One month, two flights, a baby left with a neighbor: what post-Dobbs abortion travel looks like

JAMA Network Open, March 2026. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.1068

She took two flights alone. She left her baby with a neighbor for three days. She paid for everything herself. Participant G, as researchers identified her, traveled from a state with a partial abortion ban to Illinois, one of the states where the procedure remains legal.

Her experience is not unusual. A qualitative study published in JAMA Network Open documents the journeys of 33 people who sought abortion care across state lines following the June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision. The findings paint a detailed picture of what happens when abortion access depends on geography and resources.

The logistics of crossing state lines

The researchers, led by Alia Cornell with senior author Elizabeth Janiak of Mass General Brigham's Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, conducted interviews and surveys with individuals who traveled to Illinois from states with abortion restrictions or outright bans. The study focused not just on whether people could access care, but on the full experience of getting there.

The delays were substantial. On average, participants waited roughly one month between deciding to have an abortion and actually receiving care. That gap was filled with logistical hurdles: arranging travel, finding childcare, gathering funds, and navigating a patchwork of information about where care was available and how to access it.

Financial barriers were pervasive. Many participants described scraping together money for flights, gas, hotel stays, and the procedure itself. Some received help from charitable funds, but the process of finding and applying for assistance added another layer of delay and complexity.

Stigma as a compounding force

Beyond the practical obstacles, the study documented how abortion stigma shaped every stage of the experience. Participants described hiding their travel plans from family, friends, and employers. Some fabricated reasons for their absence. Others traveled alone because they could not identify anyone they trusted enough to tell.

The stigma also affected information-seeking. Several participants reported difficulty finding accurate, trustworthy information about their options. In states with restrictions, public messaging about abortion is often deliberately confusing, mixing legal prohibitions with misleading claims about the procedure itself. Navigating this information landscape while under time pressure added significant stress.

Support systems varied widely. Some participants had partners, friends, or family members who helped with logistics and emotional support. Others, like Participant G, managed entirely alone. The study found no consistent pattern in who received support, suggesting that the availability of help depended heavily on individual circumstances rather than any systematic resource.

What the study cannot tell us

With 33 participants, this is a small qualitative study designed to capture depth rather than breadth. The findings illuminate individual experiences in rich detail, but they cannot be generalized to represent all people seeking out-of-state abortion care. The sample included only those who successfully reached Illinois and received care, meaning the experiences of people who tried but failed to access out-of-state services are not represented.

The study also focused on a single destination state. Illinois has become a major hub for abortion services since Dobbs, but patterns of travel and access may differ for people heading to other states with different regulatory environments and support infrastructures.

Additionally, the research captures a specific window in time. The post-Dobbs landscape continues to shift as states enact new restrictions and courts issue new rulings. The experiences documented here may not fully reflect current conditions.

Policy implications and the burden question

The researchers recommend policy changes in three areas: increasing the visibility of accurate information about abortion access, expanding charitable funding for travel and procedure costs, and reducing abortion stigma through public health campaigns.

Senior author Janiak framed the findings in structural terms: restrictions do not eliminate abortion but shift the burden onto patients, particularly those who are young, have low incomes, or belong to marginalized groups. The study provides qualitative evidence for this claim, showing how the weight of navigating restrictions falls disproportionately on people with the fewest resources to manage it.

The question of how many people are unable to overcome these barriers, those who wanted an abortion but could not arrange the travel, funding, or time off work, remains largely unanswered. This study captures the experiences of people who made it through. The invisible population of those who did not is harder to study but potentially larger.