The U.S. Supreme Court’s overruling of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) on June 24, 2022, with the high court's decision in Dobbs vs. Jackon Women's Health Organization, has provoked strong reactions from both proponents of reproductive rights who argue that abortion should be legalized throughout the country and the anti-abortion advocates who believe that life begins at conception and that the intentional termination of a pregnancy is not justified in most, if not all, cases.
Dobbs has also encouraged a number of states to step into the vacuum created by the Court’s decision and implement their own laws governing the circumstances in which abortions may or may not be authorized.
Not surprisingly, certain "blue" states such as New York and California have enacted laws affirming a woman’s right to obtain an abortion until she reaches the stage of pregnancy when a fetus has developed enough so that it is able to survive (be "viable") outside the uterus with medical help (usually 24-26 weeks).
More than a dozen conservative states, such as Texas and Kentucky, have enacted statutes banning abortions except in cases in which the mother’s life is endangered; other states such as Idaho and North Dakota have passed laws that also allow abortions when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. (More here.)
Although abortion advocates decried the court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe, the decision by the court to kick the abortion issue back to the states may ultimately be a more democratic approach than leaving such a personal decision to a group of nine individuals with lifetime tenure, whose views may or may not reflect those of the nation as a whole.
Each state is now free to pass its own laws regulating the conditions under which an abortion may be performed.
If we assume that the legislators of each state represent the interests of their constituents, then it's not surprising that new laws regarding abortion go from one extreme to another.
After all, the populations of certain states are decidedly more "progressive" and pro-abortion rights than the citizens of other, more" traditional" states whose opposition to abortion is often rooted in religious considerations.
Yet it's also true that even the "reddest" or "bluest" states have significant numbers of citizens (and legislators) whose views about abortion are at odds with the majority.
State legislators are ultimately more motivated to listen to the concerns of the voters than the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court — who do not have to run for re-election over and over again, but can remain on the job until they are either carried out of their offices, or voluntarily resign and/or retire.
Some states such as Florida have passed laws that appear to straddle the divide between the pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion voters, allowing abortions for the first six weeks of the first trimester and then greatly restricting these procedures going forward.
Such laws are of questionable value because they cut off the permissible time period for obtaining an abortion long before most women realize they are pregnant (typically 10 to 12 weeks after conception).
So, the Sunshine State's approach arguably constitutes an outright ban on abortion offering little more than an illusory right to terminate a pregnancy.
Pro-aobrtion rights advocates also argue that the outlawing of abortion in many states will have a detrimental impact upon the health of pregnant women.
Their access to healthcare professionals in those states could be severely restricted.
Some doctors may not want to risk interpreting these laws in a manner which could result in prosecution.
Rather, they may decide to cease providing reproductive health services totally.
Poorer women living in states with restrictive abortion laws might not be able to afford the cost of traveling to a state permitting abortions.
Laws banning these procedures could disproportionately affect poor women whose lack of money might effectively prevent them from ending an unwanted pregnancy.
Reduced access to abortion could result in higher rates of maternal deaths according to a recent study by the Center for Disease Control in 2021.
Other studies have drawn similar conclusions such as a 2021 study completed by the University of Colorado which, according to Pew, predicted that pregnancy-related deaths could rise by at least 20% if abortions were outlawed altogether.
However, these studies were completed prior to the overturning of Roe so it has been left for proponents of both views to argue about the extent to which the unavailability of abortion will contribute to further increases in maternal mortality rates in the near future.
Because less than a year has passed since Roe was overturned, however, it's too soon to tell whether these predictions will be borne out or not over time.
Another element of the abortion debate is the obvious biological fact that women alone bear the physical burden of carrying and ultimately giving birth to children. The enormous physical and emotional demands that a full-term pregnancy imposes upon a woman are unquestionably quite significant.
But the disproportionate impact of childbirth upon women does not end when the baby is delivered. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are about 11 million single parent families with children under the age of 18 in the United States, nearly 80% of which are headed by single mothers.
Many of these single mothers lack a significant support system and must work full-time while raising their children — an enormous burden that often restricts their career opportunities and earning potential. Indeed, nearly a quarter of these households were considered to be poor and food insecure.
And for those single mothers who were able to work a full time job, their median income tended to be around half that of the $106,000 median income of a two-parent household.
Many women believe that laws greatly restricting or even outlawing abortion are inherently sexist because most legislators in most states are men and these male-dominated legislatures have passed laws that impose disproportionate consequences on women — who are, in most cases, the primary caregivers of young children.
Women are the ones most impacted by laws restricting the right to an abortion, particularly in cases involving rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger.
They are the ones who, more often than not, will bear the costs of raising children to adulthood due to the proliferation of single-mother householders and the unwillingness of many fathers to step forward and shoulder their parental responsibilities.
Jefferson Hane Weaver is a transactional lawyer residing in Florida. He received his undergraduate degree in Economics and Political Science from the University of North Carolina and his J.D. and Ph.D. in International Relations from Columbia University. Dr. Weaver is the author of numerous books on varied compelling subjects. Read more of his reports — Here.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.