Refine Search

New Search

Results: 50

(searched for: doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss7009a1)
Save to Scifeed
Page of 1
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Grace Keegan, Myles Francis, Kristen Chalmers, Mark Hoofnagle, Mary Noory, Rachael Essig, Lea Hoefer, Neha Bhardwaj, , , et al.
Published: 30 January 2023
by BMJ
Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open, Volume 8; https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2022-001067

Abstract:
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health decision, acute care surgeons face an increased likelihood of seeing patients with complications from both self-managed abortions and forced pregnancy in underserved areas of reproductive and maternity care throughout the USA. Acute care surgeons have an ethical and legal duty to provide care to these patients, especially in obstetrics and gynecology deserts, which already exist in much of the country and are likely to be exacerbated by legislation banning abortion. Structural inequities lead to an over-representation of poor individuals and people of color among patients seeking abortion care, and it is imperative to make central the fact that people of color who can become pregnant will be disproportionately affected by this legislation in every respect. Acute care surgeons must take action to become aware of and trained to treat both the direct clinical complications and the extragestational consequences of reproductive injustice, while also using their collective voices to reaffirm the right to abortion as essential healthcare in the USA.
Deirdre Sawinski, Elizabeth Hendren, Amanda Cunningham, Silke V. Niederhaus,
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Volume 34, pp 198-200; https://doi.org/10.1681/asn.0000000000000032

, Kelly Pfeifer, Mickey Msn Gillmor-Kahn
The American Journal of Nursing, Volume 123, pp 38-44; https://doi.org/10.1097/01.naj.0000911524.68698.ea

Abstract:
The 2022 Supreme Court decision leaving the regulation of abortion to the states is sure to result in a complex regulatory environment for patients and nurses. In states where abortion is illegal, patients may self-manage abortions using medications they obtain through the mail or by other means. Nurses may care for these patients in multiple settings and may wonder about their own legal and ethical obligations. This article reviews patient privacy as it relates to self-managed abortion, ethical reporting requirements for nurses, and best practices for treating complications of self-managed abortion using a harm reduction framework, with a focus on protecting patients' rights. Recommendations for ethical patient care are also provided.
, Rosinda De La Pena, Jennifer J. McIntosh
Published: 1 January 2023
American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm, Volume 5; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100779

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
, Jessica Ansari, Simranvir Kaur, Kate A. Shaw, Andrea Henkel
Published: 19 December 2022
Abstract:
Although most abortion care takes place in the office setting, anesthesiologists are often asked to provide anesthesia for the 1% of abortions that take place later, in the second trimester. Changes in federal and state regulations surrounding abortion services may result in an increase in second-trimester abortions due to barriers to accessing care. The need for interstate travel will reduce access and delay care for everyone, given limited appointment capacity in states that continue to support bodily autonomy. Therefore, anesthesiologists may be increasingly involved in care for these patients. There are multiple, unique anesthetic considerations to provide safe and compassionate care to patients undergoing second-trimester abortion. First, a multiday cervical preparation involving cervical osmotic dilators and pharmacologic agents results in a time-sensitive, nonelective procedure, which should not be delayed or canceled due to risk of fetal expulsion in the preoperative area. In addition, a growing body of literature suggests that the older anesthesia dogma that all pregnant patients require rapid-sequence induction and an endotracheal tube can be abandoned, and that deep sedation without intubation is safe and often preferable for this patient population through 24 weeks of gestation. Finally, concomitant substance use disorders, preoperative pain from cervical preparation, and intraoperative management of uterine atony in a uterus that does not yet have mature oxytocin receptors require additional consideration.
, Wendy V. Norman
Published: 19 December 2022
Seminars in Reproductive Medicine; https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1758481

Abstract:
Most incarcerated women are of reproductive age, and more than a third of women will have an abortion during their reproductive years. Although women are the fastest growing population in Canadian prisons, no one has studied the effect of their incarceration on access to abortion services. Studies outside of Canada indicate rates of abortion are higher among people experiencing incarceration than in the general population, and that abortion access is often problematic. Although international standards for abortion care among incarcerated populations exist, there conversely appear to be no Canadian guidelines or procedures to facilitate unintended pregnancy prevention or management. Barriers to abortion care inequitably restrict people with unintended pregnancy from attaining education and employment opportunities, cause entrenchment in violent relationships, and prevent people from choosing to parent when they are ready and able. Understanding and facilitating equitable access to abortion care for incarcerated people is critical to address structural, gender-, and race-based reproductive health inequities, and to promote reproductive justice. There is an urgent need for research in this area to direct best practices in clinical care and support policies capable to ensure equal access to abortion care for incarcerated people.
Christina A. Cirucci
Published: 12 December 2022
Abstract:
Medication abortion represents more than 50 percent of abortions in the United States (US). Since its approval in the US in 2000, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has progressively relaxed the prescribing requirements such that currently, no office visit, in-person dispensing, or ultrasound is required. Obtaining medication for abortion online without medical supervision or evaluation is also possible. This article reviews the complications of medication abortion by examining major studies and delineates the risks specific to self-managed abortion to inform clinicians in caring for women. Summary: Medication abortion has become the most common abortion method in the United States. This document provides a detailed history of the relaxation requirements on medication abortion and reviews the major studies on medication abortion complications including a discussion of their limitations. Finally, the paper delineates the ease of access to medication abortion without a health care provider and the risks associated with self-managed abortion. This paper is intended to provide information for clinicians who likely will be encountering increasing number of patients with such complications.
Published: 1 December 2022
Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, Volume 35, pp 607-608; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2022.10.009

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Published: 29 November 2022
by MDPI
Journal: Healthcare
Abstract:
The overturning of Roe v Wade reinvigorated the national debate on abortion. We used Twitter data to examine temporal, geographical and sentiment patterns in the public’s reaction. Using the Twitter API for Academic Research, a random sample of publicly available tweets was collected from 1 May–15 July in 2021 and 2022. Tweets were filtered based on keywords relating to Roe v Wade and abortion (227,161 tweets in 2021 and 504,803 tweets in 2022). These tweets were tagged for sentiment, tracked by state, and indexed over time. Time plots reveal low levels of conversations on these topics until the leaked Supreme Court opinion in early May 2022. Unlike pro-choice tweets which declined, pro-life conversations continued with renewed interest throughout May and increased again following the official overturning of Roe v Wade. Conversations were less prevalent in some these states had abortion trigger laws (Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi). Collapsing across topic categories, 2022 tweets were more negative and less neutral and positive compared to 2021 tweets. In network analysis, tweets mentioning woman/women, supreme court, and abortion spread faster and reached to more Twitter users than those mentioning Roe Wade and Scotus. Twitter data can provide real-time insights into the experiences and perceptions of people across the United States, which can be used to inform healthcare policies and decision-making.
Published: 28 November 2022
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry pp 1-27; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-022-09810-4

Abstract:
This essay is an ethnographic account of a volunteer, anonymous hotline of physicians and advanced practice providers who offer medical advice and guidance to those who are taking medications on their own to end their pregnancies. Attending to the phenomenology of caring on the Hotline reveals a new form of medical expertise at play, which we call “care with nothing in the way.” By operating outside the State’s scrutiny of abortion provision, the Hotline offers its volunteers a way to practice abortion care that aligns with their professional and political commitments and that distances them from the direct harm they see caused by the political, financial, and bureaucratic constraints of their clinical work. By delineating the structure of this new regime of care, these providers call into question the notion of the “good doctor.” They radically re-frame widely shared assumptions about the tenets of the ideal patient–doctor relationship and engender a new form of intimacy–one based, ironically, out of anonymity and not the familiarity that is often idealized in the caregiving relationship. We suggest the implications of “care with nothing in the way” are urgent, not only in the context of increasing hostility to abortion rights, but also for a culture of medicine plagued by physician burnout.
Katherine Kortsmit, Antoinette T. Nguyen, Michele G. Mandel, Elizabeth Clark, Lisa M. Hollier, Jessica Rodenhizer, Maura K. Whiteman
Mmwr. Surveillance Summaries, Volume 71, pp 1-27; https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7110a1

Benjamin Rader, Ushma D. Upadhyay, Neil K. R. Sehgal, Ben Y. Reis, John S. Brownstein, Yulin Hswen
Published: 22 November 2022
Journal: JAMA
Abstract:
Importance: Abortion facility closures resulted in a substantial decrease in access to abortion care in the US.Objectives: To investigate the changes in travel time to the nearest abortion facility after the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (referred to hereafter as Dobbs) US Supreme Court decision.Design, Setting, and Participants: Repeated cross-sectional spatial analysis of travel time from each census tract in the contiguous US (n = 82 993) to the nearest abortion facility (n = 1134) listed in the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health database. Census tract boundaries and demographics were defined by the 2020 American Community Survey. The spatial analysis compared access during the pre-Dobbs period (January-December 2021) with the post-Dobbs period (September 2022) for the estimated 63 718 431 females aged 15 to 44 years (reproductive age for this analysis) in the US (excluding Alaska and Hawaii).Exposures: The Dobbs ruling and subsequent state laws restricting abortion procedures. The pre-Dobbs period measured abortion access to all facilities providing abortions in 2021. Post-Dobbs abortion access was measured by simulating the closure of all facilities in the 15 states with existing total or 6-week abortion bans in effect as of September 30, 2022.Main Outcomes and Measures: Median and mean changes in surface travel time (eg, car, public transportation) to an abortion facility in the post-Dobbs period compared with the pre-Dobbs period and the total percentage of females of reproductive age living more than 60 minutes from abortion facilities during the pre- and post-Dobbs periods.Results: Of 1134 abortion facilities in the US (at least 1 in every state; 8 in Alaska and Hawaii excluded), 749 were considered active during the pre-Dobbs period and 671 were considered active during a simulated post-Dobbs period. Median (IQR) and mean (SD) travel times to pre-Dobbs abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 (4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (42.0) minutes. Travel time to abortion facilities in the post-Dobbs period significantly increased (paired sample t test P <.001) to an estimated median (IQR) of 17.0 (4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean (SD) of and 100.4 (161.5) minutes. In the post-Dobbs period, an estimated 33.3% (sensitivity interval, 32.3%-34.8%) of females of reproductive age lived in a census tract more than 60 minutes from an abortion facility compared with 14.6.% (sensitivity interval, 13.0%-16.9%) of females of reproductive age in the pre-Dobbs period.Conclusions and Relevance: In this repeated cross-sectional spatial analysis, estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the US was significantly greater in the post-Dobbs period after accounting for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total or 6-week abortion bans compared with the pre-Dobbs period, during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.
, Claudia R Borzutzky
Published: 21 November 2022
The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, Volume 7, pp 83-85; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-4642(22)00285-1

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Published: 1 November 2022
Journal: JAMA Surgery
Abstract:
“Happy are you, Hester, that wear the scarlet letter openly upon your bosom! Mine burns in secret….The letter was the symbol of her calling.”Why are we so reluc
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine: Integrating Emergency Care With Population Health, Volume 23; https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2022.8.57929

Abstract:
An abortion is a procedure defined by termination of pregnancy, most commonly performed in the first or second trimester. There are several means of classification, but the most important includes whether the abortion was maternally “safe” (performed in a safe, clean environment with experienced providers and no legal restrictions) or “unsafe” (performed with hazardous materials and techniques, by person without the needed skills, or in an environment where minimal medical standards are not met). Complication rates depend on the procedure type, gestational age, patient comorbidities, clinician experience, and most importantly, whether the abortion is safe or unsafe. Safe abortions have significantly lower complication rates compared to unsafe abortions. Complications include bleeding, retained products of conception, retained cervical dilator, uterine perforation, amniotic fluid embolism, misoprostol toxicity, and endometritis. Mortality rates for safe abortions are less than 0.2%, compared to unsafe abortion rates that range between 4.7-13.2%. History and physical examination are integral components in recognizing complications of safe and unsafe abortions, with management dependent upon the diagnosis. This narrative review provides a focused overview of post-abortion complications for emergency clinicians.
Grecia Rivera Rodriguez, Jean Tamayo Acosta, , Rosymar E. Marcucci Rodriguez, ,
Published: 20 October 2022
Journal: Cureus
Abstract:
More than a heated debate subject, abortion is a matter that has been present in human history for a very long time. As our society evolves and advances in medicine and socioeconomic systems are made, the subject of the medical procedure known as abortion appears to be a differentiator in our behaviors as a society. This article highlights the known effects and medical complications of illegal abortion and the financial impact of the procedure's legal status. A retrospective search using EBSCO, PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE: Excerpta Medica Database, and DARE electronic databases was conducted, focused on detailing the risks of illegal abortion, the financial cost of complications, the socioeconomic impact of unwanted progeny, and the rationale behind seeking the procedure, legally or otherwise. Each author independently reviewed and extracted data to write up each assigned section, and group collaborations occurred to create the final draft. Out of the 87 resources reviewed, 16 sources were deemed eligible for this article, and their data are herein outlined.
, Ying Zhang, Amanda Weidner, Aleza K. Summit, Christina Miles, Allison M. Cole, Grace Shih
Published: 15 October 2022
Journal: Contraception
The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Natasha Rich, Rachel Rapkin
Published: 1 October 2022
Journal of Gynecologic Surgery, Volume 38, pp 339-343; https://doi.org/10.1089/gyn.2022.0068

Abstract:
With the recent changes in U.S. law governing abortion, the topic of abortion provision is all the more important among health care providers. This commentary, from the perspective of physicians who provide abortions, highlights the key points of what makes abortion provision a net-positive ethical/moral action, utilizing the framework of medical ethical principles. The authors discuss how abortion provision applies the medical ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice to achieve safe, quality, and equitable care that improves the lives and well-being of patients. (J GYNECOL SURG 38:339)
, Anna Carroll, Steven P. Hesse, Emily Norkett, Jessika A. Ralph
Published: 1 October 2022
Journal of Gynecologic Surgery, Volume 38, pp 335-338; https://doi.org/10.1089/gyn.2022.0065

Abstract:
Induced abortion in the United States is safe, and complications are rare. Because of their rarity, many clinicians may not have direct experience with managing complications during surgical abortions. This review details the management of hemorrhage, uterine and cervical injury, and infection after surgical abortions. (J GYNECOL SURG 38:335)
, Dawn Gano, Riley Bove
Published: 1 October 2022
Journal: JAMA Neurology
Abstract:
This Viewpoint discusses how abortion bans will affect the delivery of current standard neurologic care for many patients, specifically standards that depend on planning or preventing pregnancies using individual choice.
Published: 30 September 2022
by BMJ
Journal of Medical Ethics; https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108504

Abstract:
On 24 July 2022, the landmark decision Roe v. Wade (1973), that secured a right to abortion for decades, was overruled by the US Supreme Court. The Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation severely restricts access to legal abortion care in the USA, since it will give the states the power to ban abortion. It has been claimed that overruling Roe will have disproportionate impacts on women of color and that restricting access to abortion contributes to or amounts to structural racism. In this paper, we consider whether restricting abortion access as a consequence of overruling Roe could be understood as discrimination against women of color (and women in general). We argue that banning abortion is indirectly discriminatory against women of color and directly (but neither indirectly, nor structurally) discriminatory against women in general.
, Helen F. Galley, Kate Leslie
Published: 30 September 2022
British Journal of Anaesthesia, Volume 129, pp 833-835; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.08.020

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
, Julie Maslowsky, Melanie A. Baca, Jessica Goldberg, Megan E. Harrison, Loris Y. Hwang, Mary Romano, Kathleen Tebb, Nichole Tyson, Laura K. Grubb
Published: 9 September 2022
Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 71, pp 530-532; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.08.007

, Atsuko Koyama, Cherie Priya Dhar, Mindy Brittner, Veenod L. Chulani, María Verónica Svetaz, Melanie A. Baca, Romina L. Barral, Loris Y. Hwang
Published: 7 September 2022
Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 71, pp 526-529; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.08.004

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Harry Kyriacou, Abdulrahman Al-Mohammad, Charlotte Muehlschlegel, Lowri Foster-Davies, Maria Eduarda Ferreira Bruco, Chloe Legard, Grace Fisher, Fiona Simmons-Jones,
Published: 1 September 2022
European Heart Journal Open, Volume 2; https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeac065

Abstract:
Aims: Miscarriage and stillbirth have been included in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk guidelines, however heterogeneity in exposures and outcomes and the absence of reviews assessing induced abortion, prevented comprehensive assessment. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of cardiovascular diseases for women with prior pregnancy loss (miscarriage, stillbirth, and induced abortion). Methods and results: Observational studies reporting risk of CVD, coronary heart disease (CHD), and stroke in women with pregnancy loss were selected after searching MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Library (to January 2020). Data were extracted, and study quality were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using inverse variance weighted random-effects meta-analysis. Twenty-two studies involving 4 337 683 women were identified. Seven studies were good quality, seven were fair and eight were poor. Recurrent miscarriage was associated with a higher CHD risk (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.12–1.66). One or more stillbirths was associated with a higher CVD (RR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.09–1.82), CHD (RR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.04–1.29), and stroke risk (RR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.03–1.71). Recurrent stillbirth was associated with a higher CHD risk (RR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.18–1.39). One or more abortions was associated with a higher CVD (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02–1.07), as was recurrent abortion (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.05–1.13). Conclusion: Women with previous pregnancy loss are at a higher CVD, CHD, and stroke risk. Early identification and risk factor management is recommended. Further research is needed to understand CVD risk after abortion.
, Adi Katz, Richard A. Md Stein
American Journal of Therapeutics; https://doi.org/10.1097/mjt.0000000000001559

Abstract:
Background: The U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision on June 24, 2022 effectively overturned federal constitutional protections for abortion that have existed since 1973 and returned jurisdiction to the states. Several states implemented abortion bans, some of which banned abortion after 6 weeks and others that permit abortion under limited exceptions, such as if the health or the life of the woman is in danger. Other states introduced bills that define life as beginning at fertilization. As a result of these new and proposed laws, the future availability of mifepristone, one of two drugs used for medical abortion in the United States, has become the topic of intense debate and speculation. Areas of Uncertainty: Although its safety and effectiveness has been confirmed by many studies, the use of mifepristone has been politicized regularly since its approval. Areas of future study include mifepristone for induction termination and fetal demise in the third trimester and the management of leiomyoma. Data Sources: PubMed, Society of Family Planning, American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologists, the World Health Organization. Therapeutic Advances: The use of no-touch medical abortion, which entails providing a medical abortion via a telehealth platform without a screening ultrasound or bloodwork, expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, and studies have confirmed its safety. With the Dobbs decision, legal abortion will be less accessible and, consequently, self-managed abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol will become more prevalent. Conclusions: Mifepristone and misoprostol are extremely safe medications with many applications. In the current changing political climate, physicians and pregnancy-capable individuals must have access to these medications.
, Anna Eleftheriades, Emmanouela Laskaratou, Periklis Panagopoulos
Published: 19 August 2022
Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Volume 58, pp 359-360; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2022.08.011

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Alesha Doan
Published: 16 August 2022
by BMJ
Journal: BMJ
Abstract:
The Kansas abortion vote provides hope to reproductive rights advocates in the US, but charting a similar path in other states will be challenging, writes Alesha Doan
Kathryn E. Md Fay, Khady Diouf, Sharlay K. Md Butler, Chiamaka Md Onwuzurike, Barbara E. Md Wilkinson, Natasha R. Johnson, Julianna Md Schantz-Dunn,
Obstetrics & Gynecology, Volume 140, pp 729-737; https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000004949

Abstract:
Few obstetrician–gynecologists (ob-gyns) provide abortion care, resulting in abortion’s being separated from other reproductive health care. This segregation of services disrupts the ob-gyn patient–clinician relationship, generates needless costs, delays access to abortion care, and contributes to stigma. General ob-gyns have both the skills and the knowledge to incorporate abortion into their clinical practices. In this way, they can actively contribute to the protection of abortion access now, with the loss of federal protection for abortion under Roe v Wade. For those who live where abortion remains legal, now is the time to start providing abortions and enhancing your abortion-referral process. For all, regardless of state legislation, ob-gyns must be leaders in advocacy by facilitating abortion care—across state lines, using telehealth, or with self-managed abortion—and avoiding any contribution to the criminalization of those who seek or obtain essential abortion care. Our patients deserve a specialty-wide concerted effort to deliver comprehensive reproductive health care to the fullest extent.
Jane W. Seymour, Terri-Ann Thompson, Dennis Milechin, Lauren A. Wise, Abby E. Rudolph
American Journal of Public Health, Volume 112, pp 1202-1211; https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2022.306876

Abstract:
Objectives. To quantify the impact of telemedicine for medication abortion (TMAB) expansion or ban removal on abortion accessibility. Methods. We included 1091 facilities from the 2018 Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health facility database and Planned Parenthood Web site, among which 241 did not offer abortion as sites for TMAB expansion. Accessibility was defined as the proportion of reproductive-aged women living within a 30-, 60-, or 90-minute drive time from an abortion-providing facility. We calculated accessibility differences between 3 scenarios: (1) facilities offering abortion in 2018 (reference), (2) the reference scenario in addition to all facilities in states without TMAB bans (TMAB expansion), and (3) all facilities (TMAB ban removal). We also stratified by state and urban–rural status. Results. In 2018, 65%, 81%, and 89% of women lived within a 30-, 60-, or 90-minute drive time from an abortion-providing facility, respectively. Expansion and ban removal expanded abortion accessibility relative to the current accessibility scenario (range: 1.25–5.66 percentage points). Women in rural blocks experienced greater increases in accessibility than those in urban blocks. Conclusions. TMAB program and policy changes could expand abortion accessibility to an additional 3.5 million reproductive-aged women. Public Health Implications. Our findings can inform where to invest resources to improve abortion accessibility. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(8):1202–1211. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306876)
The Editors
The New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 387, pp 367-368; https://doi.org/10.1056/nejme2208288

Abstract:
The just-announced U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization represents a stunning reversal of precedent that inserts government into the personal lives and health care of Americans. Yet it was not unexpected. In the long, painful prelude to the decision, many states have severely limited access to reproductive health care. The fig-leaf justification behind these restrictions was that induced abortion was a dangerous procedure that required tighter regulation to protect the health of persons seeking that care. Facts belie this disingenuous rhetoric.1,2 The latest available U.S. data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Center for Health Statistics are that maternal mortality due to legal induced abortion is 0.41 per 100,000 procedures, as compared with the overall maternal mortality rate of 23.8 per 100,000 live births.3,4
, Vinita Goyal, Sarah Traxler, Sarah Prager
Published: 20 July 2022
Journal: Contraception
Contraception, Volume 114, pp 1-5; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2022.07.002

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Published: 28 June 2022
Journal: Nature
Nature, Volume 606, pp 839-840; https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01760-6

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Melanie Baca, , Laura Grubb, Andrea Hoopes, Loris Hwang, Julie Maslowsky, Mary Romano, Kathleen Tebb, Nichole Tyson
Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, Volume 35, pp 417-419; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2022.05.002

Jennifer Karlin, Jamila Perritt
JAMA Internal Medicine, Volume 182; https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.0216

Abstract:
Before prescribing medication abortion, clinicians have been compelled to perform a pelvic examination or ultrasonography for gestational dating to adhere to th
Jaclyn Grentzer, Colleen McNicholas, David L. Eisenberg, Jeffrey F. Peipert, Rachel Paul,
Published: 10 April 2022
Journal: Contraception
Contraception, Volume 113, pp 108-112; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2022.03.025

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Madeleine Ennis, , , , Helen Pymar, Lauren Kean, Andrea Carson, ,
Published: 26 March 2022
Journal: Contraception
Contraception, Volume 113, pp 19-25; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2022.03.020

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
, Alejandra M. Kaplan, Brandon L. Crawford, Ronna C. Turner, Wen-Juo Lo,
Published: 1 February 2022
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Volume 44, pp 71-93; https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863221116849

Abstract:
This study examines knowledge of and attitudes toward Roe v. Wade among a sample of 779 US Latinx adults. Survey response patterns were examined in relation to generational status and choice of survey language as well as to several demographic variables previously shown to influence abortion attitudes (e.g., age, religiosity, political affiliation). Differences were found in knowledge of Roe v. Wade by generational status and survey language, with those with higher generational statuses and those taking the survey in English exhibiting greater knowledge. Finally, greater knowledge of Roe v. Wade and choosing to take the survey in English predicted more positive attitudes toward Roe v. Wade controlling for other demographic variables; no effect on attitudes of generational status was observed. These findings contribute to our understanding of abortion attitudes among US Latinxs as well as the relationship between political socialization, knowledge, and attitudes toward social issues.
Subarna Chakravorty
Sushruta Journal of Health Policy & Opinions, Volume 15, pp 1-5; https://doi.org/10.38192/15.1.9

Abstract:
The US Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe vs Wade ruling in July 2022. A highly controversial decision with wide ranging impact on the rights and health of women both in the USA and across the world. There is no doubt that this judicial ruling will disproportionately affect those who are poor, with little access to healthcare; disabled, minors and those with physical or mental disabilities.[1] Rural women of colour from the Southern States are likely to be the worst affected.[2] This has far wider implications than only affecting the poor and marginalised. Removing legal protection for abortions cannot be considered an isolated event. It sits squarely within the realm of human rights of the woman, her right to bodily autonomy, right to dignity and economic prosperity. In countries where women are safeguarded in their reproductive rights, civil society should be vigilant about ensuring these rights are equitable. The access to safe and affordable abortion is every human’s right. It is up to us to safeguard it with everything we have.
Page of 1
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Back to Top Top