Editor’s note: Abortion remains legal in Utah up to 18 weeks, with some exceptions after that limit.
In the coming years, we are likely taking some of the most significant steps backward for women, their well-being and their access to health care. It is critical that state governments that seek to limit access to reproductive health care — like Utah — begin to anticipate how their public policy impacts women’s well-being and state budgets.
Social scientists like myself have long argued that restricting women’s reproductive health care not only has consequences for women’s physical health but also has critical implications for their mental health. In the upcoming legislative session, Utah legislators need to thoroughly consider the negative impact that restrictive reproductive health care policies have on women’s mental health or endure the consequences of a massive uptick in the need for mental health services.
The latest science shows that, throughout human history, strong social networks are the foundation of a sense of safety, security and mental well-being. Social connectedness and social support have always been one of the primary determinants of survival, the means for reproduction and caregiving for humans. Our brains are biologically wired to constantly scan for potential threats to our close relationships. For people who live in unsafe environments, their brains do this mental scanning on overdrive — or what researchers characterize as “hypervigilance.” While chronic hypervigilance is critical for maintaining safety in harsh environments, it can also be harmful to mental health because it depletes mental resources, which can lead to mental health problems like anxiety or depression.
Many women seek out reproductive health care services to maintain existing emotional, physical or financial support from their social networks. For example, a woman may choose to take emergency contraception if her family would disapprove of her becoming pregnant. On the other hand, a woman may seek out services to protect herself from unsafe social environments. For example, a woman may choose to end her pregnancy if becoming pregnant may put her at risk of domestic violence from her partner.
Legislating women’s reproductive health care is often either reducing or eliminating a woman’s ability to maintain mental or physical safety in a social context.
We also know that public policy conveys social norms and expectations; shows how our state values specific populations; and highlights the stigma people have against others. When legislators restrict access to reproductive health care, they are socially communicating that women are unable to make their own health care decisions, that women should feel shame when accessing reproductive health care and that women who do access care should not be socially supported by those who are close to her.
In other words: When women are constantly monitored, stigmatized, scrutinized and, in some cases, criminally charged for how they choose to care for their reproductive health, legislators inherently create a social environment for women that tells their brain that they are unsafe — all of which increases their risk for mental health challenges.
Even for women who live in states with protected access to reproductive health care or who can’t become pregnant, the symbolic nature of restrictive laws may have consequences for their mental health. Some researchers have already observed a direct increase in depressive and anxiety symptoms in women — particularly those of reproductive age — across the U.S. following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Other researchers have also found that women in states with limited access to reproductive health care had more symptoms of mental health problems than women in non-restrictive states. For a state like Utah, where mental health care resources are already overburdened, a sharp uptick in the need for mental health care could be catastrophic for providers and costly to the state.
Dozens of states across the U.S. — including Utah — have and will likely continue to restrict access to reproductive health care services. Multiple states have gone beyond limiting access to abortion services, and it is possible that other states — like Utah — will follow suit this upcoming legislative session. For example, Oklahoma introduced bills to restrict access to emergency contraception. Idaho passed abortion criminalization, meaning women can face felony charges for having an abortion. Idaho also passed abortion trafficking laws, meaning residents can face felony charges for transporting or harboring minors seeking out abortion services.
While investigation for how these specific pieces of legislation will impact women is ongoing, the existing data is clear: Women’s mental health and well-being suffer when we restrict their access to health care.
As we approach the legislative session in January, it is critical to understand the nature in which legislating women’s health care will have consequences for women’s health and wellbeing. I urge Utah legislators to look to the evidence within social science when making any decisions about women’s access to reproductive health care this upcoming legislative session.
When the evidence is clear, public policy should follow suit. It is time for Utah legislators to start making public policy that is informed by data and not by their personal code of conduct.
(Katie E. Wyant-Stein) Katie E. Wyant-Stein is a fifth year PhD candidate in developmental psychology at the University of Utah.
Katie E. Wyant-Stein is a fifth year PhD candidate in developmental psychology at the University of Utah. Her graduate training has focused on the impact that public policy has on children and families with an emphasis on the effects of reproductive health care policy on women’s mental health.
The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.
