Public Signals and Private Judgment: Abortion Access and Mortgage Lending to Women

Abstract

We examine whether abortion access affects mortgage lending to women. Childbirth is costly and
those costs fall mainly on women, but lenders cannot observe an applicant’s chance of an
unplanned birth. State abortion access is a public signal of that risk. In 22.7 million single-applicant
home-purchase applications from HMDA, 2012–2021, we compare single women with single men
at the same lender, state, and year. Where access is broadest, women are 0.9 percentage points less
likely than men to be denied. That advantage shrinks with each step down a state access grade and
is gone in the most restrictive states. Prices move the same way: women's originated loans are less
often high-cost where access is broad, and the difference erodes with the grade. After the trigger
bans that followed Dobbs, denials of single women in ban states rise by 0.4 to 0.7 percentage
points relative to single men. The response is strongest where lenders know least about applicants
and judgment matters most. Applicant sex is illegal to use and absent from automated
underwriting. The evidence is consistent with statistical discrimination; we assert no intent.