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.

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".

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.

State Abortion Bans Heap Burdens on Already Traumatized Rape Survivors.

The laws exacerbate stigma and impede access to needed health care.

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.

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.

Deception by obfuscation: Studnicki et al.'s retracted longitudinal cohort study of emergency room utilization following abortion.

OBJECTIVES: In November 2022, the anti-abortion advocacy group Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration challenging the initial 2000 approval of mifepristone and its subsequent approvals, which removed unnecessary restrictions on its use, by disputing the medication's safety record. Such challenges relied on a study examining the incidence of emergency room visits following medication abortion with mifepristone and procedural abortion using Medicaid claims data from 1999-2015. In February 2024 that study was retracted by its publisher. In this paper, we analyzed the methods and presentations of the data used in the study. STUDY DESIGN: We drew upon commonly accepted principles in responsible epidemiologic and scientific research to evaluate the methods and presentations of the data and organized our findings into themes. RESULTS: We found multiple instances of methodological flaws, mischaracterizations, and obfuscations of data in this study, including use of a misleading research question and framing, analytic flaws, inappropriate use of an unvalidated proxy measure for outcomes of interest, and inappropriate and deceptive visualizations of data. In each instance, the resulting effect obfuscated and misrepresented the safety of medication abortion with mifepristone. CONCLUSIONS: The misrepresentation and exaggeration of data promoted and exacerbated misinterpretations about the study's findings, resulting in substantial harm before it was retracted. Recognizing that ongoing judicial proceedings threaten access to conventional reproductive health care in the United States, public health policies must be informed by scientific and medical literature that is comprehensive, methodologically sound, and absent any obfuscations or misrepresentations. IMPLICATIONS: Studnicki et al.'s study of emergency room visits after abortion misrepresented the safety of mifepristone with multiple instances of methodological flaws and obfuscations of data. While the study has now been retracted, it led to irrevocable harm, threatening access to medication abortion, which has an established safety record.

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

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

Acces to abortion in the Grand Est region in 2023 / L'accès à l'interruption volontaire de grossesse dans la région Grand Est en 2023

Objectives: Although access to abortion is a national priority in France, there is little documented evidence that it is actually respected. In the Grand Est region, the 2021­2023 plan for access to abortion includes a review of family planning practices and health care provision, to update the 2019 report. It raises the question of access to abortion in all its dimensions, and aims to implement improvement actions best suited to the region's problems. Method: An online questionnaire was sent to hospitals, local perinatal centers, sexual health centers, and independent professionals with presumed family planning activity. Of those who responded, only those with actual family planning activity were included. Results: The five-day deadline for the first appointment recommended by the HAS can be met by 73% of those surveyed. During pre- or post-abortion consultations, a psychosocial interview is offered to 92% of patients, and the detection of violence to 97%. Although 14 hospitals (38%) have extended their abortion access time to 16 weeks of amenorrhea, the number of facilities handling abortions beyond 13 weeks of amenorrhea has fallen since 2019. In primary care, 70% of private practitioners and 61% of sexual health centers offer abortions up to 9 weeks of amenorrhea. Conclusions: Access to abortion has weakened in the Grand Est region between 2019 and 2023. New laws and regulations could be a lever for improvement, provided that the professionals involved are given the means.

Objectifs: Si l'accès à l'IVG est une priorité nationale en France, son respect effectif n'est que peu documenté. Dans le Grand Est, le plan d'accès à l'IVG 2021-2023 inclut la réalisation d'un état des lieux des pratiques et de l'offre de soins en orthogénie, pour actualiser celui de 2019. Il pose la question de l'accès à l'IVG dans toutes ses dimensions et vise la mise en place des actions d'amélioration les plus adaptées aux problématiques de la région. Méthodes: Un questionnaire en ligne a été envoyé aux centres hospitaliers, aux centres périnataux de proximité, aux centres de santé sexuelle et aux professionnels libéraux ayant une activité d'orthogénie supposée. Parmi ceux qui y ont répondu, seuls ceux qui avaient une activité d'orthogénie effective ont été inclus. Résultats: Le délai de premier rendez-vous de cinq jours recommandés par l'HAS peut être respecté par 73 % des enquêtés. Lors des consultations pré- ou post-IVG, un entretien psychosocial est proposé à 92 % et un repérage des violences à 97 %. Bien que 14 centres hospitaliers (38 %) aient allongé leur délai d'accès à l'IVG jusqu'à 16 SA, le nombre d'établissements prenant en charge les IVG au-delà de 13 semaines d'aménorrhée a baissé depuis 2019. En médecine de ville, 70 % des professionnels libéraux et 61 % des CSS ont une offre IVG allant jusqu'à 9 SA. Conclusions: L'accès à l'IVG s'est fragilisé dans le Grand Est entre 2019 et 2023. Les nouvelles lois et réglementations pourraient être un levier d'amélioration à condition que des moyens soient donnés aux professionnels impliqués.

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.