The 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn federal abortion protections continues to be felt.

New research now suggests states where bans have been enacted, including South Dakota, will see fewer workers because of the moves.

The Institute for Women's Policy Research is out with a new study including survey data from 10,000 adults. The authors said one in five respondents planning to have children within the next decade has moved -- or knows someone who has -- to another state because of reproductive care restrictions in their current location.

Melissa Mahoney, senior research economist at the institute, said it shows ban states will likely see some of their workforce talent flow elsewhere.

"The labor markets in states that protect abortion tend to be more welcoming for women with higher wages, greater access to health insurance, also stronger labor force participation," Mahoney outlined.

The findings mirror results from a similar study issued earlier this year by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

After the Dobbs ruling, when conservative states began enacting bans, officials such as former Gov. Kristi Noem pledged their support for pregnant women and children. Some policy analysts argued Noem's record often fell short in that area.

Mahoney pointed out their research indicates it is not just a problem for state policymakers. She noted businesses should also be worried about a "talent drain," with survey respondents wanting them to prioritize care access.

"Many, in addition, are asking more of their employers in terms of reproductive health care benefits, in terms of speaking out against abortion restrictions in their states," Mahoney observed.

According to the findings, 57% of respondents said they are more likely to apply for or accept a job with reproductive health care benefits as part of the offer. And in South Dakota, 65% of adults think employers should provide financial assistance for child care.


get more stories like this via email

By Jade Prévost-Manuel for Yes! Media.
Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi for Ohio News Connection reporting for the Yes! Media-Public News Service Collaboration

Taylor Young has never wanted to be a mom. From the time the now 27-year-old began dating, she experienced persistent anxiety around the thought of getting pregnant in Ohio, a Republican-controlled state where Young felt her right to abortion was tenuous.

In 2018, she discovered the childfree subreddit, an online forum on Reddit for people who do not have children and do not want them. In that forum, she learned about bilateral salpingectomy, a procedure that removes both fallopian tubes and permanently prevents pregnancy.

"I was 19 or 20, and I knew I probably wouldn't be able to get it," says Young, who didn't meet the minimum age requirement to have a Medicaid-funded sterilization procedure at the time. "But it was something that was kind of in my back pocket."

In 2022, when a document suggesting the U.S. Supreme Court was likely going to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked, Young, who now met the minimum age requirement, immediately made an appointment with her gynecologist for a bilateral salpingectomy.

After observing the mandatory one-month waiting period, Young received the procedure. "[I had felt like] an animal in a trap," she says. "But when I woke up from that surgery, it was just ... indescribable peace."

Young is one of many people of reproductive age whose health care decisions have been influenced by the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the fundamental ruling protecting the right to abortion in the United States.

In the years since, the rate of permanent sterilization procedures for people between 18 and 30 has jumped, particularly among female-born people. During the 2024 election, abortion rights were a key ballot issue and several states, including Maryland and Colorado, enshrined the right to abortion into their state constitutions.

Political promises to legalize abortion-a critical issue, but one topic in the much larger ecosystem of reproductive health care-have overlooked some of the discussions the country must have to improve reproductive rights for the millions of reproducing people in America. When we take a closer look at the quality of reproductive health care that most people receive, it's clear that simply restoring Roe v. Wade isn't enough.

"The populations with the best reproductive health care outcomes ... have all of [their] basic and human life needs met," says Dr. Regina Davis Moss, president and CEO of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda, a group that amplifies Black voices to advocate for reproductive equity. "That is why we have some of the worst outcomes when we compare ourselves to other industrialized countries."

Pregnant people in the United States are more likely to die during pregnancy, childbirth, or postpartum than any other high-income nation, even though more than 80% of maternal deaths are preventable. The maternal death rate is double for Black women, who statistically are less likely to have access to high-quality medical care. On average, giving birth in the U.S. can cost more than $18,500.

Cost is a leading prohibitive factor for those who most need to access birth control, abortion, and other reproductive health care. But there are legal barriers to subsidizing reproductive health care services-such as the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal funds for abortion with few exceptions-and in many counties, no one to provide them. An estimated one-third of American counties, for example, do not have a single birthing facility or obstetric clinician to deliver maternal care.

So, what might reproductive health care look like in a reimagined America that puts equity first? There's already a framework for it: reproductive justice, a critical feminist framework that advocates for the right to have children, the right not to have them, and the right to raise children in a safe environment.

A Quest for Overall Well-Being

In 1994, a group of Black women activists coined the term "reproductive justice" to achieve, as Loretta J. Ross writes, "the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, social, and economic well-being of women and girls, based on the full achievement and protection of women's human rights."

While reproductive justice promotes equitable reproductive health care for everyone, the idea was born out of the struggles that people of color-particularly Black women-have faced in the United States since slavery, when they were forced to bear children to work on plantations.

The framework acknowledges that Black women face poorer reproductive health outcomes-and aims to do something about it. "The reproductive justice framework analyzes how the ability of any woman to determine her own reproductive destiny is linked directly to the conditions in her community-and these conditions are not just a matter of individual choice and access," Ross writes. "Reproductive justice addresses the social reality of inequality-specifically, the inequality of opportunities that we have to control our reproductive destiny."

There is a modern-day implicit bias in health care, says Davis Moss, that women as a whole can't be trusted to make their own decisions about their bodies. For example, Black women commonly report that health care providers are not offering them the full range of contraceptive options.

"The subjugation, the control, all that has happened ever since the country was born," says Davis Moss. "We've seen that happen over the years in our health care system, in segregated hospitals, all the way up to modern day in clinical care encounters."

Though Young's bilateral salpingectomy, which can cost thousands of dollars without insurance, was fully covered by Ohio Medicaid, cost remains a prohibitive factor for many people accessing reproductive health care in the United States.

Take contraception, for example. A 2022 KFF Women's Health Survey, which interviewed more than 5,000 female-born participants, looked at how cost influences contraceptive choice. Researchers found that a quarter of those surveyed with insurance had to pay at least part of their birth control costs out of pocket. "Any time you have to make a choice about day-to-day expenses and a copay... you know, living expenses, keeping food on the table... that is going to have an impact [on health]," says Davis Moss.

The survey also found that of those who were in their reproductive years, one in five women who were uninsured had to stop using a contraceptive method because they couldn't afford it. That data is supported by a Commonwealth Fund survey of women in several high-income nations, which found that women of reproductive age in the U.S. were the most likely to skip or delay necessary care due to cost.

Solutions for the Future

In 2023, In Our Own Voice and more than 50 other Black women's organizations published the Black Reproductive Policy Agenda, a playbook on how to improve reproductive justice for birthing people at the policy level.

The report makes more than a dozen policy recommendations that Davis Moss calls "proactive, comprehensive, and life-saving." Among them are making prescription birth control free, requiring states to provide maternity and newborn care for at least one year (the time frame in which most maternal deaths occur), and increasing access to doulas and midwives who advocate for patients.

Passing acts like the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act would require the federal government to provide funding for abortion services. "That in and of itself directly impacts a large percentage of Black women of child-bearing age [who] are on Medicaid and Medicare," says Davis Moss.

For people struggling to pay for contraception, with or without health insurance, the cost of an in-person abortion-the median price is $600-is somewhat unthinkable. Medication abortion, however, can be cheaper and more accessible. Such is the promise of telehealth abortion, a virtual way to connect with a doctor, receive a prescription, and take abortion pills in a supportive environment.

Increasingly more women in the United States are finding themselves living in maternity care and reproductive health care deserts-areas where there is limited or nonexistent access to prenatal, postnatal, maternity, contraceptive, or abortion services. Telemedicine can provide a range of services for people living in these areas at a fraction of the cost-the median price of a telehealth medication abortion is $150.

"Telehealth does a lot to remove barriers to access to health care," says Dr. Ushma Upadhyay, a public health scientist at UC San Francisco who researches the impacts of telehealth abortion. "People who live in rural areas, young people, people who report facing food insecurity... in our research, they are the most likely to have said that telehealth enabled them to have an abortion."

But even with the advent of telehealth, both Upadhyay and Davis Moss say addressing racism is essential to establishing an equitable reproductive future. That's one of the reasons the Black Reproductive Policy Agenda recommends funding anti-Black racism programs as a part of its agenda.

"This is the reason those 12 Black women 30 years ago said 'You can't only focus on abortion,'" says Davis Moss. "It's impossible to have one without the other."

After getting a bilateral salpingectomy, Young feels relieved. Yet she still worries about what will happen with Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act-the resources she relies on to help her afford care for chronic health issues-under the Trump administration, and what that means for others seeking care.

"Thinking about if other women don't have access, that breaks my heart, and from the abortion side [...] it's too much to bear," she says, emotion tugging at her voice. "I feel relieved I got [the procedure] done when I did. I feel safe."


Jade Prévost-Manuel wrote this article for Yes! Media.


get more stories like this via email

With a few days left in the 2025 legislative session, Republican lawmakers pushed through a bill they say should reassure doctors they can rely on their medical judgment when treating pregnancy complications, despite the state's abortion ban.

But some Kentucky doctors said the wording of House Bill 90, in an effort to clarify the ban, is "junk language," which confuses them even more than current law.

Tamarra Weider, Kentucky state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, said dozens of health care providers have signed onto a letter asking Gov. Andy Beshear to veto it.

"I think it's also important to note that House Bill 90 changes the definition of medical emergency in Kentucky law," Weider pointed out. "The current law gives providers the authority to make decisions in emergencies but this bill would allow judges to decide whether care was truly necessary."

Some Kentucky OB/GYNs said the state's abortion ban is forcing them to violate their oath as physicians and causing "devastating consequences" for patients. Two House Republicans brought forth the language, which was supported largely along party lines. Supporters said the bill will help save lives.

Weider noted physicians accused of violating Kentucky's abortion ban can be charged with a Class D felony and imprisoned, if convicted.

"I think that this is going to continue to chill doctors, continue to chill hospitals, and their lawyers and administrators," Weider emphasized. "Because it puts forward more confusion, more ambiguity."

The legislation said, "no action that requires separating a pregnant woman from her unborn child shall be performed, except the following, when performed by a physician based upon his or her reasonable medical judgment." Doctors said the use of "reasonable medical judgment" still does not protect providers from legal action.

This story is based on original reporting by Sarah Ladd for the Kentucky Lantern.


get more stories like this via email

By Bram Sable-Smith and Katheryn Houghton for KFF Health News.
Broadcast version by Kathleen Shannon for Big Sky Connection reporting for the KFF Health News-Public News Service Collaboration

In November, Montana voters safeguarded the right to abortion in the state’s constitution. They also elected a new chief justice to the Montana Supreme Court who was endorsed by anti-abortion advocates.

That seeming contradiction is slated to come to a head this year. People on polar sides of the abortion debate are preparing to fight over how far the protection for abortion extends, and the final say will likely come from the seven-person state Supreme Court. With the arrival of new Chief Justice Cory Swanson, who ran as a judicial conservative for the nonpartisan seat and was sworn in Jan. 6, the court now leans more conservative than before the election.

A similar dynamic is at play elsewhere. Abortion rights supporters prevailed on ballot measures in seven of the 10 states where abortion was up for a vote in November. But even with new voter-approved constitutional protections, courts will have to untangle a web of existing state laws on abortion and square them with any new ones legislators approve. The new makeup of supreme courts in several states indicates that the results of the legal fights to come aren’t clear-cut.

Activists have been working to reshape high courts, which in recent years have become the final arbiters of a patchwork of laws regulating abortions. That’s because the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned federal abortion protections, leaving rulemaking to the states.

Since then, the politics of state supreme court elections have been “supercharged” as fights around abortion shifted to states’ top courts, according to Douglas Keith, a senior counsel at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice.

“Because we’re human, you can’t scrub these races of any political connotations at all,” said former Montana Supreme Court Justice Jim Nelson. “But it’s getting worse.”

The wave of abortion litigation in state courts has spawned some of the most expensive state supreme court races in history, including more than $42 million spent on the nonpartisan 2023 Supreme Court race in Wisconsin, where abortion access was among the issues facing the court. Janet Protasiewicz won the seat, flipping the balance of the court to a liberal majority.

In many states, judicial elections are nonpartisan but political parties and ideological groups still lobby for candidates. In 2024, abortion surfaced as a top issue in these races.

In Michigan, spending by non-candidate groups alone topped $7.6 million for the two open seats on the state Supreme Court. The Michigan races are officially labeled as nonpartisan, although candidates are nominated by political parties.

An ad for the two candidates backed by Democrats cautioned that “the Michigan state Supreme Court can still take abortion rights away” even after voters added abortion protections to the state constitution in 2022. The ad continued, “Kyra Harris Bolden and Kimberly Thomas are the only Supreme Court candidates who will protect access to abortion.” Both won their races.

Abortion opponent Kelsey Pritchard, director of state public affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, decried the influence of abortion politics on state court elections. “Pro-abortion activists know they cannot win through the legislatures, so they have turned to state courts to override state laws,” Pritchard said.

Some abortion opponents now support changes to the way state supreme courts are selected.

In Missouri, where voters passed a constitutional amendment in November to protect abortion access, the new leader of the state Senate, Cindy O’Laughlin, a Republican, has proposed switching to nonpartisan elections from the state’s current model, in which the governor appoints a judge from a list of three finalists selected by a nonpartisan commission. Although Republicans have held the governor’s mansion since 2017, she pointed to the Missouri Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling in September that allowed the abortion amendment to remain on the ballot and said courts “have undermined legislative efforts to protect life.”

In a case widely expected to reach the Missouri Supreme Court, the state’s Planned Parenthood clinics are trying to use the passage of the new amendment to strike down Missouri’s abortion restrictions, including a near-total ban. O’Laughlin said her proposal, which would need approval from the legislature and voters, was unlikely to influence that current litigation but would affect future cases.

“A judiciary accountable to the people would provide a fairer venue for addressing legal challenges to pro-life laws,” she said.

Nonpartisan judicial elections can buck broader electoral trends. In Michigan, for example, voters elected both Supreme Court candidates nominated by Democrats last year even as Donald Trump won the state and Republicans regained control of the state House.

In Kentucky’s nonpartisan race, Judge Pamela Goodwine, who was endorsed by Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, outperformed her opponent even in counties that went for Trump, who won the state. She’ll be serving on the bench as a woman’s challenge to the state’s two abortion bans makes its way through state courts.

Partisan judicial elections, however, tend to track with other partisan election results, according to Keith of the Brennan Center. So some state legislatures have sought to turn nonpartisan state supreme court elections into fully partisan affairs.

In Ohio, Republicans have won every state Supreme Court seat since lawmakers passed a bill in 2021 requiring party affiliation to appear on the ballot for those races. That includes three seats up for grabs in November that solidified the Republican majority on the court from 4-3 to 6-1.

“These justices who got elected in 2024 have been pretty open about being anti-abortion,” said Jessie Hill, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, who has been litigating a challenge to Ohio’s abortion restrictions since voters added protections to the state constitution in 2023.

Until the recent ballot measure vote in Montana, the only obstacle blocking Republican-passed abortion restrictions from taking effect had been a 25-year-old decision that determined Montana’s right to privacy extends to abortion.

Nelson, the former justice who was the lead author of the decision, said the court has since gradually leaned more conservative. He noted the state’s other incoming justice, Katherine Bidegaray, was backed by abortion rights advocates.

“The dynamic of the court is going to change,” Nelson said after the election. “But the chief justice has one vote, just like everybody else.”

Swanson, Montana’s new chief justice, had said throughout his campaign that he’ll make decisions case by case. He also rebuked his opponent, Jerry Lynch, for saying he’d respect the court’s ruling that protected abortion. Swanson called such statements a signal to liberal groups.

At least eight cases are pending in Montana courts challenging state laws to restrict abortion access. Martha Fuller, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, said that the new constitutional language, which takes effect in July, could further strengthen those cases but that the court’s election outcome leaves room for uncertainty.

The state’s two outgoing justices had past ties to the Democratic Party. Fuller said they also consistently supported abortion as a right to privacy. “One of those folks is replaced by somebody who we don’t know will uphold that,” she said. “There will be this period where we’re trying to see where the different justices fall on these issues.”

Those cases likely won’t end the abortion debate in Montana.

As of the legislative session’s start in early January, Republican lawmakers, who have for years called the state Supreme Court liberal, had already proposed eight bills regarding abortion and dozens of others aimed at reshaping judicial power. Among them is a bill to make judicial elections partisan.

Montana Sen. Daniel Emrich, a Republican who requested a bill titled “Prohibit dismembering of person and provide definition of human,” said it’s too early to know which restrictions anti-abortion lawmakers will push hardest.

Ultimately, he said, any new proposed restrictions and the implications of the constitutional amendment will likely land in front of the state Supreme Court.


Bram Sable-Smith and Katheryn Houghton wrote this story for KFF Health News.


get more stories like this via email