Abortion is healthcare—essential, life-saving, and fundamental to bodily autonomy. However, access to this critical service has become increasingly uncertain in the United States. Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, state-level restrictions have created a patchwork of access, leaving many without options. While the immediate effects are felt domestically, the ramifications extend far beyond US borders, influencing global attitudes toward reproductive rights.
The global ripple effect of US abortion restrictions
Historically, the United States has positioned itself as a global leader in democracy and human rights, often shaping international norms through its legal and political frameworks. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, over 40 countries have adopted laws permitting abortion under most circumstances, reflecting the influence of US-based rights frameworks. One direct example of Roe’s international reach can be found in South Africa, where the High Court of Pretoria referenced Roe v. Wade in a 1998 ruling on the constitutional status of a fetus. The court cited Roe’s conclusion that a fetus is not a “person” under the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, reinforcing its own legal stance on abortion rights.
Given this, the Dobbs decision will likely catalyze a regressive trend, reversing progress in vulnerable regions. The ruling has already been cited by anti-abortion groups as justification for rolling back reproductive rights in multiple countries. In Kenya, opposition groups referenced Dobbs to contest a High Court ruling that had affirmed abortion as a constitutional right, leading to a temporary stay of the ruling’s implementation. In Nigeria, anti-choice actors leveraged Dobbs to argue against the Safe Termination of Pregnancy for Legal Indications Guidelines in Lagos State, resulting in the suspension of these guidelines shortly after their introduction. Amnesty International warns that such restrictive U.S. policies may embolden other nations to adopt comparable measures, undermining international advocacy for reproductive rights.
International human rights frameworks, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), emphasize the importance of eliminating discrimination against women in all areas of life, including their right to access healthcare. Article 16 of CEDAW highlights the right of women to decide on the number and spacing of their children and to access the information and means to make those decisions. Restricting access to abortion directly contravenes these rights, limiting women’s autonomy and their ability to make crucial decisions about their bodies and lives.
As a signatory to CEDAW, the United States’ failure to uphold these principles not only undermines its international commitments but also weakens its credibility in global human rights advocacy. The UN CEDAW Committee has expressed concern over the impact of the Dobbs decision, emphasizing that it disproportionately affects marginalized communities and contradicts established international human rights standards. The U.S. regression on abortion rights places it among the few countries, including Poland, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, that have rolled back legal abortion protections in recent decades, in stark contrast to the global trend of liberalization. The shift in U.S. policy also boosts anti-abortion movements worldwide, making it more difficult for human rights defenders in other nations to advocate for expanded access to safe and legal abortion.
Domestic disparities, international implications
Within the United States, there are stark disparities in abortion access between states. In some states, like California and New York, abortion remains accessible. Recent laws severely limit access in others, such as Texas and Georgia. Georgia’s recent attempt to ban abortions after six weeks met resistance in the courts. In striking down the law, Judge Robert McBurney powerfully stated, “Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy, even taking into consideration whatever bundle of rights the not-yet viable fetus may have.” This assertion underscores the fundamental nature of these rights and challenges the idea that reproductive freedoms can be subject to regional whims. However, one week later, the Supreme Court of Georgia reinstated the six-week ban, once again preventing Georgians from making decisions about their health and obtaining potentially life-saving care.
The KFF Health Tracking Poll reveals that a majority of women view access to abortion as a critical aspect of their rights and healthcare, with many expressing concern over the increasing difficulties of obtaining care post-Dobbs. This patchwork system places a particular strain on those who cannot afford to travel across state lines or navigate complex legal landscapes, further compounding the injustice.
The inconsistency in access reflects a broader violation of rights to privacy and liberty, as enshrined in past US legal precedents like Roe v. Wade. State borders should not confine these rights, yet the current legal environment forces women to bear the brunt of political decisions over their bodies. The message this sends internationally is troubling: even in a democracy, fundamental rights can be selectively granted or withheld based on geography.
Real lives at stake: The human cost of restriction
The consequences of these policies are not just political—they are deeply personal and often devastating. Stories like that of Amber Thurman, who died in Georgia after being denied timely medical intervention for a miscarriage, illustrate the dire outcomes of restrictive laws.
Amber’s case is just one among many where delayed care led to preventable tragedies. In an ABC News report, women shared stories of being denied urgent care during pregnancy complications due to fear of legal repercussions among healthcare providers.
Additionally, the Center for Reproductive Rights’ global analysis shows that restrictive abortion laws in the United States align with some of the most conservative policies worldwide, placing the country alongside those with severe limitations on reproductive autonomy.
These stories and data illustrate the urgent need for a consistent approach to reproductive healthcare, one that prioritizes patient safety and respects the right to bodily autonomy. When access to abortion is restricted, it is not just rights that are at stake—it is the very lives and well-being of those who are denied care. This reality should prompt a reevaluation of the policies that have allowed such preventable suffering to occur.
A call for leadership: Restoring the US role in human rights
Access to abortion is a fundamental human right recognized by international human rights frameworks such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the World Health Organization (WHO), which emphasize that safe and legal abortion is essential to healthcare and gender equality. Studies show that countries with legal and accessible abortion have lower maternal mortality rates, while restrictive laws correlate with higher rates of unsafe abortions and preventable deaths. However, the United States, once considered a leader in advancing reproductive rights, has seen several states enact restrictive abortion laws, leaving many Americans with fewer reproductive rights than those in countries under authoritarian regimes, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.
To reinforce its commitment to international human rights standards, the United States must address the disparities in abortion access nationwide. A federal policy ensuring consistent access would align the U.S. with global health and human rights frameworks. Without these protections, the U.S. risks diverging further from countries that have strengthened reproductive rights recently, including Ireland, Argentina, and Mexico.
A nationwide legal framework would also reaffirm the U.S. role in shaping global norms. Historically, American policies on reproductive rights have had far-reaching consequences, influencing both access to care and legislative debates worldwide. Without such protections, the U.S. risks reinforcing regressive trends rather than leading global advancements in reproductive healthcare.
By ensuring abortion access across all states, the U.S. would demonstrate a renewed commitment to human rights and gender equality, positioning itself alongside global leaders in reproductive freedom.