IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v18y2025i3p329-337_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impacts of further abortion restrictions on work: The role of I-O psychology

Author

Listed:
  • Fletcher, Keaton A.
  • French, Kimberly A.
  • Escudero, Stephanie B.
  • Casper, Wendy
  • Vaziri, Hoda
  • Gardner, Danielle M.

Abstract

Recently, the role of abortion access in the workplace and the field of I-O psychology has been highlighted, but little published research explicitly tackles the impacts of abortion care from an organizational psychology perspective. We examine the potential impacts of further restrictions on abortion access within the context of people’s relationships with employment and workplaces. We focus our discussion on three significant mechanisms that may further restrict access to abortion depending on the degree to which they are enforced or enacted: restriction of abortion medication and equipment shipping, limiting federal funding for organizations that facilitate abortion access, and fetal personhood laws. Further restriction of abortion access may create significant challenges for organizational decision makers, employees, and healthcare workers. Together, these changes to the experience of work necessitate shifts in research and practice within the field of I-O psychology. I-O researchers and practitioners must work together to facilitate organizational functioning and employee well-being through these changes by becoming and staying informed about organizational benefit policies and reproductive care-related practices and their impact on employees, employee career trajectories and distress related to unwanted pregnancy, and moral injury and other challenges faced by healthcare workers.

Suggested Citation

  • Fletcher, Keaton A. & French, Kimberly A. & Escudero, Stephanie B. & Casper, Wendy & Vaziri, Hoda & Gardner, Danielle M., 2025. "The impacts of further abortion restrictions on work: The role of I-O psychology," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 329-337, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:18:y:2025:i:3:p:329-337_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942625100278/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:18:y:2025:i:3:p:329-337_7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.