Overturning the Supreme Court decision of June 2022 Roe v. Wade overturned a federal abortion law that had been in place for 50 years and turned the issue of abortion rights over to individual states. Immediately after Dobbs ruling, 13 states activated pending trigger laws, pledging to ban or restrict abortions if Rowe was cancelled.
How did these trigger laws affect the mental health of people in these states?
A recent analysis of data from a national survey conducted by Bloomberg School researchers found a small but statistically significant increase in self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression among respondents in states that banned abortion after Dobbs governing, compared to those in states that did not impose bans. The changes are most pronounced among women aged 18 to 45.
In Q&A, lead author Benjamin Thornburg, PhD student in Health Policy and Managementand senior author Matthew EisenbergPh.D., director of the Center for Mental Health and Addiction Policy and associate professor of health policy and management, says the findings illuminate the multifaceted impact of Dobbs answer. They also discuss how states can respond and how service delivery and even medical education can be affected by state abortion bans.
Why can Dobbs decision causes increased symptoms of anxiety and depression, even in women who are not pregnant or currently denied an abortion?
Benjamin Thornburg: There are many potential mechanisms. In the very important case of 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, part of the Supreme Court’s holding was that reproductive autonomy is closely related to personal and economic freedoms. They can be very related to mental health. I think this clarifies how people who aren’t actively seeking an abortion can be concerned about the risks of living in a state where they or someone they know wouldn’t be able to if they needed one. These risks can affect a person’s overall sense of security. Having abortion rights—once protected by the federal government—evaporate in one day is an unsettling feeling.
What are the wider implications of these increases in anxiety and depression in the population?
Matthew Eisenberg: The immediate impact of Dobbs decision restricted abortion in various states. But as this research shows, there are also second- and third-order impacts of policies, and we can quantify them.
As countries consider new reproductive health policies, they should consider the broader impact of these policies on mental health. There may be increased demand for mental health services or increased use down the line, especially in states that have enacted abortion bans.
How do your findings contribute to existing research on abortion bans and mental health?
BT: This is one of the first lines of evidence we follow Dobbs that this abortion ban policy – which is not specifically designed to affect mental health – does affect it. There are also implications for the provision of mental health services.
The studies preceding Dobbs the decision was very focused on the mental health impact of abortion denial. One of the important implications of this study is that we reveal a similar pattern at the population level. This is troubling, especially in this age when reproductive politics are less certain than they were a few years ago.
The study says it now plans to investigate other potential impacts of Dobbs. What next?
BT: The next step is to look at at Dobbs‘ impact on the healthcare workforce, including the national residency match for medical graduates – a crucial step in the training process for doctors. We expect to see providers change where they attend their training programs, and an immediate impact could be a change in the quality of healthcare delivered [in states with abortion bans].
Historically, students have been willing to travel great distances to attend their preferred residency program. Residents often stay and practice in the states where they received their training. But following Dobbs, residents may be less likely to attend a program in a state that has banned abortion. For example, aspiring OB-GYNs cannot receive the comprehensive training they would have previously received in states with abortion bans, and this is a distinct disincentive to attending these programs. There may be an accumulation of adverse effects.
Annalies Winny is a writer and producer at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
