Recently, the Commonwealth Fund released a comprehensive state scorecard on women’s health and reproductive care, generating significant media coverage from outlets such as ABC News, NBC News, CNN, the Dallas Morning News, and Bloomberg.com.
The scorecard, which evaluates various public-health metrics including maternal-mortality rates, breast- and cervical-cancer deaths, and rates of postpartum depression, highlighted stark disparities among states. Northeastern states generally received higher rankings, while many Southern states lagged behind.
However, amidst this coverage, assertions have surfaced suggesting that the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Roe v. Wade has exacerbated public-health outcomes negatively. Bloomberg, for instance, asserted in a headline that states with abortion restrictions experience higher maternal deaths.
But a closer examination reveals flaws in this narrative. Firstly, the data utilized in the Commonwealth Fund scorecard largely predates the implementation of many state-level pro-life laws following the Dobbs decision in June 2022. This undermines claims that recent pro-life policies are responsible for current public-health challenges.
Secondly, the scorecard itself does not establish a causal link between pro-life laws and worsened public-health outcomes. Rather, it highlights correlations where states with stringent pro-life legislation also exhibit higher poverty rates, a well-known factor influencing public-health indicators negatively.
Contrary to these claims, broader CDC data indicate a significant reduction of over 16 percent in maternal deaths between 2022 and 2023 in the United States. Additionally, international examples like Chile and Poland demonstrate that countries with robust pro-life laws can achieve positive public-health outcomes, such as declining maternal-mortality rates.
Despite these observations, positive health outcomes associated with pro-life policies often receive limited attention from mainstream media outlets. This discrepancy underscores the complexity of factors influencing public health and highlights the need for a nuanced approach in discussing the impacts of legislative decisions on women’s health.
In essence, while the debate continues, the data and historical examples suggest a more intricate relationship between pro-life laws and public-health outcomes than often portrayed in mainstream coverage.
