In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, some researchers have sought to connect abortion restrictions with increased child maltreatment and, ultimately, more children entering foster care. We believe this work is well-intentioned, but oversimplifies a complex issue in a way that could further stigmatize parents and children.
First, in some states, new abortion restrictions and outright bans have forced clinics to stop performing all or most abortions. Yet, many pregnant people who want to terminate their pregnancies are still finding ways to do so, often at great financial and emotional cost. Pregnant people can travel out of state, or manage their abortion at home through telemedicine (i.e., pills sent by a doctor in another state) or through mail-ordered pills (outside of the formal health care system). A 2023 analysis estimated that only 20 to 25% of pregnant people in states with bans who sought an abortion in the first half of 2023 were unable to obtain one.
While the consequences for these individuals were substantial, they represent a minority of those who sought abortion care. It is highly unlikely that denying abortion care to this relatively small group of people would produce a noticeable uptick in child maltreatment or foster care entries — both of which are driven by a wide array of factors — at least in the short term.
Second, most researchers studying the link between abortion restrictions and child maltreatment or foster care entries use national child welfare datasets. These sources have known limitations related to missing data and variability in data state by state; for example, child maltreatment is not defined or reported uniformly across states.
Additionally, when it comes to foster care entries, recent changes in state child welfare policies wholly unrelated to abortion have contributed to fluctuations. Texas is a good example. The state enacted one of the country’s most restrictive abortion laws in 2021. If abortion bans were directly causing an increase in foster care entries, we would expect to see a sharp rise in children entering foster care after these restrictions took effect.
Instead, Texas saw a 40% decrease in foster care entries. This reduction is largely the result of new child welfare policies, particularly House Bill 567, which raised the threshold for removing a child due to neglect.
Other states have also recently implemented child welfare policy changes — such as the expansion of family support programs or the initiation of alternative response to child maltreatment reports — that can affect child welfare outcomes. Studies of the relationship between abortion bans and foster care entries that fail to take these policy changes into account may lead to inaccurate or invalid conclusions.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, making this connection between abortion restrictions and foster care entries rests on the assumption that children who are born because their parents were denied an abortion are more likely to be maltreated and thus potentially enter foster care. This is not supported by any evidence and may further stigmatize parents and children.
We do acknowledge that a link between abortion restrictions and an increase in child maltreatment is possible, although the connection would be indirect. The Turnaway Study — which followed a thousand women from across America, some of whom received abortions and some of whom were turned away — found that people who are denied an abortion are more likely to experience poverty, to be raising their child alone, to remain connected to a violent partner, and to suffer from poor mental health compared to those who obtain an abortion. These also are well-known risk factors for child neglect.
Indeed, poverty and child neglect are deeply intertwined. Most states’ definitions of neglect exclude situations where a parent is unable to meet a child’s needs due to financial hardship. But in reality, the challenges associated with poverty — such as inadequate housing, an inability to afford child care and food insecurity — are often misconstrued as evidence of neglect and put families on the radar of child protective services.
Thus, if abortion access is highly restricted or even eliminated, child maltreatment and foster care entries could increase, not because children are being harmed by parents who would otherwise have terminated a pregnancy, but rather, because families experience increasing poverty and are under increased surveillance.
But to preemptively suggest a straight line exists between abortion restrictions and rising child maltreatment or foster care entry rates is an oversimplification. And it risks promoting harmful narratives about parents who were forced to give birth and the children they were not planning to bear.
The effects of limiting reproductive autonomy are real and profound. Abortion restrictions and outright bans disproportionately impact marginalized communities — people of color, those living in poverty and those with limited access to health care services. These restrictions exacerbate existing inequities, leaving people with fewer options and compounding the challenges they already face.
As researchers and advocates, we must take care not to reinforce stereotypes or stigmatize parents and children. Abortion restrictions undoubtedly harm families, but the relationship between those restrictions and child maltreatment is much more complex than it might seem at first glance. We urge those studying this relationship to be cautious in their analytic approach, to acknowledge the limitations of the data they use, and consider policy changes or other systemic factors that can drive maltreatment rates and foster care entries.
The authors of this op-ed also published “Cautions About Research Linking Abortion Restrictions to Child Maltreatment” for the Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal.
