Another Defense of Abortion: What Transplant Ethics Tells Us about the Ethics of Abortion after Dobbs.

In 1971, two years before Roe v. Wade affirmed federal protection for abortion, Judith Jarvis Thomson attempted to demonstrate the wrongs of forced gestation through analogy: you awake to find that the world's most esteemed violinist is wholly, physically dependent on you for life support. Here, the authors suggest that Thomson's intuition, that there is a relevant similarity between providing living kidney support and forced gestation, is realized in the contemporary practice of living organ donation. After detailing the robust analogy between living kidney donation and gestation, we turn to current ethical guidelines incorporated in the United Network for Organ Sharing's requirements for legally authorized organ donation and transplantation. We conclude that if, as we-and Thomson-suggest, organ donation and gestation are relevantly similar, then the ethical framework supporting donation may aid in articulating ethical grounds that will be compelling in informing the legal grounds for a defense of abortion.

The Dead Unborn, Postmortem Privacy Cases, and Abortion Rights.

The privacy of the dead is an interesting area of concern for bioethicists. There is a legal doctrine that the dead can't have privacy rights, but also a body of contrary law ascribing privacy rights to the deceased and kin in relation to the deceased. As women's abortion privacy is under assault by American courts and legislatures, the implications of ascribing privacy rights to embryos and fetuses is more important than ever. Caution is called for in this domain.

Beneath the Sword of Damocles: Moral Obligations of Physicians in a Post-Dobbs Landscape.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a growing web of state laws restricts access to abortion. Here we consider how, ethically, doctors should respond when terminating a pregnancy is clinically indicated but state law imposes restrictions on doing so. We offer a typology of cases in which the dilemma emerges and a brief sketch of the current state of legal prohibitions against providing such care. We examine the issue from the standpoints of conscience, professional ethics, and civil disobedience and conclude that it is almost always morally permissible and praiseworthy to break the law and that, in a subset of cases, it is morally obligatory to do so. We further argue that health care institutions that employ or credential physicians to provide reproductive health care have an ethical duty to provide a basic suite of practical supports for them as they work to ethically resolve the dilemmas before them.

The Ninth Amendment: An Underutilized Protection for Reproductive Choice.

Concern about individual rights and the desire to protect them has been part of our nation since its founding, and continues to be so today. The Ninth Amendment was created to assuage the Framers' concerns that enumerating some rights in the Bill of Rights would leave unenumerated rights unrecognized and unprotected, affirming that those rights are not disparaged or denied by their lack of textual support. The Ninth Amendment has appeared infrequently in our jurisprudence, and Courts initially construed it rather narrowly. But starting in the 1960s, the Ninth Amendment emerged as a powerful tool not just for recognizing unanticipated rights, but for protecting or expanding even enumerated rights. The right to privacy--encompassing the right to contraception and abortion--the right to preserve the integrity of your family, the right to vote, the right to own a firearm as an individual--all these rights have been asserted under and found to be supported by the Ninth Amendment. In its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision overturning Roe, the Supreme Court found that there is no right to abortion because it is not in the Constitution. But the potential of the Ninth Amendment is such that reproductive choice need not be mentioned in the Constitution to be protected. Reproductive choice may rightfully be considered as part of a right to privacy, an unenumerated right that nevertheless has abundant precedent behind it. The Ninth Amendment, and its counterparts found in many state constitutions, has the power to protect not just reproductive choice, but all of our fundamental rights.

Without Due Process of Law: The Dobbs Decision and Its Cataclysmic Impact on the Substantive Due Process and Privacy Rights of Ohio Women.

Since the overturning of prior abortion precedents in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, there has been a question on the minds of many women in this country: how will this decision affect me and my rights? As we have seen in the aftermath of Dobbs, many states have pushed for stringent anti-abortion measures seeking to undermine the foundation on which women's reproductive freedom had been grounded on for decades. This includes right here in Ohio, where Republican lawmakers have advocated on numerous occasions for implementing laws seeking to limit abortion rights, including a 6-week abortion ban advocated for and passed by the Ohio Republican legislature and signed into law by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. Despite this particular ban being successfully challenged and stayed, significant problems persist regarding due process rights for women in Ohio, particularly in the aftermath of Justice Thomas's concurrence in Dobbs advising the Court to revisit prior precedents, such as Griswold v. Connecticut providing for the right to contraception. If the Court were to revisit and strike down Griswold, it would further undermine privacy and due process rights that have been granted to women across this country, including here in Ohio, for decades. Justice Thomas's concurrence, while merely dicta, encapsulates a Court that has become increasingly hostile to treasured fundamental rights for women, a hostility mirrored in numerous Republican legislatures, including right here in Ohio.

Motivations for using misoprostol for abortion outside the formal healthcare system in Colombia: a qualitative study of women seeking postabortion care in Bogotá and the Coffee Axis.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, a Constitutional Court ruling partially decriminalized abortion in Colombia, allowing the procedure in cases of rape, risk to the health or life of the woman, and fetal malformations incompatible with life. Despite this less prohibitive law, some women and pregnant people preferred self-managing their abortions outside the formal healthcare system, often without accurate information. In 2018, we undertook a study to understand what motivated women to self-manage using medications that they acquired informally. Colombia has since adopted a progressive law in 2022, permitting abortion on request through the 24th week of pregnancy. However, the implementation of this law is still underway. Examining the reasons why women chose to informally self-manage an abortion after 2006 may not only highlight how barriers to legal services persisted at that time, but also could inform strategies to increase knowledge of the current abortion law and improve access to services going forward. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted in 2018 with 47 women aged 18 and older who used misoprostol obtained outside of health facilities to induce an abortion, and who were receiving postabortion care in two private clinics. Interviews explored what women knew about the 2006 abortion law which was then in effect, and the reasons why they preferred informal channels for abortion care over formal healthcare services. RESULTS: Women's motivations to use misoprostol obtained outside the formal healthcare system were influenced by lack of trust in the healthcare system along with incomplete and inaccurate knowledge of the abortion law. Conversely, women considered misoprostol obtained outside the healthcare system to be effective, affordable, and easier to access. CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining misoprostol outside the formal healthcare system offered a more accessible and appealing prospect for some women given fears of legal repercussion and stigma toward abortion. Though this preference will likely continue despite the more liberal abortion law, strategies should be implemented to broaden knowledge of the recent change in law and to combat misinformation and stigma. This would support knowledge of and access to legal abortion for those who wish to avail themselves of these services.

United Kingdom Data Deficiencies Influencing U.S. FDA Decisions.

The U.S. FDA has permanently removed the in-person prescribing requirements that previously safeguarded the use of mifepristone/misoprostol medical abortions, allowing prescribing through telemedicine or on-line ordering and distribution through the mail and pharmacies, without standard pre-abortion testing. This will increase the risk of complications due to failure to adequately determine the gestational age or rule out ectopic pregnancy by ultrasound or physical exam, failure to perform labs to document whether RhoGAM is indicated, and failure to obtain appropriate informed consent to prevent unwanted abortions, among other concerns. The FDA justified this action by referencing flawed studies with significantly undercounted complications. The details of these study deficiencies are examined in this paper.

Misleading Statements About "Life of the Mother" Exceptions in Pro-life Laws Require Correction.

Misleading statements in a recent Obstetrics & Gynecology article require correction. No state has an abortion law that is a total ban on abortion. Every state law permits abortion when necessary to save a mother's life. Texas law does not require an "imminent" risk and allows a doctor to use his "reasonable medical judgment" to determine if an abortion is necessary to prevent a "risk" of maternal death. Similarly, Idaho allows a doctor to use his "good faith medical judgment" to determine when to intervene, without need for "immediacy".

How Effective Is Misoprostol Alone for Medication Abortion?

AbstractWith recent severe restrictions to abortion accessibility in the United States and a pending Supreme Court case challenging the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone, evidence-based strategies to protect and expand access to abortion care are needed. Two safe and effective regimens for medication abortion are widely used globally - misoprostol-only and misoprostol in combination with mifepristone. However, misoprostol-only regimens are rarely used in the United States. In 2023, the National Abortion Federation and the Society of Family Planning updated their recommended protocol for misoprostol-only for medication abortion to 800 µg of misoprostol administered buccally, sublingually, or vaginally every 3 hours for three or more doses. To characterize the data supporting this specific regimen, this article reviews the relevant literature to address the question of how effective misoprostol-only is for medication abortion. The authors conclude that the updated misoprostol regimen is highly effective and a potential strategy for expanding access to abortion.

Race and Ethnicity of Reproductive-Age Females Affected by US State Abortion Bans.

This study compares the race and ethnicity of reproductive-age females between states that implemented restrictive abortion policies after the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision and states that did not.

Facilitating Safe Access to Health Care through Legislative Reform - The Australian Experience.

The realisation of the right to health is vulnerable to the interventions of strangers, acting on the belief that certain health care should not be permissible under the law or accessible in practice. In Australia, the key arena for such interventions has been abortion services. Drawing on empirical research undertaken by the authors, this article examines the impact of these interventions and the effectiveness of "safe access zone" laws that now operate nationwide to constrain them. After examining the unsuccessful constitutional challenge to these laws in the High Court of Australia, it considers whether safe access zones may have utility in other health care contexts.

Our hands are tied: abortion bans and hesitant medicine.

Trained for decades to analyze risks, benefits, unique body compositions, and complex medical scenarios, healthcare providers are now faced with one of medicine's most trying obstacles: how to practice medicine when new abortion bans contradict best practice standards. Drawn from qualitative interviews with medical providers in Tennessee, USA conducted between October 2022 and December 2022, this study shows how medical providers often must make medical decisions based on legal risks as opposed to standards of care. This is particularly significant as malpractice insurance does not cover criminal charges. In states with abortion bans, often hastily implemented and subject to changes by lawmakers, medical providers are now practicing a new kind of defensive medicine in an effort to protect themselves from legal threats. We call this hesitant medicine, where providers often experience a tension between their own legal protection and the well-being of their patients, making them hesitant to provide necessary abortion care. This has serious, far-reaching consequences. We focus on three distinct arenas impacted by this new form of defensive medicine, specifically: providers' decision-making around patient care, impacts on patient relationships, and finally, what we call the ultimate defense, leaving states with abortion bans to move to states with fewer legal risks. We conclude with commentary on potential ways to reduce the negative impacts of these trends.

Abortion Provision and Delays to Care in a Clinic Network in Washington State After Dobbs.

Importance: The Supreme Court decision Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs) overturned federal protections to abortion care and altered the reproductive health care landscape. Thus far, aggregated state-level data reveal increases in the number of abortions in states where abortion is still legal, but there is limited information on delays to care and changes in the characteristics of people accessing abortion in these states after Dobbs. Objective: To examine changes in abortion provision and delays to care after Dobbs. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of all abortions performed at an independent, high-volume reproductive health care clinic network in Washington state from January 1, 2017, to July 31, 2023. Using an interrupted time series, the study assessed changes in abortion care after Dobbs. Exposure: Abortion care obtained after (June 24, 2022, to July 31, 2023) vs before (January 1, 2017, to June 23, 2022) Dobbs. Main Outcome and Measure: Primary outcomes included weekly number of abortions and out-of-state patients and weekly average of gestational duration (days) and time to appointment (days). Results: Among the 18 379 abortions during the study period, most were procedural (13 192 abortions [72%]) and funded by public insurance (11 412 abortions [62%]). The mean (SD) age of individuals receiving abortion care was 28.5 (6.44) years. Following Dobbs, the number of procedural abortions per week increased by 6.35 (95% CI, 2.83-9.86), but then trended back toward pre-Dobbs levels. The number of out-of-state patients per week increased by 2 (95% CI, 1.1-3.6) and trends remained stable. The average gestational duration per week increased by 6.9 (95% CI, 3.6-10.2) days following Dobbs, primarily due to increased gestations of procedural abortions. The average gestational duration among out-of-state patients did not change following Dobbs, but it did increase by 6 days for in-state patients (5.9; 95% CI, 3.2-8.6 days). There were no significant changes in time to appointment. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings provide a detailed picture of changes in abortion provision and delays to care after Dobbs in a state bordering a total ban state. In this study, more people traveled from out of state to receive care and in-state patients sought care a week later in gestation. These findings can inform interventions and policies to improve access for all seeking abortion care.

Inflation in 2022 did not affect congressional voting, but abortion did.

This study examines voting in the 2022 United States congressional elections, contests that were widely expected to produce a sizable defeat for Democratic candidates for largely economic reasons. Based on a representative national probability sample of voters interviewed in both 2020 and 2022, individuals who changed their vote from one party's congressional candidate to another party's candidate did not do so in response to the salience of inflation or declining economic conditions. Instead, we find strong evidence that views on abortion were central to shifting votes in the midterm elections. Americans who favored (opposed) legal abortions were more likely to shift from voting for Republican (Democratic) candidates in 2020 to Democratic (Republican) candidates in 2022. Since a larger number of Americans supported than opposed legal abortions, the combination of these shifts ultimately improved the electoral prospects of Democratic candidates. New voters were especially likely to weigh abortion views heavily in their vote-shifting calculus. Likewise, those respondents whose confidence in the US Supreme Court declined from 2020 to 2022 were more likely to shift from voting for Republican to Democratic congressional candidates. We provide direct empirical evidence that changes in support for the Supreme Court, a nonpartisan branch of the federal government, are implicated in partisan voting behavior in another branch of government. We explore the implications of these findings for prevalent assumptions about how economic conditions influence voting, as well as for the relationship between the judiciary and electoral politics.

States' Abortion Laws Associated With Intimate Partner Violence-Related Homicide Of Women And Girls In The US, 2014-20.

Women who are pregnant or recently gave birth are significantly more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than nonpregnant, nonpostpartum women of reproductive age, implicating the risk of fatal violence conferred by pregnancy itself. The rapidly increasing passage of state legislation has restricted or banned access to abortion care across the US. We used the most recent and only source of population-based data to examine the association between state laws that restrict access to abortion and trends in intimate partner violence-related homicide among women and girls ages 10-44 during the period 2014-20. Using robust difference-in-differences ecologic modeling, we found that enforcement of each additional Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) law was associated with a 3.4 percent increase in the rate of intimate partner violence-related homicide in this population. We estimated that 24.3 intimate partner violence-related homicides of women and girls ages 10-44 were associated with TRAP laws implemented in the states and years included in this analysis. Assessment of policies that restrict access to abortion should consider their potential harm to reproductive-age women through the risk for violent death.

An estimate of lifetime incidence of abortion in the United States using the 2021-2022 Abortion Patient Survey.

OBJECTIVES: The Guttmacher Institute estimated that, in 2014, 24% of US women of reproductive age would have an abortion by age 45 if the 2014 abortion rate was maintained. This study updates the estimated lifetime incidence of abortion in the year(s) just prior to the Dobbs decision, which removed federal protections for abortion. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from the Guttmacher Institute's 2021-2022 Abortion Patient Survey and population data for 2020 and 2021 from the Census Bureau, as well as abortion counts from the Guttmacher Institute's 2020 Abortion Provider Census, to estimate abortion rates, first-abortion rates, and cumulative abortion rates, all by age group. We calculated multiple estimates of lifetime incidence under varying hypothetical conditions as tests of sensitivity. RESULTS: We estimate that 24.7% (95% CI: 22.9-26.3) of women aged 15-44 in 2020 would have had an abortion by age 45 if abortion rates in 2020 remain constant. These figures changed slightly when we examined scenarios assuming a 5% increase in abortion between 2020 and 2021 (25.9, 95% CI: 24.0-27.6) and when we adjusted for the potential overrepresentation of adolescent and young adult respondents in the 2021-2022 Abortion Patient Survey (23.9, 95% CI: 22.2-25.6). CONCLUSIONS: In the year(s) prior to the Dobbs decision, one-quarter of US women would have been expected to have at least one abortion in their lifetime if abortion rates for those years stayed the same. IMPLICATIONS: Significant numbers of individuals are being affected by abortion bans, but we are unable to predict how these restrictions will impact abortion incidence or the lifetime incidence in the coming years.

'Border Country': health law in a devolved UK.

How are we to understand and research health law under devolution in the UK? Building on work in law and geography, we argue that the figure of the border is key to the production and implementation of devolved health law and the variety of forms that this takes. The utility of border thinking in this context is shown through a review of thematic areas, including infectious disease control, access to health care, and abortion, each instantiating a distinct bordering process. In each, we consider recent developments in policy and legislation, framed with reference to constitutional change, and the politics of devolution in the UK. Taking Wales as an exemplary site, we argue that health law produces borders in traditional and non-traditional places. It creates and blurs territories. It is equally constituted by pluralistic bordering practices. On the basis of this theoretically informed review, we conclude by proposing a cross-disciplinary legal, ethical, and socio-legal research agenda for future research.