Examining public opinion on endorsed punishments for illegal abortion by abortion legality and abortion‐restrictive states before <i>Dobbs v. Jackson</i>

Abstract Research Summary As a result of the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade , state lawmakers can and have enacted abortion restrictions, including criminal penalties targeting those who seek, provide, or assist with abortion. Given the current legal landscape, it is imperative to assess public opinion regarding the endorsement of punishments for illegal abortion. We conducted multivariate analyses to assess factors associated with punishment endorsements for an illegal abortion for the pregnant woman and healthcare provider. We also evaluated whether individual beliefs (i.e., abortion legality) and contextual factors (i.e., living in an abortion‐restrictive state) may influence punishment endorsements. Using quota‐based sampling with poststratification weights, we administered an online survey to English‐ and Spanish‐speaking ( n = 2224) U.S. adults before the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. Our findings suggest that punishment endorsements are shaped by individual and contextual factors. Living in an abortion‐restrictive state and punishment endorsement were moderated by attitudes toward abortion legality in a few specific scenarios for the pregnant person. The probability of endorsing no punishment was significantly lower in abortion‐restrictive states compared with non‐abortion‐restrictive states for those who believed abortion should be illegal in all (5.91% vs. 16.63%) and legal in all cases (27.85% vs. 41.89%). Additionally, for those who believed abortion should be illegal in all cases, the probability of endorsing fines was significantly higher in abortion‐restrictive states (35.62%) compared with non‐abortion‐restrictive states (18.77%). Policy Implications Findings point to a disconnect between public opinion and punitive abortion policies. Post‐ Dobbs , as state legislators further restrict and criminalize abortion, our findings suggest that policies involving punishments beyond therapy or education, or some fines, lack broad public support. This misalignment—potentially rooted in elite influence and divergent moral frameworks—calls for abortion policy grounded in public health, democratic accountability, and moral pluralism.