Abortion Return Rates and Wait Times Before and After Texas' Executive Order Banning Abortion During COVID-19.

Objectives. To assess the associations between the executive order that Texas governor Greg Abbott issued on March 22, 2020, postponing procedures deemed not immediately medically necessary, and patients' access to abortion care in Texas. Methods. We used 17 515 individual-level patient records from 13 Texas abortion facilities for matched periods in 2019 and 2020 to examine differences in return rates for abortion after completion of a state-mandated ultrasound and median wait times between ultrasound and abortion visits for those who returned. Results. Patients were less likely to return for an abortion if they had an ultrasound while the executive order was under effect (82.8%) than in the same period in 2019 (90.4%; adjusted odds ratio = 2.06; 95% confidence interval = 1.12, 3.81). Compared with patients at or before 10.0 weeks' gestation at ultrasound, patients at more than 10 weeks' gestation had higher odds of not returning for an abortion or, if they returned, experienced greater wait times between ultrasound and abortion visits. Conclusions. Texas' executive order prohibiting abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted patients' access to care and disproportionately affected patients who were past 10 weeks' gestation. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(10):1013-1023. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307747).

Status of abortion curriculum in genetic counseling: Survey of graduate programs and recent graduates in the United States.

Genetic counselors (GCs) are trained to help individuals navigate the medical and psychological implications of genetic test results, familial conditions, and ultrasound anomalies. Therefore, familiarity with reproductive options, including abortion, is vital. However, previous studies have found gaps in GCs' knowledge regarding abortion care and there are currently no recommendations regarding abortion curriculum. This study aimed to assess the state of abortion curriculum in genetic counseling graduate programs in the United States and to examine and compare the satisfaction levels of program representatives and recent graduates. Program representatives and recent graduates were invited to complete an anonymous survey evaluating the abortion curriculum, satisfaction with said curriculum, and perceived preparedness to counsel on abortion. Quantitative data from 46 program representatives and 123 recent graduates were analyzed using descriptive statistics and appropriate statistical analyses, including the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Large variability existed in the amount and types of abortion training. Results showed greater satisfaction and feelings of preparation to counsel on abortion in graduates whose program provided a dedicated abortion curriculum (p < 0.001, p = 0.005). In addition, graduates with abortion counseling experience felt less prepared to counsel on abortion than their programs believed them to be (p = 0.04). Graduates perceived procedural timing, facilitation of genetic testing, and resources/support desired by patients before, during, or after an abortion, to be the most important topics, although these were not included in all programs' curriculum. Program representatives and recent graduates alike noted that variability in clinical training is a barrier to abortion education. Our results demonstrate a need for curricular reform to reduce variability in training and ensure that all graduates receive the same foundational abortion education. Further research is needed to determine the scope of GCs in abortion care, as well as which topics and education formats are most helpful in graduate education.

Access to care following Planned Parenthood's termination from Texas' Medicaid network: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore Planned Parenthood Medicaid patients' experiences getting reproductive health care in Texas after the state terminated Planned Parenthood providers from its Medicaid program in 2021. STUDY DESIGN: Between January and September 2021, we recruited Medicaid patients who obtained care at Planned Parenthood health centers prior to the state termination using direct mailers, electronic messages, community outreach, and flyers in health centers. We conducted baseline and 2-month follow-up semistructured phone interviews about patients' previous experiences using Medicaid at Planned Parenthood and other providers and how the termination affected their care. We qualitatively analyzed the data using the principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: We interviewed 30 patients, 24 of whom completed follow-up interviews. Participants reported that Planned Parenthood reliably accepted different Medicaid plans, worked with patients to ameliorate the structural barriers they face to care, and referred them to other providers as needed. After Planned Parenthood's termination from the Texas Medicaid program, participants faced difficulties accessing care elsewhere, including same-day appointments and on-site medications. Consequences included delayed or forgone reproductive health care, including contraception, and emotional distress. CONCLUSIONS: Planned Parenthood Medicaid patients found it difficult to connect with other providers for reproductive health care and to obtain evidence-based care following the organization's termination from Medicaid. Ensuring all Medicaid patients have freedom to choose providers would improve access to quality contraception and other reproductive health care. IMPLICATIONS: Medicaid-funded reproductive health care access is restricted for people living on low incomes when providers do not reliably accept all Medicaid plans or cannot participate in Medicaid. This situation can lead to lower quality care, delayed or forgone care, and emotional distress.

Abortion assistance fund staff and volunteers as patient navigators following an abortion ban in Texas.

CONTEXT: Abortion assistance funds constitute an important part of the healthcare safety net by covering some of abortion patients' out-of-pocket costs. Few studies have examined the other ways abortion assistance fund staff and volunteers support callers who need help obtaining care. METHODS: Between June and September 2020, we conducted in-depth interviews with 23 staff and volunteers at 11 local abortion assistance funds that helped Texans seeking abortion care following a March 2020 state executive order that prohibited most abortions. Interviewers explored respondents' experiences with callers whose appointments had been canceled or who traveled out of state and subsequent operational changes. We used both inductive and deductive codes in the thematic analysis. RESULTS: Abortion assistance fund staff and volunteers bridged callers' information gaps about the services and financial resources available and helped create plans to secure care that accounted for callers' specific needs. They provided emotional support so callers felt it was possible to overcome logistical hurdles to get an abortion, even if that required out-of-state travel. Respondents described greater collaboration between Texas-based abortion assistance funds and out-of-state organizations to support callers' more complex logistical needs and increased costs. Some callers who encountered multiple barriers to care, including interpersonal violence, were unable to obtain an abortion, even with additional supports. CONCLUSIONS: Local abortion assistance funds worked with Texas callers to co-create person-centered plans for care and expanded inter-organization collaborations. Initiatives that bolster local assistance funds' infrastructure and capacity will be needed as the abortion access landscape becomes further restricted and complex.

Now is the time to safeguard access to emergency contraception as abortion restrictions sweep the United States.

Abortion and contraception are essential components of reproductive healthcare. As 26 states are likely to severely restrict access to abortion following the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, access to emergency contraception will be more important than ever. Existing barriers to emergency contraception - including cost, obstacles to over-the-counter purchase, low awareness and availability of the most effective options, myths about safety and mechanism of action - already substantially limit access. Proactive solutions include public information campaigns; healthcare provider education about all emergency contraceptive options, including IUDs and advance provision of emergency contraceptive pills; innovative service delivery options such as vending machines and community distribution programs; and policy initiatives to ensure insurance coverage, eliminate pharmacy refusals, and support all service delivery options. In addition, we urge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve updated labeling to align with the best available evidence that oral contraceptive pills work before ovulation and do not prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, as this language contributes to public confusion and access barriers. In the face of extreme limits on reproductive healthcare, now is the time to expand and protect access to emergency contraception so that everyone has the possibility of preventing pregnancy after unprotected sex or sexual assault.

Factors associated with abortion at 12 or more weeks gestation after implementation of a restrictive Texas law.

OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with obtaining abortion at 12 or more weeks gestation in Texas after implementation of a restrictive law. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we collected data from eight Texas abortion clinics that provided services at 12 or more weeks gestation from April 1, 2015 to March 30, 2016, after a restrictive abortion law enacted in November 2013 shuttered many of the state's clinics. We examined factors associated with obtaining in-clinic abortion services between 3-11 versus 12-24 weeks gestation including patient race-ethnicity, income level, and driving distance to the clinic using chi-square tests and calculating odds ratios. We further subcategorized abortion between 15-24 weeks to determine who may be most affected by a Texas law banning dilation and evacuation (D&E). RESULTS: Among 24,555 in-clinic abortions, 19.2% (n = 4,714) occurred at 12 or more weeks gestation. Compared to patients who obtained care between 3-11 weeks, those who obtained care at 12 or more weeks were more likely to be Black than White (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.05-1.31), live ≤110% of the federal poverty level than have higher income (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.94-2.26), and drive 50+ miles than 1-24 miles to obtain care (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.15-1.38). These associations remained for those obtaining care between 15-24 weeks. Even after adjusting for race-ethnicity and driving distance, low-income patients had greater odds of obtaining care in between 15-24 weeks (aOR 1.52; 95% CI 1.21-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: Patients obtaining abortion at 12 or more weeks gestation in Texas are more likely to be Black, low-income, and travel far distances to obtain in-clinic care. IMPLICATIONS: In Texas, patients who are Black, low-income, and travel the farthest are more likely to obtain in-clinic abortion between 15-24 weeks gestation, commonly performed via D&E. If Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) banning D&E goes into effect, these patients may be prevented from obtaining care.

Medication abortion use among low-income and rural Texans before and during state-imposed restrictions and after FDA-updated labeling.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the Texas legislature passed House Bill 2, restricting use of medication abortion to comply with Food and Drug Administration labeling from 2000. The Food and Drug Administration updated its labeling for medication abortion in 2016, alleviating some of the burdens imposed by House Bill 2. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify the impact of House Bill 2 on medication abortion use by patient travel distance to an open clinic and income status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, we collected patient zip code, county of residence, type of abortion, family size, and income data on all patients who received an abortion (medication or aspiration) from 7 Texas abortion clinics in 3 time periods: pre-House Bill 2 (July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013), during House Bill 2 (April 1, 2015-March 30, 2016), and post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update (April 1, 2016-March 30, 2017). Patient driving distance to the clinic where care was obtained was categorized as 1-24, 25-49, 50-99, or 100+ miles. Patient county of residence was categorized by availability of a clinic during House Bill 2 (open clinic), county with a House Bill 2-related clinic closure (closed clinic), or no clinic any time period. Patient income was categorized as ≤110% federal poverty level (low-income) and >110% federal poverty level. Change in medication abortion use in the 3 time periods by patient driving distance, residence in a county with an open clinic, and income status were evaluated using χ2 tests and logistic regression. We used geospatial mapping to depict the spatial distribution of patients who obtained a medication abortion in each time period. RESULTS: Among 70,578 abortion procedures, medication abortion comprised 26%, 7%, and 29% of cases pre-House Bill 2, during House Bill 2, and post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update, respectively. During House Bill 2, patients traveling 100+ miles compared to 1- 24 miles were less likely to use medication abortion (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.15, 0.30), as were low-income compared to higher-income patients (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.68, 0.85), and low-income, distant patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.08, 0.25). Similarly, post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update, rebound in medication abortion use was less pronounced for patients traveling 100+ miles compared to 1-24 miles (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.74, 0.91), low-income compared to higher-income patients (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.72, 0.81), and low-income, distant patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.68, 0.94). Post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update, patients residing in counties with House Bill 2-related clinic closures were less likely to receive medication abortion as driving distance increased (52% traveling 25-49 miles, 41% traveling 50-99 miles, and 26% traveling 100+ miles, P < .05). Geospatial mapping demonstrated that patients traveled from all over the state to receive medication abortion pre-House Bill 2 and post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update, whereas during House Bill 2, only those living in or near a county with an open clinic obtained medication abortion. CONCLUSION: Texas state law drastically restricted access to medication abortion and had a disproportionate impact on low-income patients and those living farther from an open clinic. After the Food and Drug Administration labeling update, medication abortion use rebounded, but disparities in use remained.