State Abortion Policy and Moral Distress Among Clinicians Providing Abortion After the Dobbs Decision.

Importance: Moral distress occurs when individuals feel powerless to do what they think is right, including when clinicians are prevented from providing health care they deem necessary. The loss of federal protections for abortion following the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision may place clinicians providing abortion at risk of experiencing moral distress, as many could face new legal and civil penalties for providing care in line with professional standards and that they perceive as necessary. Objective: To assess self-reported moral distress scores among abortion-providing clinicians following the Dobbs decision overall and by state-level abortion policy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study, conducted from May to December 2023, included US abortion-providing clinicians (physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and nurses). A purposive electronic survey was disseminated nationally through professional listservs and snowball sampling. Exposure: Abortion policy in each respondent's state of practice (restrictive vs protective using classifications from the Guttmacher Institute). Main Outcomes and Measures: Using descriptive statistics and unadjusted and adjusted negative binomial regression models, the association between self-reported moral distress on the Moral Distress Thermometer (MDT), a validated psychometric tool that scores moral distress from 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible), and state abortion policy was examined. Results: Overall, 310 clinicians (271 [87.7%] women; mean [SD] age, 41.4 [9.7] years) completed 352 MDTs, with 206 responses (58.5%) from protective states and 146 (41.5%) from restrictive states. Reported moral distress scores ranged from 0 to 10 (median, 5) and were more than double for clinicians in restrictive compared with protective states (median, 8 [IQR, 6-9] vs 3 [IQR, 1-6]; P < .001). Respondents with higher moral distress scores included physicians compared with advanced practice clinicians (median, 6 [IQR, 3-8] vs 4 [IQR, 2-7]; P = .005), those practicing in free-standing abortion clinics compared with those practicing in hospitals (median, 6 [IQR, 3-8] vs 4 [IQR, 2-7]; P < .001), those no longer providing abortion care compared with those still providing abortion care (median, 8 [IQR, 4-9] vs 5 [IQR, 2-8]; P = .004), those practicing in loss states (states with the greatest decline in abortion volume since the Dobbs decision) compared with those in stable states (unadjusted incidence rate [IRR], 1.72 [95% CI, 1.55-1.92]; P < .001; adjusted IRR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.40-1.79]; P < .001), and those practicing in surge states (states with the greatest increase in abortion volume since the Dobbs decision) compared with those in stable states (unadjusted IRR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.11-1.46]; P < .001; adjusted IRR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.09-1.41]; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this purposive national survey study of clinicians providing abortion, moral distress was elevated among all clinicians and more than twice as high among those practicing in states that restrict abortion compared with those in states that protect abortion. The findings suggest that structural changes addressing bans on necessary health care, such as federal protections for abortion, are needed at institutional, state, and federal policy levels to combat widespread moral distress.

The Impact of the Recent Supreme Court Ruling on the Dermatology Recruitment Pipeline.

The 2023 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on the use of race-based criteria in college admissions may have implications for the selection of individuals into the dermatology workforce. This article highlights the impact of these decisions at the undergraduate, medical school, and graduate medical education levels, as well as within the field of dermatology.

Abortion Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions of Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents at Four Midwestern Residency Programs Prior to Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health.

INTRODUCTION: In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization to overturn Roe v Wade. As a result, half of US states now face proposed or in-effect abortion bans, which affect the ability of obstetrics and gynecology (ObGyn) residency programs to provide abortion training. We sought to establish ObGyn residents' pre-Dobbs attitudes toward abortion, desire to learn about abortion, and intentions about providing abortion care in their future practice. METHODS: From January through December 2021, we surveyed 70 ObGyn residents at 4 programs in Wisconsin and Minnesota to assess their attitudes toward abortion, desire to learn about abortion, and intentions about providing abortion care in their future practice. RESULTS: Fifty-five out of 70 (79%) ObGyn residents completed the survey. Most reported highly favorable attitudes toward abortion, nearly all found the issue of abortion important, and the majority planned to incorporate abortion care into their future work. There were no differences in median attitude scores or behavioral intentions among institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to the Dobbs decision, ObGyn residents in Minnesota and Wisconsin viewed abortion as important health care and intended to provide this care after graduation.

Self-Managed Abortion Attempts Before vs After Changes in Federal Abortion Protections in the US.

Importance: With decreasing access to facility-based abortion in the US, an increase in self-managed abortion (SMA) using various methods is anticipated. To date, no studies have examined changes in SMA in the shifting policy landscape. Objective: To estimate changes in SMA prevalence among the general US population from before to after the Supreme Court's June 2022 decision overturning federal abortion protections. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional surveys were administered throughout the US from December 10, 2021, to January 11, 2022, and June 14 to July 7, 2023. Participants included online panel members assigned female sex at birth, ages 18 to 49 years (or ages 15-17 years if a household member), who were English- or Spanish-speaking. Exposure: Year of the survey (2021-2022 vs 2023). Main Outcome and Measures: Participants were asked whether they had "ever taken or done something on their own, without medical assistance, to try to end a pregnancy" and, if so, details of their experience. Changes in the weighted SMA prevalence between survey years were examined, factors associated with SMA experience were identified, and projected lifetime SMA prevalence was calculated using discrete-time event history models, accounting for abortion underreporting. Results: Median age of the participants was 32.5 (IQR, 25-41) years in 2021-2022 (n = 7016) and 32.0 (IQR, 24-40) in 2023 (n = 7148). Across both years, approximately 14% were non-Hispanic Black, 21% were Hispanic, and 54% were non-Hispanic White. The weighted adjusted proportion that ever attempted SMA was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.9%-3.0%) in 2021-2022 and 3.4% (95% CI, 2.8%-4.0%) in 2023-an increase of 1.0% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.7%; P = .03). Projected lifetime SMA prevalence accounting for abortion underreporting was 10.7% (95% CI, 8.6%-12.8%). In adjusted analyses, SMA experience was higher among non-Hispanic Black (4.3%; 95% CI, 2.8%-5.8%) vs other racial and ethnic (2.7%; 95% CI, 2.2%-3.1%) groups (P = .04) and sexual and gender minority (5.0%; 95% CI, 3.4%-6.6%) vs heterosexual or cisgender (2.5%; 95% CI, 2.0%-2.9%) participants (P < .001). Approximately 4 in 10 (45.3% in 2021 and 39.0% in 2023) SMA attempts occurred before age 20 years. The methods used included herbs (29.8% [2021-2022] vs 25.9% [2023]), physical methods (28.6% [2021-2022] vs 29.7% [2023]), or alcohol or other substances (17.9% [2021-2022] vs 18.6% [2023]). Few participants (7.1% [2021-2022] vs 4.7% [2023]) sought emergency care for a complication. Conclusions and Relevance: In this serial nationally representative survey study, increased SMA was observed following the loss of federal abortion protections. The findings revealed increased SMA use among marginalized groups, most often with ineffective methods. These findings suggest the need to expand access to alternative models of safe and effective abortion care and ensure those seeking health care post-SMA do not face legal risks.

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.

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.

Distorted Burden Shifting and Barred Mitigation: Being a Stubborn 234 Years Old Ironically Hasn't Helped the Supreme Court Mature.

This Note explores the intricate relationship between emerging adulthood, defined as the transitional phase between youth and adulthood (ages 18-25), and the legal implications of capital punishment. Contrary to a fixed age determining adulthood, research highlights the prolonged nature of the maturation process, especially for individuals impacted by Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). The Note challenges the current legal framework that deems individuals aged 18 to 25 who experienced ACEs as eligible for capital punishment, highlighting the cognitive impact of ACEs on developmental trajectories. Examining cases like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Billy Joe Wardlow, this Note argues that courts often bypass mitigating evidence related to ACEs, thereby perpetuating judicial errors. The mismatched burdens of proof for aggravating and mitigating factors further compound the problem, contributing to a flawed system that disproportionately affects emerging adults. In response to these issues, some states are reevaluating their approach to emerging adult justice, considering initiatives such as "raise the age" campaigns and specialized courts. The Note promotes an approach that aligns with cognitive age appropriateness, tailoring interventions to encompass restorative justice, rehabilitative measures, and a comprehensive legal framework to address the distinct needs of the emerging adult population. Recognizing the potential for cognitive development and rehabilitation during this transitional phase, this Note contends that alternative methods can provide opportunities for ACE-impacted individuals to age out of criminal behaviors, potentially altering life trajectories and mitigating the imposition of capital punishment.

Privileges, Immunities, and Affirmative Action in Medical Education.

In Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action in university admissions, in which an applicant of a particular race or ethnicity receives a plus factor, is unconstitutional. This ruling was based on both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This article argues that a more natural fit as the basis for constitutional analysis would be a different clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In the article, a legal analysis based on the clause is applied to medical school admissions. Depending on whether a fundamental rights reading or an antidiscrimination (equality) reading of the clause is applied, opposite conclusions are reached on the constitutionality of affirmative action in medical school admissions. This analysis demonstrates why affirmative action in admissions--in this case medical school admissions, which directly affect the composition of the Nation's physician workforce--is a complex and difficult constitutional question.

A Trigger Warning: Red Flag Laws are Still Constitutionally Permissible and Could Reduce the Suicide Rates in the Country's Most Vulnerable States.

Montana, Alaska, and Wyoming lead the United States in a category coveted by no one: the suicide rate. Firearm ownership drives the rate to the disproportionate level it reaches year after year and the states are left with little recourse. This article argues the usefulness and constitutionality of narrowly tailored red-flag laws aimed exclusively at reducing the rate of suicide in these mountain states. The article follows Supreme Court jurisprudence leading up to New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen and offers an analysis that complies with the hyper textualist history and tradition test laid out by Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The analysis demonstrates that narrowly tailored red flag laws are a constitutional means of reducing the suicide rate in these at-risk states and references statutory and cultural avenues for the implementation of the legislation.

California v. Texas: Avoiding an Antidemocratic Outcome.

The Affordable Care Act ("ACA") contains a section titled "Requirement to Maintain Essential Minimum Coverage." Colloquially known as the Individual Mandate, this section of the Act initially established a monetary penalty for anyone who did not maintain health insurance in a given tax year. But with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the monetary penalty was reset to zero, inducing opponents of the ACA to mount a legal challenge over the Individual Mandate's constitutionality. As the third major legal challenge to the ACA, California v. Texas saw the Supreme Court punt on the merits and instead decide the case on grounds of Article III standing. But how would the ACA have fared if the Court had in fact reached the merits? Did resetting the Individual Mandate penalty to zero uncloak the provision from the saving construction of Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius? This Note posits that, had the Court reached the merits, it would have found the Individual Mandate no longer met the requirements for classification as a tax under the rule relied on in NFIB. Moreover, it argues that the Court would have found the unconstitutional provision to be inseverable from the ACA insofar as it was integral to funding both the novel structure of the reformed healthcare system and the prohibition against insurance carriers denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition. This examination ultimately reveals that an outright repeal of the ACA would have been antidemocratic in the face of current consensus opinion that favors the reform and highlights the impact its abrogation would have had.

Post-Dobbs Psychiatric Exceptions in Abortion-Restricting States.

Mental disorders and suicide are important causes of increased morbidity and mortality rates during pregnancy. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision, many state legislatures have passed stringent abortion bans and restrictions. These laws define exceptions under which abortion may be legally obtained. Suicidality and other psychiatric symptoms have been excluded from such definitions. In this column, the authors examine how legislatures, courts, and professional regulatory bodies in several abortion-restricting states have defined their medical emergency exceptions. The authors argue that psychiatrists should be concerned about the management of psychiatric emergencies during pregnancy as well as emerging legal intrusions into physician-patient decision making.

Use of Oral and Emergency Contraceptives After the US Supreme Court's Dobbs Decision.

Importance: The US Supreme Court Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision allowed states to strengthen restrictions on abortion access, triggering the closure of family planning clinics and leading to confusion about the legality of emergency contraceptives (ECs). Objectives: To evaluate the association between the Dobbs decision and fills for oral and emergency contraceptives in states that enacted the most restrictive abortion policies after Dobbs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data on contraceptive fills for women of reproductive age (15-49 years) in the US from IQVIA's National Prescription Audit PayerTrak and data from the Guttmacher Institute were used to categorize changes in abortion restrictions in each state. A difference-in-differences analysis compared changes in monthly fill rates for daily oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) and ECs in states that became most restrictive (implemented a full abortion ban after Dobbs) and comparison states (kept a medium level of abortion restrictions after Dobbs) before (March 2021 to November 2021) and after (July 2022 to October 2023) the Dobbs decision. Exposure: State-level abortion restrictions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly fills of OCPs and ECs per 100 000 women of reproductive age. Results: Between March 2021 and October 2023, 142.8 million prescriptions for OCPs and 904 269 prescriptions for ECs were dispensed at US retail pharmacies. Before Dobbs, trends in monthly fill rates were similar for OCPs and ECs between the most restrictive and comparison states. After the Dobbs decision, states that became the most restrictive experienced an additional 4.1% decline in OCP fills with 285.9 fewer fills per 100 000 (95% CI, -495.8 to -6.8; P = .04). In contrast to OCPs, fills for ECs increased during the first year after Dobbs (July 2022 to June 2023) in both groups of states. However, 1 year after Dobbs (July 2023 to October 2023), the most restrictive states experienced an additional 65% decrease in emergency contraceptive fills with 13.2 fewer fills per 100 000 (95% CI, -27.2 to -4.1; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of prescriptions filled at US pharmacies, the Dobbs decision was associated with declines in oral contraceptives, particularly ECs, in states enacting the most restrictive abortion policies. Given the important role of OCPs and ECs in preventing pregnancy and the need for abortion, efforts to improve access may be needed, especially in states where legal abortion is no longer an option.

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.

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.