States that imposed total abortion bans spend millions more in nutritional food programs, research finds

LAWRENCE — One of the main arguments among proponents of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision to overturn the federal right to abortion was it would diminish the number of abortions performed in the U.S. But research has shown that 2023 saw the highest amount in more than decade. And according to new University of Kansas research, states that support the ban have also seen an increase in financial burdens.

“Inherently, the types of states that ban abortion are different than the types of states that don’t,” said Lilly Springer, doctoral candidate in economics at KU. “So there are all these little differences between how they support their health care systems, the types of funding they offer to social safety net programs and the other types of support they provide.”

Her article titled “Downstream Effects of Post-Dobbs Abortion Bans: Birth Rates and WIC” finds states that implemented total bans by the start of 2023 experienced a 1.6% increase in the overall birth rate. They also experienced 4.3% and 2.1% increases in monthly postpartum women and formula-fed infant WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) participation, respectively, leading to an additional $6.9 million in food costs.

The article appears in Economic Inquiry. 

“Abortion bans impact people who are most disadvantaged, both in terms of education and income — and that is the group of people who would likely qualify for WIC,” Springer said.

Although WIC is a federally funded program (not an entitlement), it is still administered by the states. But states may not have funding to provide benefits to everyone who applies.

“Theoretically, there may be some individuals who qualify and apply for WIC but do not receive assistance,” she said. 

“But if you have more individuals who are eligible for this nutrition program, and your state has enough funding, then it’s going to inherently increase. Plus, the people who are most likely to be affected by these bans are people who are potentially going to need more help when you add an additional financial burden such as a new child into the household.”

One of the unanticipated findings Springer points to is the increase in monthly birth rate number applies to both women whose highest educational attainment is a high school diploma and to women with a bachelor’s degree or higher.

“The average profile of a woman who gets an abortion is kind of ‘any woman’ — there is not a specific type of person who gets an abortion. And so I necessarily shouldn’t have been surprised by that. But it stood out to me in terms of how wide-ranging the impact can be,” she said.

Springer started at KU five years ago. Her work as a health economist focuses on maternal and reproductive health care. The Indianapolis native will graduate in May and has already secured a tenure-track position with American University in Washington, D.C.

“I was a second-year Ph.D. student right when the Dobbs decision happened. For an economist, this is a perfect natural experiment. There are certain states that aren’t going to ban abortion, certain states that are, and no one really expected it was going to happen. It was an ideal time to test causality,” she said.

While the immediate effect of the Dobbs decision is often the focus of debate, it’s the “downstream” impact that most interests Springer.

“We don’t always talk about the later effects of what happens when someone isn’t able to obtain an abortion and how that might affect both the person and the community writ large,” she said.

“If this is the way we’re going — and I’m not making any moral statements or judgments about what we should do — we need to support the population that is no longer able to obtain an abortion through financial services, social systems, changes in our education and our health care system, all to make sure we are not actively harming the people who no longer have access.”