5
#000000
#FFFFFF
healthcare
Abortion Bans Not Only Harm Patients, But Cost US Economy $140 Billion: Analysis
States that deny people's bodily autonomy limit "their ability to pursue the education and career options that are right for them, and to build financial stability," said the Institute for Women's Policy Research president.
Jun 16, 2026
Reproductive rights advocates and experts have long highlighted the dangers of abortion bans to people's health, but amid a wave of new state-level restrictions in the wake of Roe v. Wade's reversal, some have also recently emphasized the economic impact, as detailed in an analysis published Tuesday by the Institute for Women's Policy Research.
"IWPR's latest estimates show that states with the most restrictive abortion policies could cost the national economy nearly $68 billion annually in lost earnings, up from $64 billion in last year's estimate," according to the analysis. "Historically, legal abortion access has increased women's labor force participation and earnings. IWPR's analyses suggest that abortion restrictions continue to erode those gains nationwide, reducing women's labor force participation and earnings potential while weakening state and national economies in the process."
"Those losses—amounting to billions of dollars—could otherwise support what families actually need: affordable healthcare, caregiving, higher wages, business growth, and new jobs that strengthen local communities and state economies," the report notes. "This $68 billion estimate reflects only the impact of the most severe restrictions, including total bans and six-week gestational bans, that were in effect in 16 states in 2025."
The publication points out that "many other states may not have banned abortion outright, but still impose barriers that make abortion care harder to access, like waiting periods, mandated counseling, or targeted regulations on abortion providers that delay or deny care altogether. When accounting for all state-level restrictions on abortion access, combined with the federal funding prohibitions and the absence of federal protections, the annual average economic cost now exceeds $140 billion nationwide."
The overall figure is nearly $7 billion more than IWPR's estimate from last year. Putting that figure into context, the report explains that $7 billion "could fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for about 1 million American families with children for an entire year. This is a striking figure considering the so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill's' cuts to the program, which are projected to reduce or eliminate benefits for many low-income households."
Removing barriers to reproductive care on a national scale "could mean nearly 325,000 more women participating in the labor force each year, with the largest increases concentrated in states with some of the most restrictive abortion policies," IWPR estimated. For example, in Alabama, Kentucky, and Louisiana, their labor force participation could be over 1.3% higher, while in Mississippi, it could be up 1.5%.
If more women joined the workforce thanks to policies allowing reproductive freedom, IWPR projected that "national gross domestic product (GDP) could rise by 0.5%, and the economic gains would be largest in states such as Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, and West Virginia, which rank poorly on both abortion protections and per capita GDP. These states could potentially see their GDP grow by nearly 1% annually."
Like previous analyses, the publication also acknowledges that "Black and Latina women are more likely to experience the consequences of restrictive abortion policies and confront additional economic and structural barriers to accessing care that their White counterparts do not—even as abortion restrictions harm all women and the economy more broadly."
IWPR president and CEO Jamila K. Taylor stressed in a Tuesday statement that "this is fundamentally about human rights and economic justice."
"We know that legal access to abortion care increases women's autonomy to be able to participate in the labor force, which supports the stability of our entire economy," Taylor said. "When states deny people their bodily autonomy, they're also limiting their ability to pursue the education and career options that are right for them and to build financial stability for their family and community. Abortion restrictions don't just harm those who may become pregnant—they harm everyone."
President Donald Trump delivered mixed messages during the last campaign cycle: bragging about being the one to appoint the justices who helped reverse Roe with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, but also suggesting that he wasn't in favor of a nationwide ban on abortion and that the issue doesn't really matter to Americans.
Since returning to the White House, the Republican and his allies in Congress have taken steps to reduce access to reproductive healthcare, and although the right-wing Supreme Court last month declined to restrict access to mifepristone, at least for now, Trump's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently reviewing the medication, which is commonly used in abortion and miscarriage care.
Reproductive rights advocates have sounded the alarm over the FDA review. In response to reporting on it earlier this month, Planned Parenthood CEO Alexis McGill Johnson called it "a politically motivated farce."
"Mifepristone is safe and effective. We know it, the FDA knows it, and the more than 7.5 million people who've used mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage care over the past 25 years know it too," Johnson said. "But the Trump administration is bulldozing the overwhelming body of medical research and evidence to try to make it harder for everyone, everywhere to get an abortion. It's time for every American to take this threat seriously."
Keep Reading
Show Less
In Senate Race, Michigan's El-Sayed Hammers Message on Medicare for All
The former public health official has centered the government-run healthcare proposal in his campaign.
Jun 16, 2026
In his first TV ad of the US Senate primary race in Michigan on Tuesday, former Detroit health official Abdul El-Sayed emphasized his top three priorities as he vies to represent working people across the state.
"This campaign will take on the powerful with three simple ideas," he said in the ad. "Money out of politics, money in your pocket, and Medicare for All."
The ad, featuring longtime Medicare for All advocate and early El-Sayed supporter Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), marked only the latest time the candidate placed front and center the proposal to improve and expand the existing Medicare program to the entire US population, providing a government-run healthcare system that resembles those in other wealthy countries.
Today, we're going up on TV with our new ad, "Chorus."
This movement is powered by Michiganders and pro-worker champions. And our momentum is undeniable.
Michigan, we're going to get money out of politics, put money in pockets, and pass Medicare for All.
WATCH: pic.twitter.com/SM9eGH3Pm1
— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) June 16, 2026
El-Sayed made the case for the program—supported by more than 100 members of the Democratic caucus in Congress as well as 78% of Democratic voters—in a video he posted on social media Monday, asking Michigan voters to imagine being diagnosed with cancer—only to realize they'll have to drive three hours to get the nearest cancer center, like many residents who don't live near one of Michigan's two nationally designated, comprehensive cancer treatment facilities.
"That's the reality for too many people who live in rural communities across our state," said El-Sayed, who wrote a book called Medicare for All: A Citizen's Guide in 2021. "Distance becomes an access issue, above and beyond all of the challenges with health insurance... And to make matters worse, with Medicaid cuts and [Affordable Care Act] cuts, all the reimbursements that should go into keeping those hospitals and clinics open, well, they're dwindling away."
Medicare for All, he said, would be "a lifeline" for people who are "traveling way too long to get the care they need."
A single-payer healthcare system that expanded the existing program, he said, would mean that everyone "reimburses at the same level, meaning it doesn't matter who you are, when you walk into a healthcare center, you're going to bring the full freight of Medicare payments to that hospital. It means that those hospitals that otherwise would have shut down get to stay open."
Imagine you’re diagnosed with cancer. And then you find out the cancer center is 3 hours away. And it’s the middle of winter.
Distance quickly becomes an access issue.
The solution? Medicare for All. pic.twitter.com/9MiJz5aKXh
— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) June 15, 2026
El-Sayed also shared an exchange he had at a campaign event with a woman who said she had lost her daughter to cancer and had lost her income due to her need to become her child's full-time caregiver because in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, she had limited access to cancer care.
"Part of the reason that communities like this don't have healthcare is because you guys have two twin challenges," said El-Sayed. "One is the brokenness of our multiclass healthcare system. And one of them is distance."
"A lot of people ask me, 'Why are you so passionate about Medicare for All?'" he said. "Well part of it is, I want people to have healthcare when they need it. But part of is also for you, healthcare access isn't just health insurance. It's having a place to get the healthcare when you need it."
This is one of hundreds of stories I’ve heard from Michiganders about what can happen when someone simply gets sick in a country where healthcare is not guaranteed.
Pass Medicare for All. pic.twitter.com/g63BiKRVHT
— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) June 12, 2026
El-Sayed is one of several progressive candidates pushing to bring Medicare for All to the center of US politics, six years after Sanders debated Democrats including former Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Joe Biden on the proposal on debate stages during the 2020 election.
At the time, Biden, who ultimately won the nomination and the presidency, dismissed Medicare for All as "unrealistic" and too expensive—despite studies that have shown it would save an estimated $650 billion per year. One organizer told Common Dreams in 2024 that during the Biden administration, the movement for Medicare for All became "quiet."
As Common Dreams reported last week, more than 325 organizations signed an open letter arguing that—as working families across the US struggle to keep up with rising costs of housing, groceries, gas, and other essentials while also facing the Republican Party's cuts to Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies and Medicaid—right now "is the time to organize" for Medicare for All.
The ACA was passed more than 16 years ago, and many Democratic candidates continue to run on promises to "protect" the program from Republican attacks.
But the GOP's efforts to gut the program have contributed to an ongoing healthcare crisis, with premiums, the uninsured rate, and the number of people relying on high-deductible "catastrophic" insurance rising this year.
In Michigan last week, the director of the United Auto Workers Region 1A in southeast Michigan told The Detroit News that El-Sayed's stance on healthcare helped him emerge as "the clear winner" as the influential union was weighing whom it would endorse in the three-way Democratic primary race.
El-Sayed is facing state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-8)—who recently claimed that public support "isn't there yet" for a government-run healthcare program—and US Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), who has expressed support for a "public option" but has not introduced legislation for such a system. El-Sayed noted at a recent debate that both of his opponents have taken donations from the for-profit health insurance industry.
At town halls, on his "We Can Do Better" listening tour, and on his social media accounts, El-Sayed has centered the demand for Medicare for All, denouncing opponents of the proposal who have claimed it would be unaffordable for the US—despite the fact that Republicans in Congress last week advanced a proposed Pentagon budget that exceeds $1 trillion.
"It's a funny thing, nobody ever asks the general who's drawing up war plans in Iran, 'General, how are you gonna pay for that?'" said El-Sayed at a recent event. "I happen to believe that rather than sending our money over there, or fighting foreign wars over there... I would rather end this dumb-ass war in Iran, abolish [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], and spend our money on healthcare here at home."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Court Blocks 'Illegal' Trump Rule That Created Barriers to Affordable Care Act Coverage
With eligibility verification and fees, the rule was projected to force 2 million people to drop their insurance, said cities and advocacy groups that sued the administration.
Jun 12, 2026
Officials in several cities joined advocacy groups in celebrating a federal court ruling Friday that blocked the Trump administration's rule which, they argued in a lawsuit, illegally imposed new fees and created barriers "that would make it harder—and in some cases impossible—for people to get and keep affordable health insurance."
The cities of Columbus, Ohio; Baltimore; and Chicago were among the plaintiffs in a case filed last week in the US District Court of Maryland against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and other Trump officials, arguing that the so-called "Marketplace Integrity and Affordability" rule would destabilize the insurance market and penalize vulnerable families, "rather than promoting affordability."
The rule was introduced in May, months after Affordable Care Act subsidies that had made ACA insurance premiums more affordable for millions of people were allowed to expire by Republicans in Congress. More than 1 million fewer Americans signed up for coverage in ACA exchanges after the tax credits expired, and the Trump administration claimed that the new rule's provision of more "catastrophic" insurance plans would give more "choice" to people who couldn't afford plans that cover more healthcare needs.
The rule also required additional verification for low-income households before they enroll in ACA plans, with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz claiming the new requirement "strengthens eligibility checks, cracks down on abuse, and gives insurers more flexibility to offer affordable, consumer-focused coverage options."
“Cloaked in the pretense of government efficiency and fraud prevention, the 2026 rule creates numerous barriers to affordable insurance coverage."
The verification requirements and new fees could cause as many as 2 million people to drop their coverage, said Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs, as well as raising annual costs by about $700 for families.
“Cloaked in the pretense of government efficiency and fraud prevention, the 2026 rule creates numerous barriers to affordable insurance coverage, negating the ACA’s goal of extending affordable health coverage to all Americans, and instead increasing the population of underinsured and uninsured Americans,” the plaintiffs said in the lawsuit.
In the ruling on Friday, US District Judge Brendan Hurson vacated several provisions of the rule, including ones that revoked guaranteed insurance coverage for people with past-due premiums; required eligibility verification for the special ACA enrollment period; and imposed a $5 premium penalty on people who automatically reenrolled in their plans.
Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said the rule's provisions were among "the Trump-Vance administration’s illegal attempts to undermine the Affordable Care Act."
“This ruling is a significant win for millions of Americans, including thousands in Ohio, who would have been denied coverage or seen their out-of-pocket costs skyrocket due to this president and his administration," said Klein. "We will continue to fight to protect healthcare coverage for all Americans whenever it’s threatened.”
Richard Trent, executive director of Main Street Alliance, a small business advocacy group that also joined the lawsuit, said that "the Trump-Vance administration’s unlawful attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act would have increased costs, created unnecessary barriers to coverage, and made it harder for entrepreneurs and workers to get the care they need."
"Small business owners cannot grow their businesses when healthcare becomes more expensive and less accessible," said Trent. "We are grateful that the court has protected these critical safeguards and reaffirmed that affordable healthcare remains essential to a strong economy and thriving Main Streets across the country."
Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott also applauded the ruling, but emphasized that healthcare advocates' "work is not over."
As Common Dreams reported Friday, tied up in the Trump administration's push for more Americans to use high-deductible catastrophic insurance—which is likely to present families with high out-of-pocket costs—is a plan to push households into more medical debt by allowing them to take out loans directly from their health insurance companies.
“We will continue to fight back against any attempts by this administration to slash protections under the ACA," said Scott, "and will not stop fighting until every person in this nation has access to the affordable, quality healthcare they deserve.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular