Samantha Marcotte is a staff writer and second-year MPP student.

Four years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the economic consequences of abortion restrictions are no longer hypothetical – they are measurable. While abortion continues to be debated as a moral issue, far less attention has been directed toward the ways in which reproductive policy is reshaping women’s financial stability, labor force participation, and geographic mobility. Reproductive federalism has created a two-tier economic system for women, based on their ability to access care within their state or their ability to afford this access. The financial burden of travel, lost wages, and reduced educational and employment opportunities fall disproportionately on low-income women, deepening existing inequalities. 

Reproductive policy not only impacts an individual’s rights but is deeply tied to economic stability, gender inequality, and the overall welfare of American families and communities. Studies have shown that years after being denied an abortion, women are more likely to have difficulties covering living expenses, a lower credit score, higher debt, and an increased number of financial issues, including bankruptcy or evictions. Such financial instabilities may have negative impacts on their developing children. Abortion will always be more accessible to those with the money and ability to seek it. Therefore, those who often feel the greatest economic impact of abortion restrictions will be those already experiencing financial hardship, unable to afford time off work, and the potential of lost wages when traveling to seek care out of state. Access to abortion care is essential for women to maintain financial stability and continued participation in the workforce. 

Abortion bans have a cost much greater than to an individual’s finances, they carry a large impact on our nation’s financial success. The national economic cost of abortion restrictions has been estimated at $68 billion annually since the overturn of Roe, due to reduced labor force participation, lower earnings, and higher annual healthcare costs. If abortion were legalized federally, there would be an estimated additional 556,000 women in the US workforce annually, increasing the National GDP by 0.5 percent. These figures underscore that reproductive policy is not only a social issue, but a determinant of economic growth and labor market participation.

Beyond these immediate economic impacts, abortion restrictions generate long-term ripple effects that extend across households and public systems. Increases in child poverty rates,  families in need of social welfare benefits, medical costs due to poor health outcomes, and household financial instability all contribute to sustained economic strain. These effects are not incidental– they are predictable outcomes of policies that limit individuals’ ability to plan and invest in their economic futures. As these pressures build, they place greater burdens on public resources, reinforcing the need for policy interventions that can mitigate these structural economic risks.

Lack of accessible reproductive care has been associated with a greater likelihood of child poverty and maternal financial instability. Increased child poverty rates may require additional childcare programs to support working parents, as well as additional subsidies to fund them, especially at a time when childcare costs are rising. Additionally, lower-income families that are unable to plan to have children on their own timeline may require additional support through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), housing assistance, and Medicaid. Increasing the federal budget for social benefits to support lower-income families will be a necessity as the negative externalities of abortion bans continue to be felt– and increasingly concentrated among the most economically vulnerable–  the longer they remain in place. A budget increase may not be politically feasible, considering that the 2026 federal budget proposed over $1 trillion in Medicaid and SNAP cuts. The result is a fundamental policy contradiction, as abortion restrictions increase the number of economically vulnerable births, proposed cuts to the very programs that support those families shift the financial burden onto individuals least able to afford it. This isn’t just about spending– it’s about a system where policy choices are actively producing and then failing to address economic vulnerability.

The ability to choose and plan for pregnancy through access to birth control has been linked to greater educational and professional opportunities and increased earnings over their lifetimes. High medical costs, lack of insurance, geographical barriers, OB/GYN shortages, and regional disparities have left over 19 million women living in areas that are considered contraceptive deserts due to their lack of access to contraception. The Title X program, which provides contraceptives and reproductive health services to low-income individuals, has been experiencing a funding freeze affecting nearly 300 clinics. Over-the-counter contraception and subsidies for low-income, underinsured, or uninsured individuals are vital in ensuring access to family planning. Furthermore, federal funding that is tied to evidence-based programs ensures that comprehensive sex education is mandated as a part of the high school curriculum for public schools, which will guarantee students have the opportunity to plan if and when they have children. Comprehensive sex education is consistently linked to lower rates of unintended pregnancy, whereas abstinence-only programs do not reduce, and likely increase, birth rates.

Following the overturn of Roe v. Wade by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, abortion access has become determined by the state lines one lives in. Today, 26 states have instituted full abortion bans or severe restrictions impacting women’s futures. Historically, civil rights in the US were protected at the federal level as a way to ensure they were nationalized and to prevent interstate discrimination. Now, there is a geographic divide in abortion access – and its economic consequences. Women living in restrictive states face higher forced-birth rates, increased likelihood of living in poverty, poorer health outcomes, and a greater dependence on welfare systems. Some states have instituted penalties for women seeking reproductive care outside of their state and for those who support them. This interstate tension raises questions about a state government’s power to regulate actions outside of its state and without federal interference, weakening executive power. A state’s scope is meant to end at the state line, allowing the federal government to oversee issues outside of its purview. The federal government could support states that protect access by adjusting funding formulas or penalizing states that restrict access to abortion care. However, this would require abortion to be a top priority across most Democratic politicians’ agendas in order to rally the power to enforce. In banned states, there will be further need for a maternal health strategy to support low-income families. This geographic divide transforms reproductive access into a determinant of economic opportunity, where a woman’s financial stability is increasingly shaped not only by income, but by the state in which she resides. In this way, reproductive federalism is producing a system of unequal economic citizenship contingent on geography rather than guaranteeing a baseline condition of participation in the economy.

Federal abortion bans have been a highly debated topic over the last four years. Some, such as President Trump and Students for Life of America, argue that the right to access should be determined by the states because it allows states to reflect their own democratic preferences. The most common argument is that abortion is against individuals’ religious beliefs and, therefore, should be outlawed. The United States of America was formed on the principles of the separation of church and state, and religious freedom, which is why it’s protected in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The right to practice your religion freely is an individual right that includes the legal protection to not practice or follow any religious beliefs. When these beliefs are translated into state policy, they extend beyond individual choice and impose a particular moral framework onto others, effectively limiting the ability of individuals to make decisions based on their own beliefs and circumstances. The debate over abortion is not solely about religious freedom or state autonomy, it’s about whose beliefs are reflected in policy and who bears the economic and social consequences when those policies restrict access to care.

Additional anti-abortion arguments include that individuals should bear the responsibility of their reproductive choices and that the government should not expand funding to social welfare programs to accommodate the increased need. Forced births without increases to state expenditures may take a toll on public benefits that will be unable to meet the new levels of people in need. Early childhood investment has seen positive results in economic growth in the long term. However, states that restrict abortion are among the worst ranked in terms of child well-being and public spending that supports children. Restricting access to abortion care while maintaining low levels of public spending to support families threatens to increase our already elevated child poverty rates. The abortion debate centers morality, but its consequences are economically measurable.

Post-Roe policy is shaping labor markets, poverty rates, and interstate inequality. Reproductive autonomy is tied to economic mobility, educational attainment, household financial power, and childhood development rates. Without federal protections, inequality widens. If economic security is a national policy goal, reproductive autonomy cannot be treated as peripheral to our nation’s financial wellness. Abortion policy is no longer just social policy – it’s economic development policy.

Photo by Microsoft 365 on Unsplash

The views expressed in Policy Perspectives and Brief Policy Perspectives are those of the authors and do not represent the approval or endorsement of the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, the George Washington University, or any employee of either institution.