Federal Medicaid funding was only available for abortions until the late 1970s, when the Hyde Amendment was passed to ban its use. In the early years after Roe, more low-income women may have had access to abortion than they do today, before funding restrictions were tightened. In contrast, the availability of state Medicaid funds for abortions has always been determined by individual states. There is no conclusive and consistent correlation between strict abortion laws and the likelihood of abortion in women. On the contrary, more restrictive laws are linked to unsafe abortions, a major cause of maternal mortality. We cannot afford to return to an era of unsafe abortion.  Oreffice (2007) provides evidence that access to abortion alters women`s bargaining power, as observed by the increase in men`s labour supply in married and cohabiting couples. It isolates this fertility pathway, maintains a constant number of children and the presence of infants and toddlers in the household. She also predicts that increased bargaining power would reduce women`s labour supply, although this is not convincing given the complications caused by unobserved domestic work. Abortion rates in the U.S.
have fallen at a “slow but steady pace” since the peak in 1981. This year, there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44. The rate fell to 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 2019.   Across Europe, with the exception of Ireland and Poland, abortion is largely legal, widely available, and safe. The United States legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, in part because it was obvious that restrictive laws did not end abortion but placed a significant burden on public health, especially for low-income women who could not travel or pay for safe services. Almost immediately thereafter, pregnancy-related deaths and hospitalizations due to complications from unsafe abortion effectively ended. The United States was not the first, and far from the last, country to recognize this relationship and liberalize its legislation. In the United States, legal frameworks are increasingly restricting access to abortion. Even though Roe is on the ground, many people are currently unable to have abortions.
In a country like Uganda, about 300,000 abortions take place every year, although abortion is only legal to save a woman`s life. Unsafe abortion is one of the leading causes of pregnancy-related death. In addition, at the current rate, half of Ugandan women will need treatment for abortion-related complications at some point in their lives. In particular, access to quality maternity care is severely restricted in many states that have at least one abortion ban. Even for the insured, reproductive and maternal health coverage can still vary depending on how a state regulates private and public insurance plans when flexible standards apply at the federal level. For example, there is still no specific deadline for filing pregnancy applications for federal and some state market plans, nor minimum federal coverage standards for maternity benefits, such as prenatal and postpartum care, mental health services, and breastfeeding counseling and equipment.38 Kalist (2004) uses a similar approach to Angrist and Evans (AE) to study in more detail. the impact of abortion on women`s participation in the labour market. The result of interest is the probability that a woman will work 40 weeks or more per year. It examines women aged 15 to 44 and examines direct labour market outcomes over the period 1968-1972.
Clarke and Mühlrad (2016) examine both abortion reforms and regressive abortion policies in Mexico to assess the impact on fertility and women`s empowerment, as measured by their role in household decision-making. The study uses a 2007 legal environment in which Mexico City made first trimester abortions legal and free. In response to this reform, 18 other Mexican states have amended their penal codes to create harsher penalties for alleged abortions. Using a difference-in-difference approach, the authors note that fertility declined by 3.7 percent among women in Mexico City and 6.9 percent among adolescent girls as a result of the reform. They also found that progressive abortion reform meant that women were 10 percent more likely to report being involved in important household decisions. Conversely, punitive treatment of abortion in other states has had no effect on birth rates or empowerment rates, suggesting that legality and cost play a more important role than the severity of sanctions in women`s decisions to use abortion. This article provides evidence that women`s position in the household can be a means by which better access to abortion improves economic outcomes. Si Roe v. Wade is overthrown and some states make abortion illegal, how will this affect women from underserved populations? Because teen birth control use hasn`t increased significantly, experts attribute the decline in part to better sex education. A 2021 study found that students who received comprehensive sex education started sex later than students who did not participate in sex.
The later teenage girls have sex, the more likely they are to get pregnant involuntarily, resulting in fewer abortions.    Jones Rachel K. and Janna Jerman, 2017a. “Population Abortion Rates and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion: United States, 2008-2014.” American Journal of Public Health 107 (12). Excerpted from ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304042 Myers, Caitlin Knowles, 2021. the impact of mandatory waiting periods on abortions and births.” IZA Institute of Labor Economics No. 14434. www.iza.org/publications/dp/14434/cooling-off-or-burdened-the-effects-of-mandatory-waiting-periods-on-abortions-and-births Ultimately, the most important consequence of abortion policy is that women have access to the full range of reproductive health care and can control their reproductive lives. However, the results summarized here suggest that interventions that expand access to abortion not only improve women`s reproductive autonomy, but also have economic benefits. At the macroeconomic level, restricting access to abortion has a negative impact on women`s education levels and labour supply. On the contrary, the liberalization of abortion laws in the United States with Roe v. Wade had an even stronger effect than the introduction of the birth control pill on women`s decisions, marriage and childbirth, and progression in the labor market.
If Roe were overturned, the number of women who have significant barriers to abortion would increase dramatically. Twelve states have enacted “trigger bans” designed to ban abortion immediately after a Roe overthrow, while another 10 are likely to quickly enact new bans.8 These bans would close abortion centers in much of the American South and Midwest, dramatically increasing travel distances and logistical costs of abortion. Economic research predicts what is likely to happen next. Several teams of economists have used natural experiments resulting from mandatory wait times (Joyce and Kaestner, 2001; Lindo and Pineda-Torres, 2021; Myers, 2021) and supplier closures (Quast, Gonzalez, & Ziemba, 2017; Fischer, Royer and White, 2018; Lindo, Myers, Schlosser, & Cunningham, 2020; Venator and Fletcher, 2021; Myers, 2021). All found that increasing travel distances prevent a large number of women seeking abortions from going to a provider and that most of these women give birth accordingly.