In Vitro Fertilization, State Wrongful Death Statutes and State Fetal Homicide Statutes: The Reaction to LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine.

The Alabama Supreme Court recently held, in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, that the parents of human embryos that were negligently destroyed at a fertility clinic could bring an action for damages under the State's wrongful death statute. Although the Alabama legislature promptly enacted a law essentially overturning the state supreme court's decision, concerns have been raised that the court's decision might influence courts in other States to interpret their wrongful death statutes, or possibly even their fetal homicide statutes, to apply in similar circumstances, thereby threatening the availability of in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology. This article addresses those concerns.With respect to wrongful death statutes, only fourteen States (excluding Alabama) have interpreted their statutes to apply to unborn children without regard to their stage of gestation or development. The majority of States impose a gestational requirement (typically, viability) which would preclude their application to the destruction of human embryos. Even with respect to the minority of States that impose no limitation on the cause of action, those statutes, either by their express language or by fair interpretation, would not apply to unimplanted human embryos.With respect to the fetal homicide statutes in thirty-one States that do not have any gestational or developmental limitation, the statutes in twenty-six of those States apply only to acts causing the death of an unborn child in utero. As to the statutes in the other five States, the structure of the statute, considered in light of the applicable case law, strongly suggests that there would be no liability for causing the death of an unborn child before implantation. In sum, the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in LePage is not likely to be followed as a precedent in interpreting either the wrongful death statutes or the fetal homicide statutes of any other State.

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.

Changes in Permanent Contraception Procedures Among Young Adults Following the Dobbs Decision.

This cross-sectional study evaluates changes in tubal ligation and vasectomy procedures among younger adults following the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

The FDA in the Crosshairs-Science, Politics, and Abortion.

In this Viewpoint, the Supreme Court case FDA v AHM is used to illustrate the tension the FDA faces between science and politics, and state authority over abortion vs federal authority over which drugs may be marketed nationwide.

US Supreme Court Limits on the Power of US Health Agencies.

This Viewpoint describes how the overturning of Chevron deference would shift the ability to make policy decisions about public health and the environment from administrative agencies to the courts.

Implications for Public Health Regulation if Chevron Deference Is Overturned.

This Viewpoint describes implications for medicine and public health if the US Supreme Court decides to overturn or narrow Chevron deference.

Provision of Medications for Self-Managed Abortion Before and After the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Decision.

Importance: The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned the right to choose abortion in the US, with at least 16 states subsequently implementing abortion bans or 6-week gestational limits. Prior research indicates that in the 6 months following Dobbs, approximately 32 360 fewer abortions were provided within the US formal health care setting. However, trends in the provision of medications for self-managed abortion outside the formal health care setting have not been studied. Objective: To determine whether the provision of medications for self-managed abortion outside the formal health care setting increased in the 6 months after Dobbs. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study using data from sources that provided abortion medications outside the formal health care setting to people in the US between March 1 and December 31, 2022, including online telemedicine organizations, community networks, and online vendors. Using a hierarchical bayesian model, we imputed missing values from sources not providing data. We estimated the change in provision of medications for self-managed abortion after the Dobbs decision. We then estimated actual use of these medications by accounting for the possibility that not all provided medications are used by recipients. Exposure: Abortion restrictions following the Dobbs decision. Main Outcomes and Measures: Provision and use of medications for a self-managed abortion. Results: In the 6-month post-Dobbs period (July 1 to December 31, 2022), the total number of provisions of medications for self-managed abortion increased by 27 838 (95% credible interval [CrI], 26 374-29 175) vs what would have been expected based on pre-Dobbs levels. Excluding imputed data changes the results only slightly (27 145; 95% CrI, 25 747-28 246). Accounting for nonuse of medications, actual self-managed medication abortions increased by an estimated 26 055 (95% CrI, 24 739-27 245) vs what would have been expected had the Dobbs decision not occurred. Conclusions and Relevance: Provision of medications for self-managed abortions increased in the 6 months following the Dobbs decision. Results suggest that a substantial number of abortion seekers accessed services despite the implementation of state-level bans and restrictions.

Understanding the Impacts of the Supreme Court Case FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

This Viewpoint outlines the potential effects of the Supreme Court case regarding mifepristone restrictions: a decision for the FDA would allow current dispensing, while ruling against the FDA would severely curtail access to reproductive health options.

Potential consequences of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

OBJECTIVE: In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court released a landmark decision in which they held that the right to abortion is not protected by the U.S. Constitution, ending almost 50 years of federally legal abortion in the United States. Because prior research demonstrates linkages between reproductive health and substance use at multiple socioecological levels, in this special section, we present studies that take a broad scope to understanding how addictive behaviors and reproduction-related behaviors, options, and access to care interrelate across a variety of contexts. METHOD: In this introduction, the guest editors detail the impetus for this special section, provide a brief overview of the present studies, discuss policy and intervention implications, and suggest future research directions. RESULTS: The five studies presented in this special section span a wide range of populations, methods, and substance use and reproduction-related issues, including reasons for past abortions among women with opioid use disorder, alcohol effects on men's condom use resistance, considerations regarding alcohol-involved rape on implementation of "rape exceptions" to abortion bans, the role of early exposure to substance use and sexual abuse on reproductive health outcomes, and the effects of exposure to abortion-related media coverage on alcohol use intentions following the Supreme Court decision. CONCLUSIONS: The studies in this special section highlight the ways in which substance use and reproductive health are inextricably intertwined. Recent and future changes in reproductive health legislation and policy underscore the critical need for continued empirical inquiry into these intersecting public health concerns. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of court approval and legitimacy in a post-Dobbs world.

Have perceptions of the U.S. Supreme Court polarized, much like the rest of American politics? Because of the Court's unique role, for many years, it remained one of the few institutions respected by both Democrats and Republicans alike. But the Court's dramatic shift to the right in recent years-highlighted by its Dobbs decision in 2022-potentially upends that logic. Using both eight waves of panel data and 18 nationally representative surveys spanning two decades, we show that while there was little evidence of partisan polarization in earlier years, in 2022 and 2023, such patterns are clear in favorability, trust, legitimacy, and support for reform. Factors that used to protect the Court-like knowledge about it and support for key democratic values-no longer do so. The Court has also become more important to voters, and will likely remain a political flashpoint, with disquieting implications for the Court's place in our polity.

Abortion Care in the Dobbs Era.

Nurses are at the front line.

Alabama IVF ruling may halt uterus transplants.

Scientists fear wider research impacts if other states label frozen embryos "children".

The importance of professional responsibility and fetal viability in the management of abortion.

In June 2022, the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision ended the constitutional right to the professional practice of abortion throughout the United States. The removal of the constitutional right to abortion has significantly altered the practice of obstetricians and gynecologists across the US. It potentially increases risks to pregnant patients, leads to profound changes in how physicians can provide care, especially in states with strict bans or gestational limits to abortion, and has introduced personal challenges, including moral distress and injury as well as legal risks for patients and clinicians alike. The professional responsibility model is based on the ethical concept of medicine as a profession and has been influential in shaping medical ethics in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. It provides the framework for the importance of ethical and professional conduct in obstetrics and gynecology. Viability marks a stage where the fetus is a patient with a claim to access to medical care. By allowing unrestricted abortions past this stage without adequate justifications, such as those concerning the life and health of the pregnant individual, or in instances of serious fetal anomalies, the states may not be upholding the equitable ethical consideration owed to the fetus as a patient. Using the professional responsibility model, we emphasize the need for nuanced, evidence-based policies that allow abortion management prior to viability without restrictions and allow abortion after viability to protect the pregnant patient's life and health, as well as permitting abortion for serious fetal anomalies.

What's at stake for science in 'abortion pill' case.

Supreme Court decision this summer could gut FDA's authority over drugs.