Bone Claw

Many negative impacts on a woman’s mental health, physical health, and even economic well-being come with the restriction of abortion. Frank Worrell, a professor at UC Berkeley, explains how the restriction of abortion has long term effects on the mental and physical health of women as well as their economic health. Mentally, Worrell states that no negative emotion or reaction was had after a procedure, and that “Key findings from research studies show that, despite claims to the contrary, having an abortion is not linked to mental health problems” (Worrell, 2023). Worrell found that, rather, most women spoke of sharing a unified feeling of relief at the aftermath, relieved they did not have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Through his study he found that many women experienced high levels of stress, low self esteem, and anxiety when they carried an unwanted pregnancy to term. This stress around childbirth, because of the guilt of having an unwanted pregnancy, could also lead to complications in future childbirth and even increase the potential for future health problems for these women. In Worrell's study, he found that even “Five years later, 99% of those who obtained an abortion felt that they had made the right decision, and their most common emotional reaction was relief” (Worrell, 2023). Worrell goes in deeper on the topic, discussing the economic hardship that entailed both children and parents when an unwanted pregnancy came to term instead of the fetus being aborted. Many women who don't receive abortion care happen to be in predominantly impoverished, areas dominated by people of color, and due to the lack of education in these poorer areas, abortion ‘denial’ is much more prevalent, and this economic impact can severely affect those born to mothers who underwent an unwanted birth, the “Children of unwanted pregnancies are more likely to live in poverty, experience poor bonding with their mothers, and have more social, emotional, and psychiatric problems over time” (Worrell, 2023).

Another study performed by Aziz Batebi, an assistant professor, discovered a compelling sheet of data taken from his study of women’s responses psychologically to abortion in Tehran hospitals. Dr. Batebi’s aim with his study was to show the psychological consequences among women who seek abortion care in Tehran, conducting a cross-sectional study following specifically the social economic and demographic characteristics of the women and their husbands, as well as the role that they played within the family structure. Dr. Batebi discovered through this study that because of the culture and religious customs, many women experienced “Decreased self-esteem, nightmare, guilt, and regret with 43.7%, 39.5%, 37.5%, and 33.3% prevalence rates have been placed in the lower status” (Pourreza & Batebi, n.d.). This proves, according to Dr. Batebi, that the majority of psychological effects that women experience are not only overlooked, but these negative mental responses after an abortion are often because of the environment in which these women are in; for the community’s outlook, on abortion, specifically in Tehran, deems it sinful and illegal. Because of the societal pressures put onto women to grow their families and produce more children, these women grow concerned for their family’s societal health especially after having an abortion, falling into depression due to their worry “about not being able to conceive again” (Pourreza & Batebi, n.d.). In 2025, a study conducted by the University of Montreal Hospital Research came to a similar conclusion as Dr. Batebi. In this study, the University covered 1.2 million pregnancies globally, exploring how mental health risks are elevated after induced abortions and how they affect the women after long periods of time. Those conducting the study discovered that, yes, there were higher chances of mental disorders and substance abuse after an abortion procedure, but only if there were preexisting mental disorders or substance abuse recorded in the woman’s history. Just as Dr. Batebi has concluded, this study also concludes that women who are under societal pressures tend to regret or have heightened chances of developing problems after an induced abortion, but when these problems are taken away, or have simply never even happened to these women at all, mental health after an induced abortion remains rather positive.

Another factor that played into the development of physiological and mental disorders after induced abortion had to do with the history behind the reason as to why women wanted an abortion. Many women develop the need for an abortion because they have experienced violence both physically and sexually. This was the leading factor in the development of extreme lifetime substance abuse, the study stating that “In the U.S. National Comorbidity Survey, patients with multiple abortions were more likely to have experienced violence and preexisting mental health disorders than patients with only one abortion” (Auger et al., 2025). Once societal or preexisting problems are taken out of the equation, the mental health of the patients in this study remained positive after having an induced abortion, yet those women who were refused an abortion actually had a higher risk of mental health issues.

A woman’s health after an abortion, whether it be physical, mental, or psychological, is largely negative when there is social and cultural pressure on the woman; however, when these factors are erased, the aftermath seems to be quite the opposite. 

Not only does the restriction of abortion cause mental, physical, and psychological health problems, but it is detrimental to a woman’s bodily autonomy and her own personal rights. The Working Group speaks on the importance of abortion and how the restriction of it is an issue of discrimination. They discuss the foundation as to why it is a human right for women to have access to the procedure. According to the Working Group, they speak on how, by law, every human retains full human rights at birth, and since the fetus has not yet been birthed by the woman, it does not retain the same full human rights as the already living woman. By choosing the fetus over the woman, this denies her autonomy, and in turn this denies her dignity and her equality. When abortion becomes restricted and women's rights revoked, this does not lead to lower abortion rates but, in fact, the rates of illegal and unsafe abortions begin to rise, leading not only to the harm of the fetus, but to the harm of the woman. Because of this, the restriction of abortion is therefore detrimental to reproductive autonomy in international human rights, by law. This law however, has received both global backlash and legislative regression, and the decriminalization regarding women and their right to choice has led to many countries establishing punishment for going through with the procedure- discriminating and stigmatizing reproductive medical care. With this punishment, it would become near to impossible to protect vulnerable populations such as minors. To force a child to carry a pregnancy to term is not only detrimental to her education, health, and childhood, but it violates the choice over her body. Regarding both minors and women, the Working Group states that “The decision as to whether to continue a pregnancy or terminate it, is fundamentally and primarily the woman’s decision, as it may shape her whole future personal life as well as family life and has a crucial impact on women’s enjoyment of other human rights” (UNWGDAW, 2017).

In 2025, the ACLUNJ, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, explained the impact of abortion restriction at a state level, expanding on why reproductive autonomy is important. Personal autonomy can not only be looked at on the individual level, but it must be viewed at the communal level as well. Not only do these restrictions affect the individual woman, but also their community, their families, the workplace, and society in general. “Access to reproductive health care – from contraception, to abortion, to postpartum care – is essential in building healthy communities, where all people... have the necessary resources and opportunities to live and participate equally in our society” (ACLU-NJ, 2025).  In New Jersey, abortion access as health care is protected by law, due to their independent legal protections and state statute such as the New Jersey constitution and the Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act in 2022. The article pushes that access to this care is essential in building a community, and, because every man and woman are human and deserve the same equal rights, they are therefore both deserving of equal reproductive rights.

The restriction of abortion care for women hurts them both individually and communally; and the restriction of abortion both undermines a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and the fundamental human rights she carries. 

The restriction of abortion access impacts the socio-economic pendulum of society as well. The Institute for Women’s policy research explains how access to abortion is vital in the empowerment of women and in the stability of economic outcomes for our society. To be able to decide when to have a child both helps the woman’s participation in the workforce and in education. Not only does it socially and economically help the woman to succeed, but a woman’s access to abortion leads to intergenerational benefits, “Children born to women with abortion access … were more likely to graduate college, and less likely to be single parents or receive public assistance as adults” (IWPR, 2019). This simply means that children experience lower poverty rates and more financial stability when a woman has full reproductive freedom and reproductive choice. When there is no reproductive freedom in a woman’s life, it is very possible she will face economic inequality, and more often than not, women who are already in deep financial struggle and receive low-income will be affected the most. The restriction of reproductive freedom has an even more pronounced affect on women of color, for “These disparities stem from the broader environment of structural racism and oppression facing Black women in the United States” (IWPR, 2019), and “In addition to experiencing a legacy of efforts to control the fertility of women of color and low-income women, Black women are more likely to be living in poverty, facing greater barriers to accessing reproductive health care and being less able to overcome restrictions on abortion access” (IWPR, 2019). Ultimately, if women are restricted from their access to abortion through policy, inequality between the sexes deepens, as does the inequality between white women and women of color. This increases the level and chance of poverty which the child must endure due to a forced pregnancy. 

In 2018, six doctors conducted a study on the socioeconomic outcomes of women who were given access to abortion versus women who are restricted access in the United States. They took data from the Turnaway study, which lasted from 2008 to 2016, analyzing the changes in income and poverty, public assistance, health insurance, changes in employment, and changes in the household structure these women were in. They discovered that many of the women who had reported experiencing economic hardships during the time of the procedure had previous children, and the reason for the abortion would be to alleviate stress from the mother’s economic and social life. However, those who went through with the unwanted pregnancy due to the restrictions on abortion access were more likely to fall into deeper economic struggle and live in poverty, regardless if they had previous children or not. These doctors concluded that women who were denied abortions actually faced a much higher rate of economic hardship than those women who received abortion access. Additionally, many of those who were forced into a pregnancy fell into such extreme poverty they found their household incomes below the Federal Poverty Level, proving that by restricting the access to abortion, not only is the woman’s social and economic life hurt, but her household will experience serious future economic consequences. 

Financially, many women face obstacles when searching for an abortion under restrictive laws. In a longitudinal study done in Indiana in 2025, a group of 9 doctors under Science Direct explored the certain challenges that women face when restricted from access to abortion in Indiana and what happens to the financial, social, and demographic state of the economy because of said restrictions. In these restrictive legal environments, financial and social support are vital factors in seeking an abortion. These doctors concluded that the importance of financial and social support was paramount. 

“Financial support from abortion funds and clinics and social support from peer networks were associated with higher odds of accessing abortion care 1 month later” (Wollum et al., 2025). 

The barriers which exist for all women and environments become even more solidified when dealing with those communities of women who are highly marginalized, and, for example, “Those who identified as Black or African American or Hispanic/Latinx and those without insurance were less likely to have had an abortion than were white and insured participants” (Wollum et al., 2025). To marginalized communities such as women of color, the study emphasizes how the cost of reproductive care is not only higher, but it limits these women from self-determination when dealing with reproduction, for “Among those who were no longer considering abortion at 1 month and planned to continue their pregnancy, 28% reported doing so because they did not have the money for an abortion” (Wollum et al., 2025). Not only does it affect the women in these marginalized communities, but also those living in the household of the woman seeking an abortion, quite like the Turnaway study mentioned previously. 

When abortion care is legally restricted, those who are not able to support children due to their social or financial situations have a higher percentage of poverty. This leads to the unwanted child, when born, having a higher probability of being born into an unstable environment, both financially and socially. Altogether, this research shows not only does the restriction of abortion hurt women’s individual economic and social stability, but it also hurts their families and communities, especially those women in marginalized communities such as women of color or women who are already experiencing financial, economic, and social instability. 

To wrap up this topic, I will compare the policy perspectives on the topic of abortion, as clearly as one can, specifically in the United States. In 2024, author Stephanie K. Pell wrote on the topic of the Democratic and the Republican parties’ positions on abortion. She discussed the clear-cut contrast regarding the two parties' positions, and how each opposing party dealt with whether or not they viewed the procedure as a fundamental reproductive human right and whether or not it could be considered health care.

Pell introduced the topic with political background regarding the procedure, and how each party came to their own conclusion on how they would approach the abortion issue on their platforms. She discussed how many parties concluded their views on abortion by following emerging trends, measuring their voice based on ballot measures, particularly the Republican party. An example of this is brought up by Pell as she speaks on how the current MAGA Republican party’s view, on “the pro-reproductive rights position has won on abortion-related ballot measures following the Dobbs decision in conservative states like Ohio, Kansas, and Kentucky,” (Pell, 2024), but because of certain backlash from Republicans who do not align themselves with extreme right leaning views, “Trump is now trying to downplay his involvement because the issue of abortion has become an albatross around the neck of the Trump campaign and the Republican Party itself” (Pell, 2024). This shows that the Republican party is easily swayed into backtracking on policies because of public opinion;  therefore, they have no substantial or foundational view on any topic regarding human rights law, revealing inconsistency throughout the platform on which they stand. Regarding strategy, Pell describes Donald Trump's engagement to be one that is shifting and rhetorical, especially when he addresses the impact of post Roe V. Wade in many communities throughout the United States. He frequently deflects the general population’s attention from his overturning of several federal protections regarding the rights of women’s personal bodily autonomy and then panders to the extreme right in states that support restricting reproductive liberty for their communities and their women, which has led to a “limited and coded treatment of abortion” (Pell, 2024). The Republican Party maintains its fear based and conservative Christian approach regarding abortion, fear-mongering the concept of the procedure and spreading misinformation about it, insisting that the majority of abortions conducted are ‘late term’, and ironically speaking positively for the development of prenatal care and IVF support whilst speaking negatively on abortion.

The Republican party labels it as ‘immoral’, invoking the 14th amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” (14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868), 2024), and “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868), 2024), to support their claim which “projects consistency with a religious belief that fertilized eggs, or so-called 'unborn children' are full-fledged people deserving all of the rights and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution” (Pell, 2024). However, as stated before by the Working Group, this projection is a fallacy because, by international law, “The right to life and all other human rights under the human rights treaties are accorded at birth” (UNWGDAW, 2017), and that:

The necessity of putting women’s human rights at the center of the policy considerations regarding termination of their pregnancy is obfuscated by the rhetoric and political power behind the argument that there is a symmetrical balance between the rights to life of two entities: the woman and the unborn. But there is no such contestation in international human rights law. It was well settled in the 1948 UDHR and upheld in the ICCPR that the human rights accorded under IHRL are accorded to those who have been born. “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood, (UNWGDAW, 2017).

Using the 14th amendment as a religious-backed argument against access to abortion, allows the Republican party to  use it as a justification to enact their own set of rules to protect the fetus’s ‘life’, rooting it in the language of the Fetal Personhood Movement, which originated in the late 1960s prior to Roe V. Wade and popped back up in 2022, which asserted that the fetus (the fertilized egg) constituted itself as a whole person, even while in the very early developmental  stages. This argument complicates their push for IVF, which is in vitro fertilization. Pell counteracts the Republican party’s argument by bringing up the Democratic party’s platform regarding abortion. 

The democratic party “has its own section on 'Reproductive Freedom' that embraces the idea that abortion is health care” (Pell, 2024), and it strives to keep pre-established rights surrounding women’s right to healthcare, supporting the expansion of reproductive healthcare across the U.S, which allows the woman the freedom of choice over her own body. They frame abortion as a non-negotiable, normalized, part of the healthcare system by viewing abortion as essential reproductive healthcare for women. To achieve this, they push for institutional advocacy, committing to a strategy which defends the FDA’s sanction of medicated abortion, which ensures easy access nationwide for those who are vulnerable and marginalized, such as women in high economic and social stress, women in low income areas, minors, and women of color. As Pell puts it, “Simply put, the Democratic Party platform explicitly states that 'President Biden, Vice President Harris, and Democrats are committed to restoring the reproductive rights Trump ripped away” (Pell, 2024). To do this, the Democratic Party uses evidence-based policy goals, provides proof to their supporters, and stands firm on their political beliefs instead of being swayed by public opinion, specifically on the terms of reproductive freedom and policy regarding abortion. Instead of using religion and emotion to push forward their agenda, the Democratic party outlines achievable legislative, administrative, and executive objectives in which there are specific rules on abortion access, reproductive rights, the protection of IVF and contraception access, treating every part of reproductive healthcare as healthcare rather than just simply picking and choosing. 

The Republican party focuses on fear-mongering around the legal status of the fetus and attempting to put in legislation to dissolve a woman’s choice over her own bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, the Democratic party focuses on expanding the availability of a woman’s choice over her own reproductive rights and bodily autonomy, treating the woman as the overall priority rather than the fetus. This narrow discussion, although it is on a nation-wide level, is a good example to use for the global discussion surrounding abortion- and how some countries use fear-mongering and religion as an argument and a reason to abolish abortion access for women, whereas many other countries support the overall health of the woman over the fetus, understanding the impact access has to the overall social and economic of their societies. 

To conclude this dissection, I have determined that terminating women’s access to abortion does not absolve the need for said abortion. Lack of abortion access leads to economic and social struggle for the collective group, and mental, physical, and psychological torment and danger for the individual woman; for without the access to safe and legal abortion procedures, there will be more harm done than good, as I wrote before.

References

14th amendment to the U.S. constitution: Civil rights (1868). (2021, September 7). National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment

Auger, N., Healy-Profitós, J., Ayoub, A., Lewin, A., & Low, N. (2025). Induced abortion and implications for long-term mental health: A cohort study of 1.2 million pregnancies. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 187, 304–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.05.031

Foster, D. G., Biggs, M. A., Ralph, L., Gerdts, C., Roberts, S., & Glymour, M. M. (2022). Socioeconomic outcomes of women who receive and women who are denied wanted abortions in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 112(9), 1290–1296. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2017.304247r

In vitro fertilization (IVF): MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved May 1, 2026, from https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007279.htm

Our rights to reproductive health, abortion care, and autonomy in New Jersey. (2022, August 4). ACLU of New Jersey. https://www.aclu-nj.org/know-your-rights/our-rights-reproductive-health-abortion-care-and-autonomy-new-jersey

Pell, S. K. (2024, September 19). Clear contrasts between the Democratic and Republican Parties’ positions on reproductive rights and health care. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/clear-contrasts-between-the-democratic-and-republican-parties-positions-on-reproductive-rights-and-health-care

Pourreza, A., & Batebi, A. (2011). Psychological consequences of abortion among the post abortion care seeking women in Tehran. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 6(1), 31–36.

The history of abortion politics : Institute for policy research. (n.d.). Northwestern University. Retrieved May 1, 2026, from https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2022/the-history-of-abortion-politics.html

Wollum, A., Goode, B., McKenna, C., Jeyifo, M., Perkins, L., Sasse Stern, M., Shariyf, Q., Wilkinson, T. A., & Moseson, H. (2025). Financial, social, and demographic factors associated with obtaining an abortion: a longitudinal study in Indiana in 2021–2022. Women’s Health Issues, 35(3), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2025.03.001

Worrell, F. C. (2023). Denying abortions endangers women’s mental and physical health. American Journal of Public Health, 113(4), 382–383. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2023.307241

Raday, F. & Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice. (2017). Women’s Autonomy, Equality and Reproductive Health in international Human Rights: Between recognition, backlash and regressive Trends. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/WG/WomensAutonomyEqualityReproductiveHealth.pdf

Wollum, A., Goode, B., McKenna, C., Jeyifo, M., Perkins, L., Stern, M. S., Shariyf, Q., Wilkinson, T. A., & Moseson, H. (2025b). Financial, social, and demographic factors associated with obtaining an abortion: a longitudinal study in Indiana in 2021–2022. Women S Health Issues, 35(3), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2025.03.001

Foster, D. G., Biggs, M. A., Ralph, L., Gerdts, C., Roberts, S., & Glymour, M. M. (2018b). Socioeconomic outcomes of women who receive and women who are denied wanted abortions in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 112(9), 1290–1296. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2017.304247