As the third anniversary of the overturning of Roe. v Wade approached last week, the implications of the 6-3 decision have yet to come to full fruition. However, the impacts of the ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization are being felt by millions of Americans across the country.

Historical Context

In Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy implied in the 14th Amendment protected abortion as a fundamental right. For the next 50 years, the interpretation of this amendment granted women access to the medical procedure and notably, allowed for a “better chance” to combat the mortality rates from home abortions. 

In a study from 2015-2018, Tulane University found that “states with a higher score of abortion policy composite index had a 7% increase in total maternal mortality compared with states with lower abortion policy composite index.” The study went on to make the claim that states that required abortions to be performed by a licensed physician experienced a 51% increase in overall maternal mortality and a 35% increase in maternal deaths during pregnancy or within 42 days postpartum. Additionally, restrictions on state Medicaid funding for abortion were linked to a 29% rise in total maternal mortality.

However, the government retained the power to regulate or restrict abortion access depending on the stage of pregnancy. And after fetal viability, outright bans on abortion were permitted if they contained exceptions to preserve life and health. But those exceptions were soon questioned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. 

Constitutional Right or Not?

Dobbs is arguably the first Supreme Court decision to revoke a previously recognized fundamental constitutional right officially. As seen in the last three years, abortion rights are now defined on a state-by-state basis and up to the interpretation of each legislative body. 

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, anti-abortion advocates have advanced state constitutional amendments declaring that nothing in the state constitution guarantees the right to abortion. Some of these efforts aim to overturn prior state court rulings that interpreted constitutional protections for abortion rights. In other cases, such amendments are preemptive, introduced in states where courts have not yet ruled on the issue. Conversely, several states have taken steps to safeguard or expand abortion access, including through constitutional amendments that explicitly enshrine those rights.

As of June 2025, 13 states have banned abortion outright, forcing people to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to access abortion care or to carry pregnancies against their will. But now, even in the states where abortion has been protected, centers and clinics are unable to meet the growing need for the procedures and are closing. 

The Overturn That Shook A Nation

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, I Need An A, which operates a website dedicated to providing information about abortion options, has tallied 105 clinics closing. 29 closures came in states where abortion is now banned at all stages of pregnancy. 11 were in states where it’s banned at about six weeks’ gestation, before many women realize they’re pregnant. But 65 of the closures were in other states.

A key factor to note in all of this is that not all private insurance plans include coverage for abortion services. While federal funds are prohibited from being used for abortions, some states use their own Medicaid funds to cover the procedure. Additionally, a network of private organizations helps fund abortions, including costs related to travel and other expenses.

First reported by AP News last year, in response to rising demand, the National Abortion Federation’s hotline fund reduced the share of clinic costs it covers for patients with financial needs, from 50% to 30%, to assist a greater number of people. The organization reports that average travel expenses now exceed $1,000 per person.

Just as Roe set off years of legal uncertainty over the precise boundaries of abortion rights, Dobbs has launched a long period of uncertainty over states’ power to restrict abortion in the absence of those rights. And now even in the states where abortion was thought to be a guaranteed right, the provided medical care might not be able to ensure that for much longer. 

However, on the opposite side of the aisle, many pro-life advocates are championing this ruling as a victory for the “unborn child” or “fetus” (New York Times journalist Kate Zernike debates the semantics of such terminology). 

A Victory for the Pro-Life Movement With Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) overturned, the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional framework that guaranteed abortion rights at the federal level. As established, abortion policy now falls to individual states, increasing the influence of pro‑life legislators and advocacy groups in shaping local laws. 

Under Republican presidents, especially President Trump, conservatives appointed Supreme Court justices like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. This aligned with the pro-life movement’s alleged main goal: securing a majority primed to rule against Roe. 

Now with that goal achieved, Planned Parenthood funding is to be cut substantially under the “Big, Beautiful Bill” based on the language. While not directly stating the organization's name, Nathaniel Weixel of The Hill makes the connection.

“The bill’s language doesn’t specifically mention Planned Parenthood; it prohibits clinics and providers that offer abortions from accepting Medicaid for the other family planning and reproductive health care services they provide.” 

As abortion care begins to be inaccessible in the United States for certain social classes, it will become something to observe in the coming months as the current administration makes its moves in all facets of American life.