Health Equity in a Post ‘Roe Versus Wade’ America

For almost five decades, the US Supreme Court had protected the right to abortion care in the United States. However, the Court’s decision in ‘Dobbs versus Jackson Women’s Health Organization’ in 2022 established that the US Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, effectively overturning the Court’s own previous judgment in ‘Roe versus Wade’ from 1973. How could a decision that overturns the precedent for nationwide access to abortion affect women, children, and physicians? How will state laws impact healthcare equity regarding reproductive rights going forward? How will geography affect who can access care financially, and how will this shape the conditions that unwanted children are born into? This work is a systematic analysis of the impact of overturning ‘Roe versus Wade’ considering the scientific and medical evidence as well as the conflicting political and moral viewpoints regarding abortion. Furthermore, we make constructive recommendations with a view to detoxifying the inflammatory rhetoric surrounding this topic and protecting key stakeholders such as patients seeking abortion and their physicians. The moment ‘Roe v. Wade’ was overturned, several US states began to enact laws, both protecting and restricting abortion. California and New York, for example, have since enacted laws that extend protection to both patients seeking abortion and the physicians who provide it. Oklahoma and Texas, on the other hand, have enacted laws that make it more difficult for patients to have abortion access, even after fetal death or when the birthing individual’s life is in danger. These differences are likely to exacerbate the healthcare access divide across the country and increase the financial burden for those who can become pregnant. As differences in healthcare access and quality of care increase across the nation, an unmatched demand for maternity care, especially in the most restrictive states, could precipitate increased maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality while physician shortages are expected to worsen. It will be up to the US Congress to address these differences while weighing competing stakeholder interests. Currently, the nation is at the center of a seismic shift surrounding health policy with laws changing rapidly. This systematic health policy analysis paper will explore what the long-term consequences of this recent Supreme Court decision might look like while considering some of the most recently reported short-term consequences after the landslide decision.