Abortion in the United States

==Effects of legalization and impact of abortion bans==
[[File:Ms. magazine Cover - Winter 2013.jpg|thumb|alt=Cover of the 2013 winter issue of Ms. Magazine. On a pink background is the black silhouette of a coat-hanger with the title, "without access, there is no choice."|The 2013 winter issue of ''[[Ms. (magazine)|Ms.]]'' was about abortion rights.]]
The risk of death due to legal abortion has fallen considerably since ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' (1973) legalized it; this was due to increased physician skills, improved medical technology, and earlier termination of pregnancy.<ref name="BeforeAfter"/> From 1940 through 1970, deaths of pregnant women during abortion fell from nearly 1,500 to a little over 100.<ref name="BeforeAfter">{{cite journal |doi=10.1001/jama.1992.03490220075032 |title=Induced Termination of Pregnancy Before and After Roe v Wade: Trends in the Mortality and Morbidity of Women |year=1992 |last1=Coble |first1=Yank D. |journal=JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association |volume=268 |issue=22 |page=3231}}</ref> According to the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]], the number of women who died in 1972 from illegal abortion was thirty-nine.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Lilo T. |last1=Strauss |first2=Joy |last2=Herndon |first3=Jeani |last3=Chang |first4=Wilda Y. |last4=Parker |first5=Sonya V. |last5=Bowens |first6=Suzanne B. |last6=Zane |first7=Cynthia J. |last7=Berg |journal=Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report |pmid=15562258 |url=https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm |year=2004 |last8=Berg |first8=CJ |title=Abortion surveillance – United States, 2001 |volume=53 |issue=9 |pages=1–32}}</ref> The [[Roe effect]] is a hypothesis suggesting that since supporters of abortion rights cause the erosion of their own political base by having fewer children, the practice of abortion will eventually lead to the restriction or illegalization of abortion.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Levine|first=Phillip B.|date=July 1, 2005|title=Is there any substance to the 'Roe effect'?|journal=Society|volume=42|issue=5|pages=15–17|doi=10.1007/BF02687477|s2cid=144398481 |issn=1936-4725}}</ref> The [[legalized abortion and crime effect]] is another controversial theory that posits legal abortion reduces crime because unwanted children are more likely to become criminals.<ref>{{cite book|title=The Economics of Crime: Lessons for and from Latin America|publisher=University of Chicago Press|first1=Rafael|last1=Di Tella|first2=Sebastian|last2=Edwards|first3=Ernesto|last3=Schargrodsky|year=2010|isbn=978-0-226-15376-6|location=Chicago|pages=286|oclc=671812020|quote=While the data from some countries are consistent with the DL hypothesis (e.g. Canada, France, Italy), several countries' data show the opposite correlation (e.g. Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Poland). In other cases crime was falling before legalization and does not decline any more quickly (twenty years) after legalization (e.g. Japan, Norway).}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Roeder|first1=Oliver K.|last2=Eisen|first2=Lauren-Brooke|last3=Bowling|first3=Julia|last4=Stiglitz|first4=Joseph E.|last5=Chettiar|first5=Inimai M.|date=2015|title=What Caused the Crime Decline?|url=http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2566965|journal=SSRN Electronic Journal|doi=10.2139/ssrn.2566965|s2cid=155454092|issn=1556-5068|quote=Based on an analysis of the past findings, it is possible that some portion of the decline in 1990s could be attributed to the legalization of abortion. However, there is also robust research criticizing this theory.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Handbook on Crime and Deviance|year=2019|first1=Marvin D.|last1=Krohn|first2=Nicole|last2=Hendrix|first3=Alan J|last3=Lizotte|first4=Gina Penly|last4=Hall|isbn=978-3-030-20779-3|edition=2nd|location=Cham, Switzerland|oclc=1117640387}}</ref>

Since ''Roe'', there have been numerous attempts to reverse the decision.<ref>{{cite news|last=Sherman|first=Mark|date=May 17, 2021|url=https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-15-week-ban-5d066a9dc0030a4f8297711f341c9f5a|title=Supreme Court to take up major abortion rights challenge|website=AP News|publisher=Associated Press|access-date=May 11, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=De Vogue|first1=Ariane|last2=Kelly|first2=Caroline|date=May 17, 2021|url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/17/politics/supreme-court-abortion-mississippi/index.html |title=Supreme Court takes up major abortion case next term that could limit Roe v. Wade|publisher=CNN|access-date=May 11, 2022}}</ref> In the 2011 election season, Mississippi placed an amendment on the ballot that redefined how the state viewed abortion. The personhood amendment defined personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof"; if passed, it would have been illegal to get an abortion in the state.<ref name="Mississippi and Personhood">{{cite web| url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/mississippi-personhood-amendment_n_1082546.html | website=The Huffington Post | title=Mississippi 'Personhood' Amendment Vote Fails | date=November 8, 2011}}</ref> On July 11, 2012, a Mississippi federal judge ordered an extension of his temporary order to allow the state's only abortion clinic to stay open. The order was to stay in place until U.S. District Judge [[Daniel Porter Jordan III]] could review newly drafted rules on how the Mississippi Department of Health would administer a new abortion law. The law in question came into effect on July 1, 2012.<ref>{{cite news|last=Phillips|first=Rich|date=July 11, 2012|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/11/us/mississippi-abortion-clinic-hearing/index.html|title=Judge lets Mississippi's only abortion clinic stay open – for now|publisher=CNN|access-date=May 10, 2022}}</ref>

Between 2008 and 2016, the Turnaway Study followed a group of 1,000 women, two of whom died after giving birth,<ref name="Lewis 2022">{{cite magazine|last=Lewis|first=Tanya|date=May 3, 2022|url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/overturning-roe-v-wade-could-have-devastating-health-and-financial-impacts-landmark-study-showed/|title=Overturning Roe v. Wade Could Have Devastating Health and Financial Impacts, Landmark Study Showed|magazine=Scientific American|access-date=May 7, 2022}}</ref> for five years after they sought an abortion,<ref name="Green Foster 2021">{{cite journal|last=Greene Foster|first=Diana|date=November 16, 2021|title=Yes, science can weigh in on abortion law|journal=Nature|volume=599|issue=7885|pages=349|doi=10.1038/d41586-021-03434-1|pmid=34785804|bibcode=2021Natur.599..349G|s2cid=244280010|doi-access=free}}</ref> and compared their health and socio-economic consequences of receiving an abortion or being denied one.<ref name="Green Foster 2021"/><ref>{{cite web|url=https://laterabortion.org/science-vs-myths-about-later-abortion-0|title=Science vs. myths about later abortion|website=Later Abortion Initiative|publisher=[[Ibis Reproductive Health]]|date=October 9, 2017|access-date=May 7, 2022|quote=The Turnaway Study compared over 800 individuals who received a wanted abortion to those who were denied a wanted abortion because their pregnancy exceeded the gestational age limit of the abortion clinic. In the short-term, those who were denied a wanted abortion were more likely to experience negative emotions than those who received a wanted abortion. At one week, 95% of people who obtained an abortion felt that having the abortion was the right decision, and at three years, over 99% felt that having the abortion had been the right decision for them. At five years, the researchers found no differences between individuals who received and those who were denied wanted abortions with respect to depression, anxiety, self-esteem, life satisfaction, post-traumatic stress disorder, or post-traumatic stress symptoms. Further, no increase in the use of alcohol or drugs was found following abortion. However, those who were denied abortions did experience other negative consequences related to mental health, including remaining in relationships marked by intimate partner violence. These data support the already existing body of evidence concluding that abortion does not harm mental health. In fact, for those obtaining a desired abortion, the emotion experienced by the majority was relief.}}</ref> The study found that those who were provided with abortion performed better, and those who were denied one suffered negative consequences.<ref name="ANSIRH 2021">{{cite web|url=https://www.ansirh.org/research/ongoing/turnaway-study|title=The Turnaway Study|website=ANSIRH|publisher=University of California, San Francisco|date=February 3, 2021|access-date=May 7, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/abortion-rights-are-good-health-and-good-science/|title=Abortion Rights Are Good Health and Good Science|magazine=Scientific American|date=May 5, 2022|access-date=May 7, 2022}}</ref> ''[[Scientific American]]'' described it as landmark.<ref name="Lewis 2022"/> A follow-up Turnaway Study was confirmed to determinate the health and economic impact of ''Roe'' being overturned,<ref name="ANSIRH 2021"/><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ansirh.org/research/ongoing/health-and-economic-consequences-end-roe|title=Health and Economic Consequences of the End of Roe|website=ANSIRH|publisher=University of California, San Francisco|date=May 3, 2022|access-date=May 7, 2022}}</ref> which other scholars also analyzed.<ref name="Georgian 2022"/> According to a 2019 study, were ''Roe'' reversed and [[abortion bans]] implemented in states with [[trigger law]]s, including states considered highly likely to ban abortion, "increases in travel distance are estimated to prevent 93,546 to 143,561 women from accessing abortion care."<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Myers|first1=Caitlin|last2=Jones|first2=Rachel|last3=Upadhyay|first3=Ushma|date=July 31, 2019|title=Predicted changes in abortion access and incidence in a post-Roe world|journal=Contraception|volume=100|issue=5|pages=367–373|doi=10.1016/j.contraception.2019.07.139|pmid=31376381|issn=0010-7824|doi-access=free}}</ref>

For the ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'' case,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61302740|title=Roe v. Wade: US Supreme Court may overturn abortion rights, leak suggests|publisher=BBC|date=May 3, 2022|access-date=May 10, 2022}}</ref> which confirmed the May 2022 leaks obtained by ''[[Politico]]'' and overruled ''Roe'' and ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'' in June 2022,<ref>{{cite news|last=Priussman|first=Todd|date=May 3, 2022|url=https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/05/03/chief-justice-john-roberts-confirms-draft-of-ruling-to-overturn-roe/|title=Chief Justice John Roberts confirms draft of ruling to overturn Roe|newspaper=Boston Herald|access-date=May 10, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Thomson-Deveaux|first=Amelia|date=June 24, 2022|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-courts-argument-for-overturning-roe-v-wade/|title=The Supreme Court's Argument For Overturning Roe v. Wade|website=FiveThirtyEight|access-date=June 30, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Thomson-Deveaux|first=Amelia|date=June 24, 2022|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/roe-v-wade-defined-an-era-the-supreme-court-just-started-a-new-one/|title=Roe v. Wade Defined An Era. The Supreme Court Just Started A New One.|website=FiveThirtyEight|access-date=June 30, 2022}}</ref> among the over 130 ''[[amici curiae]]'' briefs, hundreds of scientists provided evidence, data, and studies, in particular the Turnaway Study, in favor of abortion rights and to rebuke arguments made to the Court that abortion "has no beneficial effect on women's lives and careers—and might even cause them harm".<ref>{{cite journal|last=Maxmen|first=Amy|date=October 26, 2021|title=Why hundreds of scientists are weighing in on a high-stakes US abortion case|journal=Nature|volume=599|issue=7884|pages=187–189|doi=10.1038/d41586-021-02834-7|pmid=34703018|bibcode=2021Natur.599..187M|s2cid=240000294|doi-access=free}}</ref> The [[American Historical Association]] (AHA) and the [[Organization of American Historians]] (OAH) were among those who signed an ''amici curiae'' brief for ''Dobbs'',<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.historians.org/news-and-advocacy/aha-signs-amicus-curiae-brief-in-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-(september-2021)|title=AHA Signs Amicus Curiae Brief in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (September 2021)|publisher=American Historical Association|date=September 2021|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref> and were cited, among others,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.historians.org/news-and-advocacy/amicus-curiae-brief-and-aha-oah-statement-on-dobbs-decision-featured-in-news-outlets-(july-2022)|title=Amicus Curiae Brief and AHA-OAH Statement on Dobbs Decision Featured in News Outlets (July 2022)|publisher=American Historical Association|date=July 2022|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref> by ''[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]]'',<ref name="Root 2022">{{cite news|last=Root|first=Damon|date=June 23, 2022|url=https://reason.com/2022/06/23/unenumerated-rights-and-roe-v-wade/|title=Alito's Leaked Abortion Opinion Misunderstands Unenumerated Rights|work=Reason|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref> ''Syracuse University News'',<ref name="Syracuse University News 2022">{{cite web|url=https://news.syr.edu/blog/2022/07/13/maxwell-faculty-experts-discuss-future-implications-and-historical-context-of-dobbs-v-jackson-ruling/|title=Maxwell Faculty Experts Discuss Future Implications and Historical Context of Dobbs v. Jackson Ruling|website=Syracuse University News|date=July 13, 2022|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref> and ''[[The Washington Post]]''.<ref name="Cohen 2022"/> AHA and OAH jointly issued a statement against the Supreme Court's decision, which was reported by ''[[Anchorage Daily News]]'',<ref>{{cite news|last=Haycox|first=Steven|date=July 15, 2022|url=https://www.adn.com/opinions/2022/07/15/opinion-what-we-lose-when-we-ignore-historical-context/|title=What we lose when we ignore historical context|work=Anchorage Daily News|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref> ''[[Inside Higher Ed]]'',<ref>{{cite news|last=Jashcik|first=Scott|date=July 12, 2022|url=https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2022/07/12/history-groups-issue-statement-criticizing-abortion-ruling|title=History Groups Issue Statement Criticizing Abortion Ruling|work=Inside Higher Ed|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref> ''Insight Into Diversity'',<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.insightintodiversity.com/history-organizations-lambaste-supreme-court-over-dobbs-decision/|title=History Organizations Lambaste Supreme Court Over Dobbs Decision|magazine=Insight Into Diversity|date=July 12, 2022|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref> and the ''Strict Scrutiny'' podcast from [[Crooked Media]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://crooked.com/podcast/break-glass-in-case-of-emergency/|title=Break Glass in Case of Emergency|publisher=Crooked Media|date=July 11, 2022|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref> saying they have "declined to take seriously the historical claims of our [amicus curiae] brief". Joined by at least 30 other academic and scholarly institutions, they condemned "the court's misinterpretation about the history of legalized abortion" and said it has "the potential to exacerbate historic injustices and deepen inequalities in our country".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.historians.org/news-and-advocacy/aha-advocacy/history-the-supreme-court-and-dobbs-v-jackson-joint-statement-from-the-aha-and-the-oah-(july-2022)|title=History, the Supreme Court, and Dobbs v. Jackson: Joint Statement from the AHA and the OAH (July 2022)|publisher=American Historical Association|date=July 2022|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref>