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.

Health-care workforce implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

The Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision, which revoked the constitutional right to abortion in the USA, has impacted the national medical workforce. Impacts vary across states, but providers in states with restrictive abortion laws now must contend with evolving legal and ethical challenges that have the potential to affect workforce safety, mental health, education, and training opportunities, in addition to having serious impacts on patient health and far-reaching societal consequences. Moreover, Dobbs has consequences on almost every facet of the medical workforce, including on physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and others who work within the health-care system. Comprehensive research is urgently needed to understand the wide-ranging implications of Dobbs on the medical workforce, including legal, ethical, clinical, and psychological dimensions, to inform evidence-based policies and standards of care in abortion-restrictive settings. Lessons from the USA might also have global relevance for countries facing similar restrictions on reproductive care.

Societal implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization marked the removal of the constitutional right to abortion in the USA, introducing a complex ethical and legal landscape for patients and providers. This shift has had immediate health and equity repercussions, but it is also crucial to examine the broader impacts on states, health-care systems, and society as a whole. Restrictions on abortion access extend beyond immediate reproductive care concerns, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of the ruling's consequences across micro and macro levels. To mitigate potential harm, it is imperative to establish a research agenda that informs policy making and ensures effective long-term monitoring and reporting, addressing both immediate and future impacts.

A decade-long longitudinal survey shows that the Supreme Court is now much more conservative than the public.

Has the US Supreme Court become more conservative than the public? We introduce results of three surveys conducted over the course of a decade that ask respondents about their opinions on the policy issues before the court. Using these data, we show that the gap between the court and the public has grown since 2020, with the court moving from being quite close to the average American to a position that is more conservative than the majority of Americans. Second, in contrast to findings showing consistency in the public's approval of or deference to the court, we find that the public's expectations of the court vary significantly over time and in tandem with changes in the court's composition and recent rulings. Even so, many members of the public currently underestimate the court's conservative leaning. Third, we find that respondents' perceptions of the court's ideology relative to their own are associated with support for institutional changes but with important differences between Democrats and Republicans. The fact that so many people currently underestimate how conservative the court is implies that support for proposed changes to the court may be weaker than it would be if people knew with greater accuracy the court's conservative nature.

Strategies for obstetricians and gynecologists to advance reproductive autonomy in a post-Roe landscape.

The monumental reversal of Roe vs Wade dramatically impacted the landscape of reproductive healthcare access in the United States. The decision most significantly affects communities that historically have been and continue to be marginalized by systemic racism, classism, and ableism within the medical system. To minimize the harm of restrictive policies that have proliferated since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, it is incumbent on obstetrician-gynecologists to modify practice patterns to meet the pressing reproductive health needs of their patients and communities. Change will require cross-discipline advocacy focused on advancing equity and supporting the framework of reproductive justice. Now, more than ever, obstetrician-gynecologists have a critical responsibility to implement new approaches to service delivery and education that will expand access to evidence-based, respectful, and person-centered family planning and early pregnancy care regardless of their practice location or subspecialty.

The Two Front War on Reproductive Rights-When the Right to Abortion is Banned, Can the Right to Refuse Obstetrical Interventions Be Far behind?

The loss of the federally protected constitutional right to an abortion is a threat to the already tenuous autonomy of pregnant people, and may augur future challenges to their right to refuse unwanted obstetric interventions. Even before Roe's demise, pregnancy led to constraints on autonomy evidenced by clinician-led legal incursions against patients who refused obstetric interventions. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court found that the right to liberty espoused in the Constitution does not extend to a pregnant person's right to an abortion. With Roe's demise, the right to request specific types of care has been vitiated. The same argument underpinning that holding may now become ballast for attacks on the traditionally more robust right, the right to refuse. Here we discuss how the elevation of fetal and embryonic rights may lead to a cascade of medical intrusions and deprivations of liberty against pregnant persons, and offer an argument opposing these improprieties.

Reproductive Health Policy in the United States: An American College of Physicians Policy Brief.

The legal landscape around access to reproductive health care services was substantially altered after the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization. In the aftermath of the decision, some state governments have begun to impose stringent restrictions and complete bans on the provision of abortion, whereas others have sought to protect and expand access. Some have gone as far as imposing criminal and civil penalties on physicians and other clinicians who provide evidence-based, clinically indicated reproductive health care services and information that is guided by biomedical ethics and provided in the best interest of the patient's health and well-being. In several states, lawmakers have attempted and successfully used new approaches to enforcing and achieving these prohibitions, including prohibitions on crossing state lines to obtain abortion care, prohibitions on the mailing of medication abortion, and the authorization of third-party civil lawsuits. In this policy brief, the American College of Physicians (ACP) updates and expands on its previous public policy positions on abortion from its 2018 policy paper, "Women's Health Policy in the United States," to reflect this new reality. The College also offers policymakers and payers recommendations to promote equitable access to reproductive health care services and safeguard maternal health. ACP reaffirms its opposition to undue and unnecessary governmental interference in the patient-physician relationship that criminalizes the provision of health care made in the physician's clinical judgment and based on clinical evidence and the standard of care.

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.

The impact of abortion bans on short-term housing needs.

OBJECTIVES: State-level abortion bans in the United States have created a complex legal landscape that forces many prospective patients to travel long distances to access abortion care. The financial strain and logistical difficulties associated with travelling out of state for abortion care may present an insurmountable barrier to some individuals, especially to those with limited resources. Tracking the impact of these abortion bans on travel and housing is crucial for understanding abortion access and economic changes following the Dobbs U.S. Supreme Court decision. STUDY DESIGN: This study used occupancy data from an average of 2,349,635 (standard deviation = 111,578) U.S. Airbnb listings each month from October 1st, 2020, through April 30th, 2023, to measure the impact of abortion bans on travel for abortion care and the resulting economic effects on regional economies. METHODS: The study used a synthetic difference-in-differences design to compare monthly-level occupancy rate data from 1-bedroom entire-place Airbnb rentals within a 30-min driving distance of abortion clinics in states with and without abortion bans. RESULTS: The study found a 1.4 percentage point decrease in occupancy rates of Airbnbs around abortion clinics in states where abortion bans were in effect, demonstrating reductions in Airbnb use in states with bans. In the 6-month period post Dobbs, this decrease translates to 16,548 fewer renters and a $1.87 million loss in revenue for 1-bedroom entire-place Airbnbs within a 30-min catchment area of abortion facilities in states with abortion restrictions. CONCLUSION: This novel use of Airbnb data provides a unique perspective on measuring demand for abortion and healthcare services and demonstrates the value of this data stream as a tool for understanding economic impacts of health policies.

An examination of erroneous medical practices in circumcision surgery in light of supreme court decisions.

PURPOSE: Global interest in circumcision, one of the oldest and most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide, continues. There is a significant increase in cases regarding medical malpractice claims in the world and in our country. It is aimed to identify situations that lead to malpractice claims in circumcision surgery, which has question marks regarding its psychological and ethical aspects, to identify situations that are considered errors and professionally risky, and to contribute to eliminating these deficiencies. METHODS: We examined the Supreme Court appeal decisions related to circumcision malpractice cases resolved between 2012 and 2022, using the keyword "circumcision" on the official website of the Republic of Turkiye Supreme Court. RESULTS: We examined 30 Supreme Court decisions that met our criteria. It was determined that the most common lawsuit was filed due to negligence (43.3%), followed by carelessness (20%) and faulty action (20%). CONCLUSION: Physical conditions must be appropriate and healthcare personnel must be adequately trained for circumcision, which is frequently performed especially in pediatric patients and is more frequently subject to malpractice lawsuits than other pediatric operations.

Anxiety and Depression Symptoms After the Dobbs Abortion Decision.

Importance: In 2022, the US Supreme Court abolished the federal right to abortion in the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. In 13 states, abortions were immediately banned via previously passed legislation, known as trigger laws. Objective: To estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision among people residing in states with trigger laws compared with those without them. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using the nationally representative repeated cross-sectional Household Pulse Survey (December 2021-January 2023), difference-in-differences models were estimated to examine the change in symptoms of depression and anxiety after Dobbs (either the June 24, 2022, Dobbs decision, or its May 2, 2022, leaked draft benchmarked to the baseline period, prior to May 2, 2022) by comparing the 13 trigger states with the 37 nontrigger states. Models were estimated for the full population (N = 718 753), and separately for 153 108 females and 102 581 males aged 18 through 45 years. Exposure: Residing in states with trigger laws following the Dobbs decision or its leaked draft. Main Outcomes and Measures: Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 ([PHQ-4]; range, 0-12; scores of more than 5 indicate elevated depression or anxiety symptoms; minimal important difference unknown). Results: The survey response rate was 6.04% overall, and 87% of respondents completed the PHQ-4. The population-weighted mean age was 48 years (SD, 17 years), and 51% were female. In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 scores in the baseline period and after the Dobbs decision were 3.51 (95% CI, 3.44 to 3.59) and 3.81 (95% CI, 3.75 to 3.87), respectively, and in nontrigger states were 3.31 (95% CI, 3.27 to 3.34) and 3.49 (95% CI, 3.45 to 3.53), respectively. There was a significantly greater increase in the mean PHQ-4 score by 0.11 (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.16; P < .001) in trigger states vs nontrigger states. From baseline to after the draft was leaked, the change in PHQ-4 was not significantly different for those in trigger states vs nontrigger states (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.21; P = .15). From baseline to after the Dobbs opinion, there was a significantly greater increase in mean PHQ-4 scores for those in trigger states vs nontrigger states among females aged 18 through 45 years (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.37; P = .002). Among males aged 18 through 45 years, the difference-in-differences estimate was not statistically significant (0.14; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.36; P = .23). Differences in estimates for males and females aged 18 through 45 were statistically significant (P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of US survey data from December 2021 to January 2023, residence in states with abortion trigger laws compared with residence in states without such laws was associated with a small but significantly greater increase in anxiety and depression symptoms after the Dobbs decision.

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.

Abortion pill marketing and sourcing on twitter following Dobbs v. Jackson supreme court ruling.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines abortion-related discourse on Twitter (X) pre-and post-Dobbs v. Jackson ruling, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. STUDY DESIGN: We used a custom data collection tool to collect tweets directly from Twitter using abortion-related keywords. We used the BERTopic language model and examined the top 30 retweeted and top 30 textually similar tweets from relevant topic clusters using an inductive coding approach. We also conducted statistical testing to assess potential associations between abortion themes. RESULTS: 166,799 unique tweets were collected from December 2020-December 2022. 464 unique tweets were coded for abortion-related themes with 154 identified as relevant. Of these, 66 tweets marketed abortion pills, 17 tweets were identified as offering consultations, and 91 tweets were relevant to self-managed abortion. All marketing and consultation tweets were posted post-Dobbs decision and 7 (7.69%) of self-managed tweets were posted pre-Dobbs versus 84 (92.30%) posted post-Dobbs. A positive association was found between tweets offering a medical consultation with tweets marketing abortion pills and discussing self-managed abortion. CONCLUSION: This study detected online marketing of abortion pills, consultations and discussions about self-managed abortion following the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling. These results provide more context to the type of abortion-related information that is available online.

This study examined tweets occurring both pre and post Dobbs decision and identified relevant discussions about self-managed abortion services, marketing and sale of abortion pills, and offering purported medical consultations. These findings indicate that abortion-related tweets, particularly those marketing abortion medications, increased after the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling. These findings highlight the evolving abortion information environment in the United States on Twitter, which represents a platform where health and politicised issues are commonly discussed.

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.

Severely Restricting Abortion Threatens Equitable Health Outcomes for People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

Equitable access to abortion is a critical component of reproductive care. Women with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the United States are disproportionately Black and will be disproportionately affected by abortion bans following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade. We argue that this decision is directly in conflict with the National HIV/AIDS Strategies and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's goals to eliminate perinatal HIV transmission.