New Policies Affecting Access to Reproductive Health Care

Mar. 19, 2025

Background

A recent executive order “Enforcing the Hyde Amendment” could impact key federal protections for reproductive health care. Two executive orders from the previous presidential administration that had established a coordinated federal response to protect reproductive health access and instructed the Department of Health and Human Services to consider additional safeguards were also revoked. For decades, the Hyde Amendment has long been a political football from administration to administration. 

The new executive order would dismantle the Interagency Task Force on Reproductive Healthcare Access, halt efforts by federal agencies to protect patient privacy, and prevent enforcement of anti-discrimination protections related to emergency reproductive care and prescription medications. The order would also block federal assistance for Medicaid patients who must travel to obtain an abortion, end public education initiatives on birth control access, and shut down federal research on the effects of reproductive health care restrictions on maternal health and broader health outcomes. These changes would severely limit the ability of individuals to access necessary reproductive health care, with direct consequences for both physical and mental well-being.

APA/APASI Assessment

APA and APA Services, Inc. are concerned over the possible curtailing of access to safe reproductive health care presented by the recent executive order, with specific concern for its potential psychological harms and negative societal impacts. These concerns are backed by psychological science, which clearly demonstrates the harmful effects of such policies on reproductive health—especially in communities of color—while also increasing the demand for mental health services, restricting lifesaving research, and presenting new ethical and legal considerations for psychologists. 

• Impact on access: APA is particularly alarmed by the disproportionate impact of reproductive health care restrictions on women of color, low-income individuals, and those in rural areas. These restrictions exacerbate existing health disparities and further marginalize vulnerable populations. The psychological impact of these restrictions can be profound, leading to feelings of isolation, hopelessness, and a sense of being unfairly targeted by policies that further limit access to essential health care.
• Increased demand for mental health services: This executive order, if implemented, and the broader context of changing reproductive health care access, can lead to increased demand for mental health services. Pregnant individuals who cannot receive needed reproductive care are more likely to experience heightened stress, anxiety, and other psychological effects related to reproductive health decisions. Providers of mental health care may see an increase in patients seeking support.
• Impact on psychological research: 
• Psychological scientists play a vital role in conducting research on the psychological impacts of reproductive health policies and access to care. Research on sensitive topics like reproductive health often relies on the collection of detailed and personal data, which is likely to be disallowed or limited by recent policy changes. If there are limitations on how data can be collected, stored, and used, it could severely hinder researchers' continued ability to conduct studies.
• Federal funding plays a significant role in supporting psychological research, including research on reproductive care and maternal mental health. Restrictions on funding for research related to reproductive health could limit or eliminate crucial studies. Federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation may be prevented from conducting research related to reproductive health, further depressing important science in this area. 
• Ethical and legal considerations: In the event that this EO and others like it result in a change in laws and regulations, psychologists and graduate students will be forced to navigate an even more complex ethical and legal landscape regarding research and patient confidentiality. APA will continue to emphasize the importance of protecting patient confidentiality, especially in the context of sensitive reproductive health information, and encourage all psychologists working in this area to consider the relevant state and federal regulations that might impact their ability to provide care.
  

APA’s Position

APA's position on the protection of reproductive rights is grounded in psychological science and guided by principles of reproductive justice. Research indicates that reproductive rights are essential for the psychological well-being, bodily autonomy, and self-determination of all individuals, including people of color, individuals with low incomes, gender diverse individuals, people with disabilities, and those living in rural or underserved areas. This includes access to comprehensive reproductive health care, accurate information about all reproductive health options, and supportive services to help individuals navigate reproductive decisions and care, including mental health services. We will continue to advocate for policies that protect and expand reproductive rights, guided by the best available psychological science. 

What the Science Says

APA’s assessment and position are grounded in the best available psychological science. 

A preponderance of scientific data supports the conclusion that control over personal and critical life decisions promotes psychological health.

The landmark Turnaway Study (Foster, 2020), the largest study to examine women’s experiences with abortion and unwanted pregnancy in the United States, found that receiving an abortion does not harm the health and well-being of women but being denied an abortion is associated with worse financial, health, and family outcomes. 

The body of evidence developed from a health equity perspective shows that the harms of abortion restrictions “fall hardest on communities already struggling to access basic health care—whether because of their lack of financial resources, young age, disability, immigration status or because they are Black, Indigenous or other people of color” and can include a risk of death (Arnold, 2014; Fried, 2013; Guttmacher Institute, 2021 para 4; Prather et al., 2018).

APA’s research and reports have identified a number of health inequities related to variations in life circumstances that affect physical and mental health in diverse populations (APA, 2021; Forde et al., 2019; Major et al., 2009). Restricting access to reproductive health care will likely harm these groups the most, as restrictive abortion laws do not necessarily reduce the number of abortions. Instead, they make them less safe, especially for younger people, people with a lower socio-economic status, and people from historically marginalized groups (e.g., Ogbu-Nwobodo et al., 2022).

APA Resources on Reproductive Rights

From policies, reports, and amicus briefs, to continuing education and books, APA has a wide range of resources and guidance to aid psychologists in navigating issues related to reproductive health care.

References

American Psychological Association. (2021). APA Resolution on Advancing Health Equity in Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/ resolution-advancing-health-equity.pdf

Arnold, S. B. (2014). Reproductive rights denied: The Hyde Amendment and access to abortion for Native American women using Indian health service facilities. American Journal of Public Health, 104(10), 1892-1893. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302084

Forde, A. T., Crookes, D. M., Suglia, S. F., & Demmer, R. T. (2019). The weathering hypothesis as an explanation for racial disparities in health: a systemic review. Annals of Epidemiology, 33, 1–18.

 Foster, D. G. (2020). The Turnaway Study: Ten years, a thousand women, and the consequences of having—or being denied—an abortion. Scribner.

Fried, M. G. (2013). Reproductive rights activism in the post-Roe era. American Journal of Public Health, 103(1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301125 

Guttmacher Institute. (2021b, October 4). https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2021/10/first-time-ever-us-states-enacted-more-100-abortion-restrictions-single-year 

Major, B., Applebaum, M., Beckman, L., Dutton. M. A., Russo, N. F., & West, C. (2009). Abortion and mental health: Evaluating the evidence. American Psychologist, 64, 863–890. DOI: 10.1037/ a0017497

Ogbu-Nwobodo, L., Shim, R. S., Vinson, S. Y., Fitelson, E. M., Biggs, M. A., McLemore, M. R., ... & Mangurian, C. (2022). Mental health implications of abortion restrictions for historically marginalized populations. New England Journal of Medicine, 387(17), 1613-1617. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms2211124 

Prather, C., Fuller, T. R., Jeffries, W. L., Marshall, K. J., Howell, A. V., BelyuUmole, A., & King, W. (2018). Racism, African American Women, and their sexual and reproductive health: A review of historical and contemporary evidence and implications for health equity. Health Equity, 2(1), 249–259.