Abby Mucker
Breakdown of Abortion Bans
Within the past few years, women’s abortion rights in the United States have started to feel like they are going backwards. A lot of people are wondering how far the country has actually progressed when it comes to reproductive freedom. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, which had protected abortion for almost fifty years, fourteen states immediately banned abortion outright. This change did more than just rearrange the legal system. It brought back a really personal and emotional debate about who gets to decide what happens to a pregnant person’s body. Abortion bans, in my view, do not protect anyone. They limit freedom, create harm, and leave many people without safe and realistic options. In this essay, I break down abortion bans by looking at the legal, social, biological, economic, and religious factors that shape them. I also talk about how these laws affect women’s health and opportunities, and whether states should truly have the power to restrict reproductive rights at all.
One of the biggest questions in the abortion debate is about authority. Who should get to make laws about abortion. Before 2022, Roe v. Wade mostly settled that question by saying abortion was protected under the Constitution. That meant states were not allowed to ban it completely. For nearly fifty years, Roe created a national baseline. Then the Dobbs decision arrived and changed everything. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court said the Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion. Suddenly, every state could write its own rules. Some states already had trigger bans ready to go and they enforced them right away. The United States is supposed to have equal rights for everyone, but after Dobbs that equality is not there. Many people have argued that states should not have total control over a right that affects health, safety, and economic futures.
Researchers like Burris and his team argue that abortion laws should be judged based on evidence and the actual effects they have on health (Burris et al. 4). Their IDEAL framework tries to make abortion policy more scientific instead of political. It uses three steps to evaluate what laws do, what outcomes they create, and where they fail. Their work shows that abortion laws are not just moral debates. They are public health issues. When policies ignore evidence, people get hurt. For example, some states with bans do not allow exceptions even when a pregnancy threatens a person’s health. Others have unclear exceptions that doctors are scared to rely on. This means people in medical emergencies sometimes do not get care until they are close to dying. These problems prove that state level bans create confusion and risk. They do not create safety.
Looking at abortion laws around the world helps show how unusual and restrictive some U.S. bans really are. The United Nations Population Division reports that about 60 percent of women worldwide live in places where abortion is broadly legal on request or under wide conditions. But this number is not as simple as it sounds because even countries that say abortion is legal often have strict rules. Many have a twelve week limit, which leaves out people who discover their pregnancy later. Others only allow abortion when a person’s life or health is in danger, which is a very limited definition of access. So the 60 percent statistic does not mean that 60 percent of women get full freedom. When we compare this global picture to the United States, we see how differently countries treat reproductive rights.
Research from Clarke and Mühlrad finds that abortion restrictions are strongly connected to worse health outcomes for women (Clarke and Mühlrad 2). In places with harsher laws, people tend to delay care or resort to unsafe procedures. More restrictions also increase the chance of complications. This shows that legal limits are not just rules. They have direct medical impacts. Another study by Srinivasulu and Heiland predicts that banning abortion could raise maternal mortality in the fourteen states with bans because people will be forced to continue pregnancies that are dangerous or unwanted (Srinivasulu and Heiland 845).
There are also examples of countries with better policies that protect autonomy and safety at the same time. Canada allows abortion at any stage based on medical judgement and personal decision making. The Netherlands allows abortion up to twenty four weeks and has a health system focused on access and counseling. France expanded its abortion limit to fourteen weeks and guarantees abortion as a public health service. These countries show that reproductive rights can be protected without chaos or harm. Their outcomes prove that supporting choice and safety leads to better health, not worse. Many pro choice advocates argue that the United States could learn from these models instead of restricting care.
Another important part of abortion bans is how they affect women not just medically but also socially, economically and educationally. When abortion is unavailable or very restricted, pregnant people face higher health risks but they also face bigger financial burdens. They might lose their income if they have to take time off work. Some people cannot afford childcare or the medical costs of pregnancy. Research from the Turnaway Study, one of the most famous long term abortion studies, found that women who were denied abortions were more likely to stay in abusive relationships, more likely to be in poverty, and more likely to experience long term economic insecurity (Foster et al. 176). Women who received abortions, on the other hand, were more likely to finish school and more likely to achieve their goals.
Another thing that shows how abortion bans fail people is the huge emotional impact they create. A lot of the conversation about abortion focuses on laws and statistics, but the lived experience is just as important. People who are denied abortions report feeling trapped and scared and even ashamed, even though they did nothing wrong. Many of them talk about how they felt their futures closing in on them. Some were students who wanted to finish school. Some were already parents who felt overwhelmed and could not afford another child (Biggs et al.). Others were dealing with health problems or unhealthy relationships. When states pass harsh bans, they ignore all these individual realities. They act like there is one correct way to experience pregnancy, but that is not true at all. Every situation is different and we should make space for those differences instead of shutting them down. Abortion bans also completely ignore the mental health consequences. Studies have shown that people who are denied abortions are more likely to experience anxiety, stress and lower life satisfaction. This is not surprising when someone is forced to continue a pregnancy they did not choose or one that is dangerous. Mental health experts explain that choice and control are major parts of well being. When the government takes away control over something as personal as pregnancy, it harms people emotionally, not just physically. Politicians who support bans often talk about protecting life, but they rarely talk about the emotional suffering bans create. If we care about life, then mental health should be part of that conversation too.
This evidence is extremely important regarding the abortion debate. It shows that the ability to choose is tied to someone’s future. It affects whether they can stay safe, whether they can stay in school, and whether they can afford to live. Abortion bans do not only affect one moment. They affect a person’s entire life. And the burden is not shared equally. Low income women, women of color, people in rural areas, and people without insurance carry the hardest load. They have fewer resources to travel, fewer clinics nearby, and fewer safety nets. So abortion bans punish already vulnerable people. That does not seem fair or just.
Many abortion debates end up focusing on biology. People argue about when life begins or when a fetus becomes viable. Biology can give us important facts, but it cannot answer the moral or legal question of who should control a pregnancy. A twelve week limit might make sense biologically to someone, but it might not match real human experiences like late pregnancy discovery or medical complications. Many laws say abortion is allowed only when a person’s life is at risk, but that definition is vague. Doctors are scared to perform care because they fear legal punishment. That is why in Texas and other states there have been cases where women with miscarriages or nonviable pregnancies were denied treatment until they were in extreme danger (Klibanoff).These are outcomes caused by laws that misunderstand biology. Medical groups like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say abortion bans are harmful because they interfere with safe, professional medical judgement (ACOG). Instead of listening and abiding by politicians, we need to look at the larger picture which encompasses all perspectives relating to abortion.
Get Abby Mucker’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Religion is another big factor in abortion debates. Many people believe life begins at conception because of their religious teachings. Others believe their faith teaches compassion, privacy, and the importance of personal moral decision making. So even within religion, there are many interpretations. The United States is supposed to separate church and state, but abortion laws often reflect specific religious beliefs. This raises an important question. Should one religious viewpoint decide the laws for everyone?
Not everyone follows the same religion or any religion at all. If a law takes away someone’s rights based mostly on religious ideas, then the government is choosing which beliefs matter more. That does not seem democratic or fair in a diverse society.
Some people argue that morality has to come from somewhere and religion is one source. But laws should not punish people who do not share a certain belief. When religious groups lobby to restrict abortion, they sometimes ignore the fact that real people face complex situations like abuse, medical danger, poverty, or just not being ready to raise a child. Protecting religious freedom should include protecting people from being forced to follow someone else’s religious rules.
The breakdown of abortion bans in the United States shows that abortion is not just one issue or one perspective. It is legal, medical, economic, social and religious all at the same time. When states take away the right to choose, they create a patchwork of access that depends on borders instead of rights. People in one state might have full access while people just across a border have none. This is not equality. Global comparisons show that being legal does not always mean accessible and being restricted usually means harmful. The evidence overall shows that abortion bans create more problems than they solve. They do not protect life as much as they create risk. They do not make people safer. They just restrict autonomy and lead to suffering.
Going forward, policymakers and communities need to think about real questions. Should someone’s reproductive freedom be determined by their zip code? Should income decide who gets to control their own body? Should religious beliefs shape laws for millions of people who do not share them? Should medical professionals be scared to treat patients because they might go to jail? These questions matter because how we answer them shapes what kind of society we want to live in. A society that values autonomy and equality or a society that punishes and restricts.
In conclusion, abortion is not a simple issue. It is connected to health, fairness, autonomy and basic rights. Based on the evidence and the personal stories of the many women affected, I believe abortion bans harm people and take away rights that should not belong to the government. Policies should protect health, respect individual choice, and treat people with dignity. Abortion laws are not something to be taken lightly, and there might be no right or wrong around them. But understanding the effects it might have on any of the parties involved is extremely important. The right to make decisions about one’s own body should not depend on a state legislature or a politician. It should belong to the person living that life.
Sources:
Burris, Scott, Adrienne R. Ghorashi, Lindsay Foster Cloud, Rachel Rebouché, Patty Skuster, and Antonella Lavelanet. Identifying Data for the Empirical Assessment of Law (IDEAL): A Realist Approach to Research Gaps on the Health Effects of Abortion Law. BMJ Global Health, vol. 6, no. 6, 2021, e005120, doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021–005120. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8202112/?utm
Srinivasulu, Silpa, and Frank W. Heiland. “How will abortion bans affect maternal health? forecasting the maternal mortality and morbidity consequences of banning abortion in 14 U.S. states.” Journal of Women’s Health, vol. 34, no. 6, 1 June 2025, pp. 843–854, https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2024.0544.
Damian Clarke, Hanna Mühlrad, Abortion laws and women’s health, Journal of Health Economics, Volume 76, 2021, 102413, ISSN 0167–6296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102413.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Abortion Access Fact Sheet.” ACOG,www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/come-prepared/abortion-access-fact-sheet. Accessed 24 Nov. 2025.
Klibanoff, Eleanor. “Texas Supreme Court Rules Against Woman With Fatal Fetal Diagnosis After She Seeks Abortion.” The Texas Tribune, 11 Dec. 2023, www.texastribune.org/2023/12/11/texas-abortion-lawsuit-kate-cox.
Biggs, M. Antonia, et al. “Women’s Mental Health and Well-Being 5 Years After Receiving or Being Denied an Abortion: A Prospective, Longitudinal Cohort Study.” JAMA Psychiatry, vol. 74, no. 2, 2017, pp. 169–178. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27973641/
