Abortion bans in US led to more births and infant deaths, especially among vulnerable groups
Abortion bans in the United States are exacerbating existing health disparities as births increase in high-risk populations and infant mortality rises disproportionately, new research suggests.
In 14 states that implemented complete or 6-week abortion bans after the Supreme Court Dobbs decision revoked the federal right to abortion, the fertility rate increased 1.7%, leading to about 1 additional birth for every 1,000 women of reproductive age, according to a study published Thursday in the medical journal JAMA. A corresponding study from the same research team found that the rise in infant mortality was even more significant, spiking nearly 6% in the states that implemented bans.
With about 500 more deaths than expected among the 22,000 additional births, the infant mortality rate for births linked to abortion bans – 24 deaths for every 1,000 births – was about four times higher than expected. Rates of births and deaths were analyzed from 2012 through 2023, using trends from before the restrictions were implemented and from states without restrictions as baseline measures.
'It signals that these additional births are occurring disproportionately among populations at greater risk of infant mortality and other full pregnancy outcomes,' said Dr. Suzanne Bell, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and co-author of the new studies.
Other research has found links between abortion bans and a rise in infant births and deaths, but the new studies show that that some of the most vulnerable groups bear the greatest burden of the significant and compounding effects of abortion restrictions.
Black and other minority women saw the largest increases in fertility rates, along with those of lower socioeconomic status such as Medicaid beneficiaries and those with lower education levels. Infant mortality also surged in these groups, with deaths rising nearly 11% – almost twice the average – among Black babies, more than any other racial or ethnic group.
'Abortion bans are associated with excess births that shift the composition of births toward those at higher risk of infant death,' the researchers wrote.
Experts have long cautioned about the dangers of abortion bans, warning that restricting access to abortion can have significant negative effects on the health and livelihood of the individual and their families.
'I think back to the Dobbs case, where part of Mississippi's argument to the Supreme Court was that there's no societal reliance on abortion, that you can essentially take this right away and it's not going to affect measurable outcomes. Well, here's one, right?' said Caitlin Myers, a professor of economics at Middlebury College. She was not involved in the new studies but has researched abortion trends and policy impacts. 'We see so clearly that when you take abortion access away, it increases infant mortality.'
The new research showed the share of infants who died from congenital anomalies rose significantly in states with abortion bans, suggesting a disproportionate rise in the number of women who are carrying fetuses with lethal congenital anomalies to term.
Congenital anomalies can range from mild to severe cases, and some of the most common types can affect an infant's heart or spine. In some cases, babies with a birth defect may only survive a few months. The new research found that there was about an 11% increase in infant mortality due to congenital anomalies, or more than one additional death for every 10,000 births.
But infant deaths from other causes also increased – rising about 4% in states with abortion bans – suggesting that 'legal exceptions based solely on fetal anomalies will not fully offset the negative effects of abortion bans on infant health,' the researchers wrote.
'These findings make it clear that many pregnant people were unable to overcome barriers to access abortion services, and instead were forced to continue an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy to term,' Bell said. 'The largest impacts are among populations experiencing the greatest structural disadvantages and in states with among the worst maternal and child health outcomes, even prior to these abortion bans being imposed.'
A recent report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed Black women were the only group who had an increase in maternal mortality between 2022 and 2023, and the latest rate – about 50 deaths for every 100,000 live births in 2023 – was nearly three times higher than it was for other groups.
'[Abortion restrictions are] compounding existing poor health outcomes and disparities by imposing restrictions on reproductive autonomy,' Bell said. And the devastating effects on infant mortality are likely just the 'tip of the iceberg,' she said. Many other pregnancies may have resulted in other kinds of poor outcomes for the infant or mother.
Outcomes in Texas had an outsized effect on the results, accounting for about three-quarters of additional births and about 80% of additional infant deaths, according to the new studies. Many factors could be behind this, but some experts suggest that especially long distances needed to travel out-of-state to reach a clinic and early adoption of Senate Bill 8 that restricted abortion access before the Dobbs decision could play a role.
In a commentary about the new research that also published in JAMA on Thursday, Dr. Alyssa Bilinski, an assistant professor of health policy at the Brown University School of Public Health, wrote that 'abortion restrictions that force continuation of unexpected and high-risk pregnancies make it all the more critical to ensure robust supports for children and families' in the US.
'There should be no partisan divide over the idea that all children and families deserve the opportunity to thrive,' she wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
I'm a doctor and a recovering addict. America can't lose ground on the opioids fight now.
I'm a doctor and a recovering addict. America can't lose ground on the opioids fight now. There's talk of scaling back key programs and cutting funding that has proved to save lives. Doing so wouldn't just slow progress, it would send us backward. Show Caption Hide Caption FDA Approves non-Opioid painkiller to combat addiction crisis The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Journavx, a new non-opioid painkiller for short-term pain in adults. Cover Media - Shareable Overdose deaths in the U.S. have decreased by almost 27% in the past year. Medicaid and federal grants have played a crucial role in providing access to treatment and resources like naloxone. Proposed budget cuts to these programs could reverse the progress made in combating the opioid crisis. In 2004, I nearly lost everything to opioid addiction. I was a practicing physician, a husband and a father, and I was also deeply dependent on the same medications I once prescribed to others. My recovery was hard-earned and required structure, accountability and people who refused to give up on me. That experience is why I've dedicated my life to helping others do what I did: Survive long enough to get better. And today, I can say something I never imagined possible two decades ago: We are finally making real, measurable progress in the fight against drug overdoses in America. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing that overdose deaths in the United States have dropped by nearly 27% from 2023 to 2024. After years of heartbreaking headlines and rising death tolls, we're finally seeing a shift in the right direction. These aren't just abstract percentages, they represent real people. Parents tucking their kids in at night, employees returning to work, neighbors rebuilding relationships and young people getting second chances. Opinion: We targeted drug cartels to stop fentanyl. Now, overdose deaths are dropping. Cutting Medicaid will set us back in the opioid fight This progress didn't happen by accident. It happened because of deliberate, sustained action backed by bipartisan support and a strong federal commitment to addressing this crisis head-on. Medicaid, the largest payer of substance use disorder treatment in the United States, has given millions of Americans access to lifesaving care. Federal grants have helped get naloxone into the hands of first responders. Community-based organizations are expanding access to treatment and recovery services in ways that simply weren't possible a decade ago. As someone who's worked in both medicine and public policy, I've seen firsthand the impact of these investments. We've transformed what used to be a disconnected patchwork into a system that increasingly meets people where they are ‒ in emergency rooms, in jails, on the streets and in their homes. But now, as Congress and the administration debate the next federal budget, I'm worried we're at risk of forgetting how we got here. There's talk of scaling back key programs and cutting funding that has proved to save lives. Doing so wouldn't just slow progress, it would send us backward. Signs of opioid addiction: If your teenager was addicted to opioids, would you know? It's harder than you think. | Opinion Fighting the opioid epidemic doesn't have to be partisan That's particularly dangerous for states that are legally required to balance their budget every year. If the federal government pulls back, that doesn't eliminate the need for services. It just forces states to make impossible decisions ‒ raise taxes, slash other essential services or cut overdose prevention programs that are working. When that happens, it's not numbers on a spreadsheet that suffer. It's real people. The good news is that this doesn't have to be a partisan fight. Republicans and Democrats alike have supported these programs because they deliver results. Because they keep families together. Because they reduce crime, lower health care costs and strengthen our workforce. These aren't just moral investments, they're economic ones. Every dollar spent on treatment and prevention saves several more down the line in avoided emergency care, incarceration and lost productivity. We know what works. The question now is whether we will have the courage to keep doing it. I believe we will. I believe our leaders, including those in the Trump administration and this Congress, understand the stakes. But they need to hear from us. They need to know this progress is real, it's saving lives and it's worth protecting. We've come too far to retreat now. Let's keep our foot on the gas and finish the job. Dr. Stephen Loyd is the chief medical officer of Cedar Recovery, president of the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners and a member of the Tennessee Opioid Abatement Council. He is a physician in long-term recovery.
12 hours ago
Black dads go public with support for their kids with autism -- and each other
ATLANTA -- When Tyrone Green's youngest son was diagnosed with autism, his wife was immediately ready to get the 3-year-old the support he needed. But Green was stuck: He had questions about his son's future and an overwhelming feeling of loneliness — like no one, not his wife, not his friends, understood his experience. ' ... (M)y wife couldn't understand what I was going through as a Black father, all these hopes and dreams I had for my kid," said Green, who lives in Michigan. 'She didn't feel the same way.' In 2021, he joined a Black fathers' support group and met a few other dads eager to discuss their unique challenges. They started their own podcast in 2023 called AutisHIM, a place where Black dads talk about the wins and setbacks of having autistic children. Green is among a growing number of Black fathers of autistic children looking to be more visible in the national autism conversation through podcasts, nonprofits and summits that specifically address their experience. These men say that their hope is not only to be considered more than sidekicks to mothers of the children, but also to help other Black dads accept autism diagnoses and not prolong getting kids the help that they need. Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects how people communicate, process information and interact with the world around them. Federal data shows that since 2020, Black children have had a higher prevalence of autism spectrum disorder than white children — a change experts credit mostly to better awareness of autism in underserved communities. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently announced plans to have the federal government do a broad study for the causes of autism, even though it's been looked at by researchers for decades. He has said autism is a 'tragedy' that 'destroys families' and that some people with autism will never hold a job, pay taxes or go on dates. But many people with autism live successful, socially rich and independent lives, which makes a narrative like Kennedy's dangerous, said Michael Hannon, a counseling professor at Montclair State University who studies the social and emotional aspects of autism on Black fatherhood. It 'can literally diminish hope for any father or father figure or family,' Hannon said of Kennedy's framing of autism. But affinity groups for Black men who have kids with autism are a successful way to get the dads to engage with their emotions, Hannon said. 'The challenge is convincing people to (talk openly and honestly), because the practice of doing that is rare, not just among Black men, but people in general,' he said, adding that people might think it will reflect on their ability to parent. Evan Polk said a big part of navigating his 13-year-old daughter's diagnosis was learning to sit with emotions that weren't simply 'happy and mad.' In the beginning, he was very protective. 'I became a helicopter dad,' said Polk, who started AuSome Kicks, an art therapy nonprofit for autistic children near Philadelphia earlier this year. 'I didn't want nobody or nothing to harm her whatsoever. When I found out she was autistic, she'd be outside with knee pads and elbow pads looking crazy.' He said he later taught his family to be more patient with his daughter, as opposed to traditional parenting styles of being firm and hoping that she would fall in line. Dr. Berry Pierre said he initially was on the sidelines of his autistic daughter's support team as his wife, Maria Davis-Pierre, did the bulk of advocating. The Florida couple founded Autism in Black and for the first five years, he said the organization didn't specifically tailor messaging to Black dads. 'Whether it be in schools, the (individual education plan) meetings, the mothers were just there.' Pierre said. 'But as we started to kind of try to go deeper and figure out 'Alright, what's going on? Where are the guys?' we started to realize that a lot of them will be there.' Many Black dads, Pierre found out, were equally involved as the moms, and Pierre wanted to get more of them talking publicly about autism. 'The dads are there, but we know the general public doesn't realize that yet,' Pierre said. 'So we try to serve as this engine to shine a light on what's really happening. The dads are there, they're attentive. And even with this diagnosis, they're going even harder.' Some dads, like Nicholas Love in North Carolina, said they first hesitated to openly share their journey of raising their kids with autism in fear that people may not understand. 'I was very guarded for a while in talking about my children both being on the spectrum,' said Love, who is CEO of the marketing agency The Kulur Group. 'Even in how you take pictures that you upload on social media, being cognizant and thinking about, 'Well is this a picture that looks, dare I say, the perception of what normal looks like?'" Now, he's an open book about them, is understanding when employees need a little extra time for urgent family needs and has advocated that men receive more paid leave so they will have time to be more involved with their kids. 'I got to a point where it's like, 'OK, this is my reality … I need to do my part in normalizing this," Love said. Green said that while his podcast and platforms like Autism in Black make it easier for Black fathers to share their stories of their kids' wins and losses, he'd like to see 'more support groups out there, more podcasts, more conversations.' 'I see a lot of Black women doing their thing and I highly appreciate that, but I think there definitely needs to be more conversations surrounding (Black fatherhood and autism) because, for myself, I'm a Black man," Green said. "I have a Black family, but this is never really the topic of discussion.'
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. What's in the bill House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. Who would lose health coverage The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Why Republicans want Medicaid changes Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation. 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. What polling shows While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
