Almost three Years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (June 2022), the end of Roe v. Wade has shattered decades of abortion access protections and spread across the health care system.
States quickly invoked trigger laws and new bans, leaving vast regions effectively without legal abortion. Researchers and health providers report soaring out-of-state travel, prolonged wait times, and more people forced to obtain care later in pregnancy.
Medical groups warn that the fallout is “a direct blow to bodily autonomy, reproductive health, patient safety and health equity”. As one doctor observes, delaying abortion access care “does get more complicated as the pregnancy continues… It does carry additional risks”.
At the same time, patients describe heartbreak and trauma as they face draconian abortion access laws: Idaho plaintiff Elizabeth Weller said being denied care meant she had to “gamble my uterus, gamble my life… That’s not pro-life…it’s almost pro-torture”.
Kate Cox, a Texas woman with a fatal fetal diagnosis, said her ordeal was “the hardest thing I’ve been through… I wanted to come home, cry on my own pillow” rather than be forced to travel hundreds of miles for care. These real stories underscore how legal barriers translate into personal tragedies.
Many experts expected turmoil after Dobbs, and the data confirms it. Over a dozen states now ban abortion access entirely, and several more have strict early limits on abortion access.
Nationwide, travel to other states for abortion access has roughly doubled: nearly 1 in 5 patients now go out-of-state (up from 1 in 10 in 2020).
A Guttmacher Institute study abiut abortion access reports that more than a dozen trigger laws took effect immediately after Dobbs, banning abortion in states like Alabama, Mississippi and Texas.
One year post-Dobbs, at least 13 states had outright bans on abortion access (with Wisconsin effectively closed by court limbo).
Another half-dozen have strict gestational limits (often 6–15 weeks) with few exceptions. By mid-2024, KFF counted 14 states with bans and 6 with severe early bans.
While most bans claim life-saving exceptions, many lack exceptions for the patient’s health, rape, or fetal anomaly. For example, one analysis found 10 of 21 banned states have no rape/incest exception.
In practice, even narrow health exceptions have proved unworkable, leaving doctors unable to practice evidence-based medicine.
States are also experimenting with new restrictions: some try to criminalize “abortion trafficking” (transporting someone for an abortion). Idaho and Tennessee outlawed helping minors get abortions out-of-state without parental consent.
Alabama and Oklahoma legislators have considered similar measures. These laws have spurred legal battles: advocates have already sued to block the Idaho and Tennessee bans as vague and unconstitutional.
South Carolina passed a 6-week ban in 2023, but it was temporarily enjoined by court. Wyoming’s trigger ban (and a new 2023 ban) remain stalled in litigation.
In Georgia and Ohio, 6-week bans (passed pre-Dobbs) were put on hold by courts, so abortion remains legal up to 22 weeks in those states while the legal fights continue.
The patchwork of laws means access now depends entirely on zip code. Red states have closed clinics or criminalized care, while blue and purple states have moved to protect providers and fund care.
For instance, Illinois and California have opened clinics and passed “shield laws” to protect out-of-state providers and patients.
But the interstate abortion access conflict only deepens:
Texas is challenging a New York-based abortion provider who mailed pills to a Texan, raising complex questions about whether New York’s “shield law” can block a Texas civil lawsuit.
One legal scholar warned that “nothing in New York’s shield law prevents a Texas court from hearing a case against a New York doctor”, and others call the dispute “a mess” with no clear outcome.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling has triggered a frenzy of state policy changes, many of them untested in court and clearly at odds with medical norms.
State Abortion Access Laws After Dobbs
At present, 14 states have comprehensive abortion access bans on nearly all abortions (often dating back to pre-Roe trigger laws)
These include Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia, plus legal uncertainty in Wisconsin.
Another 6 states have strict gestational limits on abortion access (commonly 6–15 weeks) that effectively leave nearly no access.
Exceptions vary widely: while all 20 banned/limited states allow abortion to save a life, 10 have no rape/incest exceptions and 13 have no fatal fetal anomaly exception.
Critics note that even “health” exceptions often fail: physicians report being forced to risk patients’ lives rather than perform necessary abortions under hostile state laws. Conversely, 25+ states (and DC) continue to allow abortion through at least 20–22 weeks or with few limits.
Several states have reinforced access: e.g. New York, California, Oregon and others passed laws to allow nurse practitioners to provide care and to fund travel or telehealth for patients.
Yet the overall picture is starkly uneven: state profiles from KFF and Guttmacher show a binary map of reproductive rights, with heavy concentration of bans in the South and Plains, and protections largely on the coasts and in the Midwest.
Abortion Access, Travel and Delays
The collapse of Roe has dramatically altered who can get care nearby. Research shows far more patients now cross state lines. Planned Parenthood reports that in the year after Dobbs, out-of-state patients doubled at clinics in access states.
For example, Illinois clinics saw nearly one-third of patients coming from out of state (versus just 6% pre-Dobbs); Colorado clinics report out-of-state volume jumping from 14% to 28%.
Roughly 6 million U.S. women of reproductive age now live in ban states and must travel for care. Caitlin Myers (Middlebury College) notes new Florida and Arizona rulings mean about 6 million women will face increases of 200 miles or more in distance to a provider.
In Florida, for instance, after a new 6-week ban takes effect, the nearest providers could be in North Carolina or other distant states – nearly a day’s drive (600 miles) away. Arizona patients, once needing only a few hundred miles of travel, now face “hundreds of miles” to reach clinics in California, New Mexico or Colorado. These longer trips impose heavy burdens.
Veteran providers describe a crushing tide. The Planned Parenthood clinic network in Colorado and New Mexico reports its waiting lists nearly doubled after Roe. Clinics in the Mountain West saw peak waits of 28 days right after Dobbs, up from 17 days before.
One rural Idaho patient, Jillaine St.Michel, waited three weeks on a list in Denver and another two weeks in Seattle after her local clinic closed, as her 20-week pregnancy deteriorated.
“We absolutely felt the time crunch,” she recalled. St.Michel’s story is far from unique: anecdotal reports and data from the Myers survey show multiple patients reaching the second trimester simply because it took weeks to find an appointment.
Planned Parenthood’s St. Louis affiliate saw a 715% jump in out-of-state patients after Dobbs.
These delays have clinical consequences. Abortion is safest in the first trimester, and providers stress that “while abortion is safe at all points in pregnancy… it does get more complicated as the pregnancy continues,” as Dr. Colleen McNicholas (Planned Parenthood St. Louis) explains.
A study noted that each extra 25 miles of travel was associated with a 5% drop in abortions, suggesting many simply give up. Meanwhile, data indicate more abortions are happening later. In the year after Dobbs,
Planned Parenthood clinics in southern Illinois saw a 35% rise in abortions at 14+ weeks. Colorado doctors report seeing an influx of patients “seeking abortions later in pregnancy, some of whom have experienced several weeks of delays”.
An AP analysis found that appointment wait times remain high: 11 states had median waits over five business days, with Iowa averaging 12 business days in September 2023. In at least one rural Colorado clinic, a worker reported a woman took seven weeks to get an appointment for her pregnant teen, who by then was 17 weeks along.
The strain on providers is palpable. Clinics in safer states report triaging or prioritizing only the most urgent cases when volumes surge.
Delays and detours can also push patients into unsafe territory. The CDC’s latest official figures (2021) showed 7% of U.S. abortions occurred at 14+ weeks.
Providers worry that with fewer options, that number will climb. One study projects a total ban could produce 140 additional U.S. maternal deaths a year(a 21% jump, with Black women suffering a 33% increase) – a grim reminder that forcing people to carry unwanted or unsafe pregnancies can be deadly.
Telehealth and Abortion Pill Access
In the new landscape, medication abortion (abortion pills) has become the leading option. The Guttmacher Institute reports that in 2023, a striking 63% of all clinician-provided abortions were by medication, up from 39% in 2017. Unlike surgical abortion, pills can be taken at home.
The FDA has long considered mifepristone (with misoprostol) safe and effective. During the pandemic, federal rules loosened to allow telemedicine prescribing and even pharmacy dispensing. But now, many states are racing to curtail this access.
Guttmacher notes that 28 states restrict medication abortion – for example, 26 states force it to be given only by physicians (contrary to WHO guidance that nurse practitioners can safely provide it) and 7 states expressly ban telehealth for abortion pills.
Some states go further: a few ban mailing abortion pills outright, or mandate humiliating requirements like the infamous “pregnancy reversal” counseling or forcing women to listen to a fetal “heartbeat” before getting the pill.
Such laws ignore decades of evidence supporting telehealth: the Nature journal notes it is “appropriate and safe”, and ACOG explicitly recognizes self-managed medication abortion as essential health care.
The new restrictions have led to legal skirmishes. In Texas, for example, Attorney General Ken Paxton is attempting to use state law to chill out-of-state prescribing. In late 2024 he sued Dr. Maggie Carpenter of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine Access, alleging she illegally mailed abortion pills to a Texas patient.
This marks the first such challenge to a “shield law” – New York’s law that protects its providers – and legal analysts say it will test whether Texas can enforce its ban beyond its borders.
A law professor notes that “nothing in New York’s shield law prevents a Texas court from hearing a case against a New York doctor”, though another expert points out that enforcing civil judgments across states could be complicated.
New York argues such a suit is really the state of Texas “enforcing its abortion policy through a lawsuit,” which might qualify as a penal judgment and hence not be honored.
As legal observers put it, the issue is “a mess” with no quick answers. In practice, this case – and possible copycat suits by other states – could have chilling effects on telehealth abortion nationwide.
Meanwhile, the major case at the national level has been the effort to roll back FDA approval of mifepristone. In FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (heard spring 2024), anti-abortion activists asked the Supreme Court to invalidate years of FDA rules on the pill.
In June 2024, the Court unanimously preserved access: it ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing and effectively allowed the FDA’s longstanding framework to remain in place. The result was that mifepristone and generic
Mifeprex remain broadly available, including by mail, as the FDA permitted in 2016 and 2021. Chief Justice Roberts (in the majority opinion) noted that plaintiffs wanted the “FDA to start all over,” which the Court would not allow.
President Biden hailed the decision but cautioned it “does not change that the Supreme Court overturned Roe… and women lost a fundamental freedom”. Indeed, even with federal approval intact, states hold the power: as Reuters notes, “in the 14 states with total abortion bans, providers cannot prescribe mifepristone to any patient under state law”.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has taken on state bans that clash with federal laws. For example, it sued Idaho over a ban that allows abortion only to save life (not health), arguing it violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) that requires hospitals to stabilize patients. The Supreme Court is set to decide that EMTALA case in mid-2024.
Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Communities
The abortion ban fallout has hit some groups far harder than others. Health experts have long warned that restrictive laws worsen existing inequities.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) warned on Dobbs Day that “the impact of this irresponsible decision will fall disproportionately on people who already face barriers to accessing health care, including people of color, those in rural areas, and those without ample financial resources”.
The data bear that out. Women of color in restrictive states face especially dire outcomes: a Commonwealth Fund analysis found maternal mortality is 62% higher in abortion-restrictive states than in abortion-access states (28.8 vs 17.8 deaths per 100,000).
The gap holds for all racial groups – in restricted states maternal death rates were ~20% higher for Black women and 33% higher for white women compared to access states.
Even more starkly, national studies show Black women already suffer 2–3 times the maternal mortality of white women; banning abortion would multiply that gap.
Travel burdens also fall unequally. Patients with money, time off work, or child care options are likelier to overcome long trips. By contrast, low-income, uninsured, or rural patients face nearly insurmountable barriers.
For example, a Planned Parenthood analysis of Texas’s SB8 ban found that patients of color and Medicaid recipients were far more likely to be delayed or forced to carry to term than affluent patients.
Idaho Women’s Network and others report that in rural Idaho, where clinics have shuttered, poor women often present too late for abortion or attempt unsafe alternatives. Tribal communities worry that bans in states like Utah and Arizona will disproportionately harm Native women, who already suffer high maternal death rates.
In fact, the Commonwealth Fund brief notes that states with abortion restrictions already have worse maternal and infant health systems: more “maternity care deserts”, fewer providers, and worse insurance coverage, all magnifying harm.
Pregnant people on Medicaid or on military insurance (which typically cannot be used out-of-state) are also trapped in restrictive states. Even LGBTQ and immigrant communities face added uncertainties; some abortion bans have been written so broadly that they could theoretically target trans men or pregnant queer people (though these definitions are untested).
In sum, those least able to travel or pay are bearing the worst consequences. ACOG’s earlier warning — that marginalized patients would be most affected — has proved prescient
Black, Indigenous, Hispanic, and rural women report encountering longer delays and greater harm. For example, a study in Louisiana (which enacted multiple bans) documented how the rise in forced continuation of high-risk pregnancies hit Black communities especially hard.
Many experts fear we may see rising rates of peripartum complications and deaths. Even in wealthier states, clinics report more patients coming late in pregnancy because they spent weeks searching – and this trend often involved poor or minority patients who couldn’t jump lines.
Effects on Maternal Morbidity and Mortality
Beyond disparities, denying abortion can directly endanger health. Researchers emphasize that abortion services are an integral part of maternal health care. Decades ago, Roe had dramatically cut U.S. maternal deaths – one estimate suggests Roe and Casey reduced maternal mortality by 30–40% for women of color.
Now, experts fear we are backsliding. A study in The Lancet Global Health projected that a nationwide abortion ban would cause 140 extra maternal deaths a year (a 21% jump overall).
Maternal morbidity would rise too: closures and bans are estimated to increase maternal complications by up to 38%.
Early evidence is accumulating. In the months since Dobbs, states like Texas and Louisiana have reported spikes in maternal deaths.
The Texas Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Review Committee in 2023 issued an alert that some of its recent maternal deaths involved people who were denied abortion care or delayed treatment by bans. Early data from 2022 also suggest the U.S. maternal mortality rate (which was already higher than other developed nations) may have climbed further, especially in states that locked down abortion.
The Commonwealth Fund brief found that in 2020, restrictive states were already faring worse on maternal outcomes – the mortality rate was 62% higher, and the rate was increasing twice as fast as in access states.
That trend appears to be accelerating under the new laws.
Real cases illustrate the risks. In Texas alone, providers documented situations where pregnant patients with preeclampsia, sepsis, or severe fetal anomalies were initially denied emergency abortions, leading to needless hemorrhages and even deaths.
A Lancet study of El Salvador (with a total ban) found 55% of women forced to carry fatal fetal malformations experienced serious complications like sepsis, and almost half needed invasive procedures; one woman required a hysterectomy.
In Poland, where abortion for fetal disability is banned, investigative reports have linked at least four maternal deaths (2015–2023) to doctors refusing needed abortions, leading to septic shock when they waited for miscarriages.
ACOG warned that bans “force many patients to face all known risks of continuing pregnancy, including complications and mortality of childbirth”.
Under Dobbs, U.S. maternal health norms now diverge sharply from global recommendations. The World Health Organization says safe abortion should be “available to the full extent of the law” as a means to save lives.
Globally, in 2023 about 700 women died each day of preventable childbirth causes, with unsafe abortion a major factor. The WHO emphasizes that preventing unintended pregnancies and providing safe abortion care are essential to reducing maternal mortality.
Yet in the U.S., by turning away from these principles, we are risking the health of hundreds of women yearly. As WHO Director-General Tedros noted, every maternal death is “a tragedy that is often preventable with proven solutions.” Denying abortions is contrary to the WHO’s safe care guidelines and is predicted to add preventable deaths.
Outcomes in International Comparisons
The U.S. abortion rollback echoes events in several other countries, offering cautionary examples. In Poland (a close ally of U.S. conservatives), a 2021 constitutional ruling eliminated nearly all legal abortions (even lethal fetal anomalies).
Investigative reporting found that within a year, at least four Polish women died after doctors refused to terminate life-threatening pregnancies.
An official review in one case concluded the hospital violated patient rights by not informing the woman that an abortion could save her life.
Despite Poland’s officially low maternal mortality rate, experts suspect severe underreporting and a hidden toll of complications and deaths tied to the ban.
El Salvador provides a stark precedent: since 1998 it has enforced a total ban on abortion. Researchers who studied El Salvadoran cases of fatal fetal anomalies found 54.9% of women suffered at least one serious pregnancy complication under the ban, and nearly half underwent invasive surgeries (c-sections, amniotic decompressions) just to manage problems.
Nine percent of these women abandoned care after their devastating diagnoses, feeling hopeless. The authors concluded bans on abortion in fatal anomaly cases “increase risks to pregnant patients by subjecting healthy patients to a course of treatment that generates morbidity”.
In practical terms, El Salvador’s law has transformed a manageable miscarriage scenario into prolonged medical emergencies for dozens of women.
In Hungary, recent measures have also curbed access: a new “heartbeat” law (mandating that women listen to ultrasound heartbeats before an abortion) and additional administrative hurdles have prompted dozens of Hungarian women each week to travel abroad for care
Clinics in Vienna report treating 10–15 Hungarian patients per week. Many Hungarian women are bypassing their own system entirely: one Viennese clinic director noted that prices in Austria (€500–600) are much higher than in Hungary (€100), yet women choose the more expensive route simply to avoid harassment or delays at home.
Contrast these examples with countries that codify reproductive rights. Most European democracies allow abortion through much of pregnancy and report much lower maternal mortality. The WHO and international bodies consistently identify restrictive abortion laws as a driver of maternal death and inequality.
After Dobbs, the U.S. stands out as an exception: America’s maternal death rate was already far higher than peer nations, and now it will likely climb further as access erodes. Medical experts warn that we are moving against global norms.
WHO guidelines emphasize that criminalizing abortion “does not reduce abortions” but increases unsafe procedures and maternal deaths. Researchers point out that every major decrease in maternal mortality worldwide has depended on improving access to safe abortion, among other reproductive health services.
Legal Landscape and Litigation
The post-Dobbs era has also become a battlefield in the courts. Besides the high-profile FDA v. Alliance on mifepristone, numerous state and federal lawsuits are unfolding. As noted, Idaho’s 2023 ban is being challenged under federal emergency care laws (EMTALA).
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an Idaho case, and heard arguments in spring 2024, with a decision expected by summer. Other states are mired in litigation. South Carolina’s new ban is on hold due to a challenge by providers.
In Wisconsin, courts have yet to resolve how an 1849 law and newer amendments interact; for now abortion remains inaccessible under shifting legal rulings.
Some conservative states have also floated criminal referrals against doctors for providing abortions under “independent judgment” exceptions; ACOG has condemned such threats as antithetical to medical practice.
The federal level remains contentious. President Biden and congressional Democrats have repeatedly called for restoring Roe-level protections or at least codifying the FDA’s mifepristone rules, but the Senate remains deadlocked.
In the absence of federal action, much depends on lower court decisions and state-level reforms. For example, Idaho’s EMTALA suit will signal how far federal law can be used to override state abortion bans.
Beyond abortion itself, Dobbs is encouraging challenges to related restrictions: some are asking whether bans on contraception or IVF (already proposed in a few states) violate equal protection or religious freedom.
Meanwhile, abortion-rights groups are mounting new lawsuits aimed at enshrining access: for example, several states passed or are considering ballot measures to add abortion rights to state constitutions, a trend that could protect care even if legislatures try to ban it.
Citations and Data Sources
This reporting about Abortion Access Bans draws on a wide range of trusted data. Abortion policy trackers from Guttmacher, KFF, and the Center for Reproductive Rights provide current state law summaries.
Peer-reviewed studies and U.S. public health data inform the impact on health. For instance, Guttmacher analyzed patient surveys and state reports to document increased travel and unmet needs. The CDC’s provisional vital statistics underlie maternal mortality trends.
Journalists from AP, Reuters, NPR and local outlets have interviewed doctors and patients, yielding the quoted voices above.
Planned Parenthood, ACOG, and health departments have contributed statements and internal reports on clinic wait times and patient demographics.
International context comes from WHO publications and studies from Poland, El Salvador and other countries.
*You May Be interested in Reading this investigative piece by the same author, “Dark Money: How $1.9 Billion Influenced the 2022 Midterms“.
*Learn More About The Author Here.
