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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Abortion Care in the Dobbs Era.

Nurses are at the front line.

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.

Travel Time and Costs for Abortion for Military Service Members After the Dobbs Decision.

This study quantifies the change in travel times for military service personnel to abortion facilities following the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision and estimates the cost of an abortion-related travel reimbursement policy.

The US Supreme Court Dobbs decision's impact on the future plans of 2023 residency graduates at the University of Utah.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand how the Dobbs decision impacted graduating resident physicians in Utah and to understand residents' perspectives on abortion access. STUDY DESIGN: We invited all 2023 graduating residents at the University of Utah, from all specialties, to participate in this survey. We analyzed univariate relationships between respondent demographics and change of career plans post-Dobbs. We also performed a thematic analysis of free text responses. RESULTS: We received responses from 85 residents (55% of all graduating residents from the University of Utah) representing 19 specialties. Six (7%) residents changed their practice location due to the Dobbs decision. Most residents supported and wanted to advocate for legal abortion. In a thematic analysis, many graduating residents do not want to live in an abortion-restrictive state. CONCLUSIONS: The Dobbs decision impacts physicians across all specialties, not just obstetrician/gynecologists. IMPLICATIONS: Future research into the impact of the Dobbs decision should include physicians of all specialties.

The over-citation of Daubert in forensic anthropology.

The 1993 US Supreme Court decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. presented new guidance for the judicial assessment of expert witness evidence and testimony in the determination of admissibility. Despite the rarity of admissibility challenges to forensic anthropology evidence, Daubert is frequently cited in published forensic anthropology research. This study undertook a qualitative thematic analysis of forensic anthropology articles published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences to assess why authors continue to cite Daubert and express concerns over potential exclusion. The results show a significant increase in the number of articles that cite legal admissibility standards over time (p < 0.001). Authors frequently cite these standards to contextualize their results within the Daubert framework or to justify the need for their research. Notably, many articles present Daubert as a constraining force, misinterpreting the guidelines as rigid criteria or that they require methods to be strictly quantitative. However, Daubert was intended to be a flexible tool for judges-not a standard or instruction for scientists. While it was reasonable to reflect on the scientific rigor of methods in the wake of the Daubert decision, a new perspective is warranted in which forensic anthropologists shift their focus from trying to "satisfy" admissibility guidelines to adopting quality assurance measures that minimize error and ensure confidence in analytical results, and developing and using methods that are grounded in good science-which is important regardless of whether or not the results are ever the subject of a trial.

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.