RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize pregnancy outcomes and the incidence of induced abortion among pregnant people with a diagnosis of malignancy. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among privately insured people aged 12 to 55 years from the fourth quarter of 2015-2020 using US claims data from Merative MarketScan Research Databases. We included pregnancies from seven states with favorable policies for private insurance coverage of abortion. RESULTS: There were 1471 of 183,685 (0.8%) pregnancies with a cancer diagnosis. Among those receiving anticancer therapy, 21.6% (95% CI: 14.4-30.4%) underwent induced abortion compared with 10.9% (95% CI: 10.8-11.1%) of pregnant patients without a cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Abortion restrictions may affect many pregnant women requiring cancer treatment in early pregnancy.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1291668.].

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To assess pregnant Texans' decisions about where to obtain out-of-state abortion care following the September 2021 implementation of Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which prohibited abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity. DATA SOURCE: In-depth telephone interviews with Texas residents ≥15 years of age who obtained out-of-state abortion care after SB8's implementation. STUDY DESIGN: This qualitative study explored participants' experiences identifying and contacting abortion facilities and their concerns and considerations about traveling out of state. We used inductive and deductive codes in our thematic analysis describing people's decisions about where to obtain care and how they evaluated available options. DATA COLLECTION: Texas residents self-referred to the study from flyers we provided to abortion facilities in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. We also enrolled participants from a concurrent online survey of Texans seeking abortion care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Participants (n = 65) frequently obtained referral lists for out-of-state locations from health-care providers, and a few received referrals to specific facilities; however, referrals rarely included the information people needed to decide where to obtain care. More than half of the participants prioritized getting the soonest appointment and often contacted multiple locations and traveled further to do so; others who could not travel further typically waited longer for an appointment. Although the participants rarely cited state abortion restrictions or cost of care as their main reason for choosing a location, they often made sacrifices to lessen the logistical and economic hardships that state restrictions and out-of-state travel costs created. Informative abortion facility websites and compassionate scheduling staff solidified some participants' facility choice. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant Texans made difficult trade-offs and experienced travel-related burdens to obtain out-of-state abortion care. As abortion bans prohibit more people from obtaining in-state care, efforts to strengthen patient navigation are needed to reduce care-seeking burdens as this will support people's reproductive autonomy.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1972 and 2013, 100 leaders in obstetrics and gynecology wrote calls to action-in 1972 in anticipation of the Roe v Wade decision and in 2013 in concern over the increasing restrictions to abortion care. In this article, 900 professors support a call to action for reinstating federal protections for abortion. Over a year ago, the Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs decision, overturning nearly 50 years of precedent in retracting the constitutionally protected right to abortion. The medical community is already seeing the harms of this decision on the lives and health of our patients and on the ability to train upcoming physicians in this medically necessary evidence-based care. Further harms are anticipated, including negative effects on maternal mortality. The 900 professors of obstetrics and gynecology whose signatures appear at the conclusion of this article stand together in support of reproductive freedom, including the right to affordable, accessible, safe, and legal abortion care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate the annual number of incarcerated pregnant people in state and federal prisons needing an abortion. STUDY DESIGN: We used 2021 Bureau of Justice Statistics data and prior studies' findings to estimate the number of pregnant incarcerated people, then calculated state-specific abortion ratios to determine the number potentially needing an abortion. RESULTS: Of 638 pregnant people incarcerated in prisons annually, 110 would be expected to need an abortion, including 55 in states where abortion is currently banned or restricted. CONCLUSIONS: Under Dobbs, many incarcerated pregnant people will be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies to term.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The growing restrictive abortion policies nationwide and the Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization place increasing barriers to abortion access in the United States. These restrictions disproportionately affect low-income people of color, immigrants, and non-English speakers, and have the potential to exacerbate already existing racial inequities in maternal and neonatal outcomes. The United States is facing a Black maternal health crisis where Black birthing people are more than twice as likely to experience maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity compared to White birthing people. Restrictions creating geographic, transportation, and financial barriers to obtaining an abortion can result in increased rates of maternal death and adverse outcomes across all groups but especially among Black birthing people. Restrictive abortion laws in certain states will decrease already limited training opportunities in abortion care for medical professionals, despite the existing abortion provider shortage. There is an immediate need for federal legislation codifying broad abortion care access into law and expanding access to abortion training across medical education. This commentary explores the impact of restrictive abortion laws on the Black maternal health crisis through multiple pathways in a logic model. By identifying current barriers to abortion education in medical school and residency, we created a list of action items to expand abortion education and access.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The urine drug test is ubiquitous within reproductive healthcare settings. Although the test can have evidence-based use for a patient and clinician, in practice, it is often applied in ways that are driven by bias and stigma, do not correctly inform decisions about clinical aspects of patient care, and cause devastating ripple effects through social and legal systems. This paper proposes a framework of guiding questions to prompt reflection on (1) the question the clinical team is trying to answer, (2) whether a urine drug test answers the question at hand, (3) how testing benefits compare with the associated risks, (4) a more effective tool for clinical decision-making if the urine drug test does not meet the standards for use, and (5) individual and institutional biases affecting decision-making. We demonstrate the use of this framework using 3 common uses of the urine drug test within abortion care and labor and delivery settings.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

An increasingly hostile policy climate has reshaped abortion access in the United States. Recent literature has studied the effects of restrictive abortion policies on reproductive health outcomes. This study is the first to investigate the association between state-level abortion policy hostility and the pregnancy intentions of women with a pregnancy resulting in live birth. Data are from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System survey, merged with a state-level legislative database from 2012-2018 and other state-level controls. Cross-sectional results reveal that a one-unit increase in abortion policy hostility is associated with a relative risk (odds) of having a live birth resulting from an unintended versus intended pregnancy that is 1.02 times as high (RRR = 1.02, 95% confidence interval = 1.01, 1.03). This result corresponds to a 13% increase in the predicted probability of having a live birth resulting from an unintended pregnancy between a zero-hostility and a maximum-hostility state. Models stratified by demographic and socioeconomic characteristics reveal that the association between abortion policy hostility and live birth resulting from an unintended pregnancy is particularly robust among women in younger, less educated, Medicaid, uninsured, and rural populations.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Describe the prevalence of considering, wanting, and not obtaining a wanted abortion among a nationally representative sample of 15-44 year olds in the United States who had ever been pregnant. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed data from ever-pregnant respondents (unweighted n = 1789) from a larger online survey about contraceptive access using the nationally representative AmeriSpeak panel. Among those not obtaining wanted abortions, weighted frequencies for sociodemographic characteristics and reasons for not getting the abortion are presented. RESULTS: Nearly 6% of the full sample reported having wanted an abortion they did not obtain. In open-ended responses, respondents most frequently reported individual reasons (43.8%) for not getting an abortion (e.g., changing their mind; personal opposition) and financial, logistical, or informational barriers (24.7%) likely related to policy. A quarter (24.1%) of the sample reported a past abortion. Among those who reported no past abortions, about one-fifth had considered abortion in the past, and 6.8% had wanted or needed one. Among those reporting no prior abortions who had considered abortion, only a third (34.3%) also report ever wanting or needing one. CONCLUSIONS: This study begins to quantify the experience, even before the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, of being unable to obtain a wanted abortion. Additionally, findings suggest that people in a national sample will answer questions about whether and why they did not obtain a wanted abortion. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides the first known national estimates of lifetime history of not getting a wanted abortion. Survey questions can be used for future research. Prospective and ongoing measurement of the inability to get a wanted abortion could be one part of documenting the effects of Dobbs on abortion access.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In the years preceding the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) decision, there had been a shift in the demographics of abortion providers. Although most abortion providers were obstetricians-gynecologists, there had been a rapid increase in the number of internal medicine and family medicine physicians and advanced practice clinicians providing abortion care. As discourse about limiting abortion access has gained volume over the past few years, so have the number of legislative restrictions aimed at preventing people from seeking abortions. Among these are laws and policies targeted at reducing the number of providers and clinics providing abortion care, resulting in an absence of training, high case volume, and institutional restrictions. With the overturning of Roe v Wade, the landscape of abortion provision will continue to shift further. Action needs to be taken to expand the types of providers getting trained and providing abortions to ensure access for those seeking abortions.

RESUMEN

During the COVID-19 pandemic, existing and new abortion restrictions constrained people's access to abortion care. We assessed Texas abortion patients' out-of-state travel patterns before and during implementation of a state executive order that prohibited most abortions for 30 days in 2020. We received data on Texans who obtained abortions between February and May 2020 at 25 facilities in six nearby states. We estimated weekly trends in the number of out-of-state abortions related to the order using segmented regression models. We compared the distribution of out-of-state abortions by county-level economic deprivation and distance traveled. The number of Texas out-of-state abortions increased 14% the week after (versus before) the order was implemented (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.14; 95% CI: 0.49, 2.63), and increased weekly while the order remained in effect (IRR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.23, 2.18). Residents of the most economically disadvantaged counties accounted for 52% and 12% of out-of-state abortions before and during the order, respectively (p < 0.001). Before the order, 38% of Texans traveled ≥250 miles one way, whereas during the order 81% traveled ≥250 miles (p < 0.001). Texans' long-distance travel for out-of-state abortion care and the socioeconomic composition of those less likely to travel reflect potential burdens imposed by future abortion bans.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Pregnant people have traveled across state and national borders for the purpose of abortion since at least the 1960s. Scholarship has robustly documented the financial and logistical costs associated with travel, but less work has examined the emotional costs of abortion travel. We investigate whether abortion travel has emotional costs and, if so, how they come about. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 women who had to travel across state borders in the United States for abortion care because of their gestation. We analyzed findings thematically. RESULTS: Interviewees described having to travel to obtain abortion care as emotionally burdensome, causing distress, stress, anxiety, and shame. Because they had to travel, they were compelled to disclose their abortion to others and obtain care in an unfamiliar place and away from usual networks of support, which engendered emotional costs. Additionally, travel induced feelings of shame and exclusion because it stemmed from a law-based denial of in-state abortion care, which some experienced as marking them as deviant or abnormal. CONCLUSIONS: People who have to travel for abortion care experience emotional costs alongside financial and logistical costs. The circumstances of that travel-specifically, being forced to travel because of legal restriction and service unavailability-are foundational to the ensuing emotional burdens. Findings add to the emerging literature on how laws and other structures produce the stigmatization of abortion at interpersonal and individual levels. IMPLICATIONS: With abortion bans following the overturning of the right to abortion and existing gestational limits in the US, more people will have to travel for abortion care. Attention to the emotional costs of abortion travel can help providers understand what their patients may be experiencing when they present for care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: We examined people's (1) attitudes about abortion using an item from Pew Research Center (i.e., whether abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases) and (2) support for different punishments if abortion were illegal in all cases for different people involved in the abortion-the pregnant person, their partner, an informant and the healthcare provider. STUDY DESIGN: We administered a web-based survey to 2,204 U.S. adults using quota-based sampling. Post-stratification weights were applied to the data so that the sample was comparable to U.S. benchmarks for gender, race, Hispanic ethnicity, age, education, and political affiliation. We compared endorsement of various punishments for a pregnant person, their partner, informant, and healthcare provider. Additionally, we compared the endorsement of these punishments across response options of Pew's abortion legality item. RESULTS: Overall, most of our sample indicated that abortion should be legal in most (34%) or legal in all scenarios (21%). However, if abortion were illegal in all circumstances, most of our sample supported some form of punishment for the pregnant person (72%-75%), their partner (65%-68%), and healthcare providers (70%-71%), but not informants (47%-49%). Among the endorsed punishments, therapy/education typically received the most support. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision and the subsequent overturning of Roe v. Wade, abortion is illegal in a significant number of states and a punishable offense. Our findings suggest that current punishments associated with many of these laws are counter to public sentiment. IMPLICATIONS: Despite majority support for some punishment, the categories of "no punishment" or therapy/education had the most support. Given the lack of plurality or majority support for fines or incarceration, abortion laws including these punishments, including bounty-style laws passed in Texas and Oklahoma, may be out of step with public opinion.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The authors explore how abortion regulations in Ohio, an abortion-restrictive state in the USA, impact obstetrician-gynecologists' (OB/GYNs) training in reproductive healthcare and describe what OB/GYNs believe to be the broader impact of Ohio's regulations on skill-building, skills maintenance, and professional retention of reproductive healthcare providers in the state. Authors discuss how their findings foreshadow abortion training limitations in Ohio and other abortion-restrictive states now that abortion regulations have returned to the states. METHODS: The authors conducted four semi-structured focus groups and five in-depth interviews between April 2019 and March 2020. Participants included OB/GYNs practicing obstetrics and gynecology in Ohio between 2010 and 2020. Thematic analysis was conducted using Atlas.ti. RESULTS: Twenty attending physicians and 15 fellows and residents participated in the study. Participants discussed the impact of Ohio's written transfer agreement, gestational-limit, and abortion method and facility bans on training and skill-building opportunities. Participants felt that Ohio's strict abortion regulations 1) limit opportunities to observe and perform abortion procedures during training; 2) require learning the ever-changing legality of abortion provision; 3) limit the number of abortions OB/GYNs can provide, leading to the atrophy of their skills over time; and 4) may prevent prospective medical students and residents from choosing to study in Ohio and may lead to physician attrition from the state. CONCLUSION: Prior to the reversal of federal protections for abortion in 2022, OB/GYNs in Ohio and other abortion-hostile states experienced barriers to training in abortion care. In returning abortion regulation to the states, access to training is likely to be increasingly restricted. This research demonstrates how abortion-restrictions hamper physicians' skills needed to care for patients, particularly in emergent situations. This puts patients at risk and places physicians in precarious ethical positions. Expanding protections and reducing restrictions on abortion will ensure OB/GYNs and trainees have the skills necessary to care for patients presenting for reproductive healthcare.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Political and public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic changed provision of abortion care and exacerbated existing barriers. We aimed to explore experiences of individuals seeking abortion care in 2 abortion-restrictive states in the United States where state policies and practice changes disrupted abortion provision during the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted 22 semistructured interviews in Texas (n = 10) and Ohio (n = 12) to assess how state executive orders limiting abortion, along with other public health guidance and pandemic-related service delivery changes, affected individuals seeking abortion care. We included individuals 18 years and older who contacted a facility for abortion care between March and November 2020. We coded and analyzed interview transcripts using both inductive and deductive approaches. RESULTS: Participants reported obstacles to obtaining their preferred timing and method of abortion. These obstacles placed greater demands on those seeking abortion and resulted in delays in obtaining care for as long as 11 weeks, as well as some being unable to obtain an abortion at all. CONCLUSIONS: Political and public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic - exacerbated pre-pandemic barriers and existing restrictions and constrained options for people seeking abortion in Ohio and Texas. Delays were consequential for all participants, regardless of their ultimate ability to obtain an abortion. IMPLICATIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, state executive orders and clinic practices exacerbated already constrained access to care. Findings highlight the importance of protecting timely care and the full range of abortion methods. Findings also preview barriers individuals seeking abortion may encounter in states that restrict or ban abortion.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The ongoing assault on abortion care in the United States culminating in the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v Wade calls for concerted national action to address the major gaps in care and training that will ensue. We write this call to action to our community of obstetrician-gynecologists to prioritize advocacy for access to abortion care. Professional health organizations understand the importance of access to contraception and abortion care as the foundation for reproductive health, autonomy, and empowerment. As restrictions proliferate, patients are encountering significant challenges in accessing care; all in our community who provide obstetrical and gynecologic care need to step up to ensure adequate and equitable patient care and provider training. In this Clinical Opinion, we outline current professional organization evidence-based support for comprehensive reproductive health care including abortion care, without interference by politics, strategies to proactively prevent further restrictions, and actions to mitigate the harm that will be caused by further restrictions to abortion care. We must all speak up, be visible in our support, and take any and every opportunity to advocate for abortion care as an integral part of comprehensive reproductive medical care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: With increasing restrictions on abortion across the United States, we sought to understand whether people seeking abortion would consider ending their pregnancy on their own if unable to access a facility-based abortion. METHODS: From January to June 2019, we surveyed patients seeking abortion at 4 facilities in 3 US states. We explored consideration of self-managed abortion (SMA) using responses to the question: "Would you consider ending this pregnancy on your own if you are unable to obtain care at a health care facility?" We used multivariable Poisson regression to assess associations between individual sociodemographic, pregnancy and care-seeking characteristics and prevalence of considering SMA. In bivariate Poisson models, we also explored whether consideration of SMA differed by specific obstacles to abortion care. RESULTS: One-third (34%) of 741 participants indicated they would definitely or probably consider ending the pregnancy on their own if unable to obtain care at a facility. Consideration of SMA was higher among those who reported no health insurance (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 1.66; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.12-2.44), described the pregnancy as unintended (aPR = 1.53; 95% CI 1.08-2.16), were seeking abortion due to concerns about their own physical or mental health (aPR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.02, 2.20), or experienced obstacles that delayed their abortion care seeking (aPR = 2.26, 95% CI 1.49, 3.40). Compared to those who would not consider SMA, participants who would consider SMA expressed higher difficulty finding an abortion facility (35 vs. 27%, p = 0.019), figuring out how to get to the clinic (29 vs 21%, p = 0.021) and needing multiple clinic visits (23 vs 17%, p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: One in three people seeking facility-based abortion would consider SMA if unable to obtain abortion care at a facility. As abortion access becomes increasingly restricted in the US, SMA may become more common. Future research should continue to monitor people's consideration and use of SMA and ensure that they have access to safe and effective methods.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

CONTEXT: In the United States, third-trimester abortions are substantially more expensive, difficult to obtain, and stigmatized than first-trimester abortions. However, the circumstances that lead to someone needing a third-trimester abortion may have overlaps with the pathways to abortion at other gestations. METHODS: I interviewed 28 cisgender women who obtained an abortion after the 24th week of pregnancy using a modified timeline interview method. I coded the interviews thematically, focusing on characterizing the experience of deciding to obtain a third-trimester abortion. RESULTS: I find two pathways to needing a third-trimester abortion: new information, wherein the respondent learned new information about the pregnancy-such as of an observed serious fetal health issue or that she was pregnant-that made the pregnancy not (or no longer) one she wanted to continue; and barriers to abortion, wherein the respondent was in the third trimester by the time she was able to surmount the obstacles to abortion she faced, including cost, finding a provider, and stigmatization. These two pathways were not wholly distinct and sometimes overlapped. CONCLUSIONS: The inherent limits of medical knowledge and the infeasibility of ensuring early pregnancy recognition in all cases illustrate the impossibility of eliminating the need for third-trimester abortion. The similarities between respondents' experiences and that of people seeking abortion at other gestations, particularly regarding the impact of barriers to abortion, point to the value of a social conceptualization of need for abortion that eschews a trimester or gestation-based framework and instead conceptualizes abortion as an option throughout pregnancy.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: In the United States, restrictive abortion policies are concentrated in a subset of states. Little research has examined how people who consider abortion make sense of abortion obtainability and the extent of regulation of abortion care in their state. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 pregnant women in Maryland, a state with high abortion service availability and few policies restricting abortion, and 28 pregnant women in Louisiana, a state with low service availability and numerous restrictions, who had considered but not obtained an abortion for their pregnancy. We analyzed findings using inductive qualitative analytic techniques. RESULTS: All participants were financially struggling. Most participants in Maryland considered abortion easy to get, while a plurality of participants in Louisiana considered abortion difficult to get. Yet, despite their measurable differences in access, participants in both states considered abortion generally obtainable. Participants in Louisiana who thought abortion difficult to get, but nonetheless obtainable, cited strategies that they already employed for other challenges in their lives as options for overcoming abortion barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women who consider abortion and are subject to restrictions do not necessarily perceive restrictions as barriers. Their accounts illustrate how those impacted by restrictions adapt to constraints on their reproductive autonomy just as they manage many other challenges that restrict their freedom to live self-determined lives. IMPLICATIONS: Financially struggling pregnant people who considered abortion in Louisiana did not perceive restrictions as barriers to abortion, illustrating the broader adoption of strategies to deal with constraints among women living on low incomes.

Asunto(s)