwpr.org/iwpr-issues/reproductive-health/the-economic-effects-of-abortion-access-a-review-of-the-evidence-fact-sheet/. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022. And; Kalist, David E., “Abortion and Female Labor Force Participation: Evidence Prior to Roe v. Wade,” Journal of Labor Research 25, no. 3, Sep. 2004, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-004-1028-3, Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  5. Bahn, Kate and Maryam Janani-Flores. “Economic security and opportunity for women under threat after U.S. Supreme Court takes anti-abortion stance in Texas.” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, 8 Sep. 2021, https://equitablegrowth.org/economic-security-and-opportunity-for-women-under-threat-after-u-s-supreme-court-takes-anti-abortion-stance-in-texas/. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022. And; “Bahn, Kate et. al. “Do US TRAP Laws Trap Women Into Bad Jobs?” Feminist Economics 26, no. 1, 19 Aug. 2019,   https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13545701.2019.1622029. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  6. Bahn, Kate and Maryam Janani-Flores. “Economic security and opportunity for women under threat after U.S. Supreme Court takes anti-abortion stance in Texas.” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, 8 Sep. 2021, https://equitablegrowth.org/economic-security-and-opportunity-for-women-under-threat-after-u-s-supreme-court-takes-anti-abortion-stance-in-texas/. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022. And; “Bahn, Kate et. al. “Do US TRAP Laws Trap Women Into Bad Jobs?” Feminist Economics 26, no. 1, 19 Aug. 2019,   https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13545701.2019.1622029. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  7. Jones, Kelly. “At a Crossroads: The impact of abortion access on future economic outcomes.” Working Paper, American University Department of Economics, 9 Aug. 2021, https://dra.american.edu/islandora/object/auislandora%3A95123. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  8. The Cost of Reproductive Health Restrictions: An Economic Case for Ending Harmful State Policies.” Institute for Women’s Policy Research, https://iwpr.org/costs-of-reproductive-health-restrictions/. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  9. The Cost of Reproductive Health Restrictions: An Economic Case for Ending Harmful State Policies.” Institute for Women’s Policy Research, https://iwpr.org/costs-of-reproductive-health-restrictions/. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  10. Thomas E. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. On Write of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Brief for Petitioners, No. 19-139, 20 Sep. 2021, https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Economists-Amicus-Brief.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022. And; Angrist, Joshua D. and William N. Evans. “Schooling and Labor Market Consequences of the 1970 State Abortion Reforms.” Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Jan. 1996, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w5406/w5406.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  11. Amador, Diego. “The Consequences of Abortion and Contraception Policies on Young Women’s Reproductive Choices, Schooling and Labor Supply.” Documento CEDE 2017 -43, 15 Jun. 2017, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2987367. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  12. “Miller, Sarah, Laura R. Wherry and Diana Greene Foster. “The Economic Consequences of Being Denied An Abortion.” Working Paper 26662, National Bureau of Economic Research, Published Jan. 2020, Revised Jan. 2022, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26662/w26662.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  13. Jones, Kelly. “At a Crossroads: The impact of abortion access on future economic outcomes.” Working Paper, American University Department of Economics, 9 Aug. 2021, https://dra.american.edu/islandora/object/auislandora%3A95123. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  14. Jones, Kelly. “At a Crossroads: The impact of abortion access on future economic outcomes.” Working Paper, American University Department of Economics, 9 Aug. 2021, https://dra.american.edu/islandora/object/auislandora%3A95123. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  15. Thomas E. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. On Write of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Brief for Petitioners, No. 19-139, 20 Sep. 2021, https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Economists-Amicus-Brief.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.  And; Gruber, Jonathan, Phillip Levine and Douglas Staiger. “Abortion Legalization and Child Living Circumstances: Who is the “Marginal Child?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 144, No. 1, Feb. 1999, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2586953 . Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  16. Schrager, Allison. “No Abortion Means Poor States Will Get Poorer.” Washington Post, 4 May 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/no-abortion-means-poor-states-will-get-poorer/2022/05/04/276bcde6-cb9a-11ec-b7ee-74f09d827ca6_story.html. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  17. Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health. “Socioeconomic outcomes of women who receive and women who are denied wanted abortions.” Issue Brief, Aug. 2018, https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/turnaway_socioeconomic_outcomes_issue_brief_8-20-2018.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  18. Thomas E. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. On Write of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Brief for Petitioners, No. 19-139, 20 Sep. 2021, https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Economists-Amicus-Brief.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022. And; Conway, Douglas. “Uninsured Rates Highest for Young Adults Aged 19 to 34.” United States Census Bureau, 26 Oct. 2020, https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/10/uninsured-rates-highest-for-young-adults-aged-19-to-34.html. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  19. Thomas E. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. On Write of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Brief for Petitioners, No. 19-139, 20 Sep. 2021, https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Economists-Amicus-Brief.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022. And; Farin, Sherajum Monira, Lauren Hoehn-Valsco and Michael Peski. “The Impact of Legal Abortion on Maternal Health: Looking to the Past to Inform the Present.” 3 Sep. 2021, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2586953. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  20. Thomas E. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. On Write of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Brief for Petitioners, No. 19-139, 20 Sep. 2021, https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Economists-Amicus-Brief.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

  21. Gonzalez, Oriana, Sara Wise and Thomas Oide. “Abortions could require 200-mile trips is Roe is overturned.” Axios, 1 Dec. 2021, https://www.axios.com/2021/12/01/distance-abortion-roe-supreme-court-texas. Accessed 15 Jun. 2022.

Subscribe

Get updates whenever new content is added. We'll never share your email with anyone.

Downloads