Lawmakers rushed to protect IVF in Alabama—Why wasn’t abortion afforded the same urgency?

Sonia Suter,Naomi Cahn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q581

2024-03-08

BMJ

Abstract:IVF and abortion are two sides of the same coin, but you wouldn’t know it from the reaction to Alabama’s ruling on IVF, write Sonia Suter and Naomi Cahn

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

University in Alabama halts IVF treatments after court rules embryos are children

Janice Hopkins Tanne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q468

2024-02-23

BMJ

Abstract:The University of Alabama Birmingham, the largest medical centre in the southern state, suspended in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatments after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled on 16 February that frozen embryos were children.12About 2% of US births—about 97 000 a year—are thought to be from assisted reproductive technologies such as IVF. Often many fertilised embryos are created but only a few are implanted in the uterus in hopes of creating a pregnancy. The rest are stored in freezers for future use, for donations to other couples, for research, or are destroyed if the couples do not plan further pregnancies, do not want to pay storage fees, get divorced, or die.The Alabama court's decision that frozen embryos are living children alarmed reproductive medicine experts, lawyers, and abortion rights activists.Mary Ziegler, a legal historian and professor at the University of California, San Diego, said, "If people have extra embryos they can no...

medicine, general & internal
Is IVF at risk in the US? Scientists fear for the fertility treatment's future

Mariana Lenharo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00830-1

IF: 64.8

2024-04-03

Nature

Abstract:An Alabama court ruling that human embryos outside the uterus should be regarded as children has raised concerns among doctors and scientists. An Alabama court ruling that human embryos outside the uterus should be regarded as children has raised concerns among doctors and scientists.

multidisciplinary sciences
In Defense of IVF: Time To Get Involved in State-Level Advocacy!

Albert L Hsu,Elizabeth J Carr,Jessie Losch,Susan Crockin,J Preston Parry,Albert L. Hsu,Elizabeth J. Carr,J. Preston Parry

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.10.018

IF: 6.7

2024-10-01

Fertility and Sterility

Abstract:We share experiences in advocating to defend in vitro fertilization (IVF) in Virginia, Missouri, and Mississippi; provide historical context on the "Personhood" anti-IVF movement; and discuss why "embryo donation" is a more accurate term than "embryo adoption." Some individuals and communities have a deeply held belief that a fertilized oocyte is a very early human life, and we will likely never change their minds. In the fertility community, most providers consider embryos to be an important part of the continuum between gametes (sperm and eggs) to live birth. Embryos are neither life nor property but rather a special class of "potential life" deserving of particular respect. The premise of the "Personhood" movement is that each fertilized oocyte is already an individual living being, subject to child custody and similar legal protections. Both in nature and in the laboratory, however, only a minority of fertilized eggs result in live birth. Not all IVF embryos are of adequate quality for transfer, and most transferred embryos result in negative pregnancy test results or miscarriages and, rarely, ectopic pregnancies. "Personhood" bills would also criminalize the life-saving, appropriate standard-of-care management of ectopic pregnancies, the most common cause of first-trimester maternal mortality. Efforts to apply a religious and moral lens to regulate and interfere with the practice of IVF on the basis of a mistaken perception that all fertilized eggs are early human beings, would make standard-of-care IVF practice impossible. By equating all fertilized eggs with live-born children, the broadly worded measures in "Personhood" bills would consign fertility patients to less effective treatments. As a practical matter, "Personhood" bills simply cannot coexist with legislation to protect the practice of IVF, without inordinate risks to physicians, their practices, and their patients. In response to recent events, the investigators encourage all readers to consider participating in state-level advocacy. Sharing IVF experiences and clinical expertise with state legislators (and other officials) can help protect patients, their providers, and the families that they strive to create. Efforts to inappropriately regulate and restrict IVF will decrease access to care to essential family-building treatments and services.

obstetrics & gynecology,reproductive biology
Attitudes, concerns, and perceptions of patients undergoing fertility treatments in an abortion restrictive state in the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade reversal

Sharifi, Mitra F.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03145-2

2024-06-09

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Abstract:To investigate the abortion views and reproductive concerns of current in vitro fertilization patients after the US Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which overturned the Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing abortion access.

genetics & heredity,obstetrics & gynecology,reproductive biology
Beyond Balancing: Rethinking the Law of Embryo Disposition

Mary Ziegler

Abstract:Actress Sofia Vergara became the center of a new round of conflict about the disposition of embryos created using assisted reproductive technologies (ART): the conflict about the difference that abortion jurisprudence should make to case law on ART. This Article argues that the history of abortion jurisprudence sheds light on the problems with the leading approach to embryo-disposition cases like Vergara's. In many instances, courts first look for a clear, binding agreement and look to a balancing analysis if no such agreement exists. As this Article shows, this is not the first time that courts have applied a balancing analysis to deal with clashing rights to seek and avoid genetic parenthood. The Article explores the history of two balancing approaches that have played a pivotal role in abortion law. These approaches have led to inconsistent results and cater to the prejudices of judges who are asked to weigh the relative merits of individual parties' views on reproduction. This Article recommends that states adopt legislation detailing the requirements of an enforceable embryo disposition similar to the Uniform Premarital and Marital Agreements Act (UPMAA). In the embryo-disposition context, states should require parties to disclose legal rights and responsibilities rather than only finances. These disclosures should cover the preservation, implantation, or destruction of the embryos and the financial and legal responsibility for any resulting child. States should enforce an embryo-disposition agreement if it is voluntary, if the parties had counsel or the opportunity to access counsel, and if the parties had a full disclosure of the constitutional and common law rights implicated by the agreement.
Court reaffirms Roe but upholds restrictions

Abstract:By a 5-4 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed on June 29, 1992, "the essential holding in Roe v. Wade" that prior to fetal viability, a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. After viability, a state may prohibit abortion, but only if it provides exceptions for endangerment to the woman's life or health. The Court said that both the intimate nature of the decision to terminate a pregnancy and the Court's obligation to follow precedent required it to uphold Roe's central holding. At the same time, however, the Court discarded Roe's trimester framework that severely restricted a state's power to regulate abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, saying that the trimester framework "undervalues" the state's interest in potential life, which exists throughout pregnancy. The Court also adopted a more lenient standard for analyzing the constitutionality of abortion restrictions than was permitted under Roe. It said a state may regulate abortion throughout pregnancy, as long as it does not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. The Court defined "undue burden" as a regulation that "has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." Under Roe, the right to abortion was deemed "fundamental" and could not be restricted unless the state could show a "compelling" interest in doing so.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Current ethical issues in IVF

C Grobstein,M Flower

Abstract:This article has briefly reviewed the range of public policy issues and ethical questions raised with respect to IVF. It then discussed selected issues that are now under policy debate and decision. Given the wide acceptance of IVF as a medical procedure for married couples, what variants might also be ethically defensible? IVF for unmarried couples appears defensible under specific conditions that are equally applicable to married couples. Involvement of third parties (gamete donation and gestational surrogacy) is more complex and needs case by case examination. Sperm donation appears to generate little that is ethically new when coupled with IVF but requires the same care and concern as AID. Egg or embryo donation, however, does raise new ethical questions that need close attention and continuing analysis. Freezing of human embryos also breaks new ethical ground, particularly in the options it generates beyond a narrowly defined medical domain. Certain of these options are better not undertaken without further public policy decision. Improvement of current procedures and techniques through effective clinical trials can be ethically carried out in terms of scientific and medical perspectives. However, efforts in this direction will be more effective if undertaken within a public policy framework that clearly defines acceptability during a transitional period of confidence-building.
Borderlands of Life: IVF Embryos and the Law in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany

Sheila Jasanoff,Ingrid Metzler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917753990

2018-01-29

Abstract:Human embryos produced in labs since the 1970s have generated layers of uncertainty for law and policy: ontological, moral, and administrative. Ontologically, these lab-made entities fall into a gray zone between life and not-yet-life. Should in vitro embryos be treated as inanimate matter, like abandoned postsurgical tissue, or as private property? Morally, should they exist largely outside of state control in the zone of free reproductive choice or should they be regarded as autonomous human lives and thus entitled to constitutional protection like full-fledged citizens? Administratively, if they deserve protection, what institutional and policy mechanisms are best suited to carrying out the necessary oversight? Using a method termed comparative problematization, this article traces divergent answers to these questions produced in three countries—the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany—across the last twenty-five years. Comparison reveals distinct bioconstitutional foundations that give rise to systematically different understandings of each state’s responsibilities toward human life and hence its particular treatment of claims on behalf of embryonic lives.
How technology is reframing the abortion debate

D Callahan

Abstract:Since the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, medical and scientific developments have focused greater public and professional attention on the status of the fetus. Their cumulative effect may influence legal, social, and moral thought and set the stage for a change in public opinion and a challenge to legalized abortion. There is as yet no inexorable convergence of medical data and legal opinion that would undermine the rational of Roe v. Wade. But the prochoice movement must find room for an open airing of the moral questions if abortion is to remain what it should be--a legally acceptable act.
Legal personhood and frozen embryos: implications for fertility patients and providers in post-Roe America

D. Fox,G. Letterie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsad006

IF: 3.4

2023-01-01

Journal of Law and the Biosciences

Abstract:Abstract The demise of Roe v. Wade has prompted some state lawmakers to try to redefine legal personhood to begin before birth and even before pregnancy. The sweeping abortion bans passed and pending in the wake of Dobbs pose a threat to reproductive rights that extends beyond abortion. That threat spills over into in vitro fertilization (IVF) and other assisted reproductive technologies (ART). If legislatures designate embryos as legal persons, fertility clinics will be forced to change how they manage embryos, including current standard practices such as pre-implantation genetic testing, storage of unused embryos, and the disposal of those unlikely to have reproductive potential. This essay examines the many ways in which conferring the status of persons under private and public law is likely to impact patients pursuing IVF and clinics practicing ART.

Medicine,Law
US Supreme Court hears arguments on whether states can regulate emergency abortions

Janice Hopkins Tanne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q959

2024-04-27

BMJ

Abstract:The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on 24 April that emergency abortions should be allowed in states with strict abortion bans.An emergency abortion is a rare procedure carried out to save a woman's life or to protect her health. Questions by conservative justices suggested the court might rule against permitting such abortions when it gives its ruling in June or early July.1In 2022 the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion and returned regulation to the 50 states, about half of which ban or severely restrict abortions.2Idaho's strict abortion ban shows the continuing conflict between federal law and state law. The US Constitution says that federal law overrides state law. The Biden administration sued Idaho which, like six other states, bans abortions except to save the life of the pregnant woman, not her health. It said Idaho should follow the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labour Act (EMTALA), which...

medicine, general & internal
Fetal tissue research and the misread compromise

W Kearney,D E Vawter,K G Gervais

Abstract:The bill to restore federal funding for human fetal tissue research has been passed by the House and awaits Senate approval. But it requires women who are willing to donate fetal tissue to certify that they did not have an abortion with the intent to donate. It further requires researchers to keep the certifications on file and available for government audit. Both requirements spell trouble.
Post- Dobbs Abortion Restrictions and the Families They Leave Behind

Nigel Madden,Emma Trawick,Katie Watson,Lynn M Yee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307792

Abstract:The June 24, 2022 US Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization resulted in an expansive restriction on abortion access that had been constitutionally guaranteed for nearly half a century. Currently, 14 states have implemented complete bans on abortion with very limited exceptions, and an additional 7 states have implemented abortion bans at 6 to 18 weeks' gestation. It has been well demonstrated that restrictive policies disproportionately limit abortion access for minoritized people and people of low socioeconomic status; the financial and geographic barriers of these post-Dobbs restrictions will only exacerbate this disparity. Proponents of abortion restrictions, who identify as pro-life, assert that these policies are essential to protect children, women, and families. We examine whether the protection of these groups extends past conception by evaluating the association between state abortion legislation and state-based policies and programs designed to provide medical and social support for children, women, and families. We found that states with the most restrictive post-Dobbs abortion policies in fact have the least comprehensive and inclusive public infrastructure to support these groups. We suggest further opportunities for advocacy. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(10):1043-1050. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307792).
Seeking financial and practical support in an abortion‐hostile state: Analysis of abortion fund data in Kentucky, 2014–2021

Mikaela H. Smith,Melissa B. Eggen,Ann Alexis Prestrud,Kathryn Lafferty‐Danner,Hillary Gyuras,Danielle Bessett,Lizz Perkins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/psrh.12279

2024-06-22

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Abstract:Objectives Philanthropic abortion funds are integral to accessing care in the United States, providing both financial and practical assistance. Yet relatively little is known about those who seek these essential services. In this study, we analyzed data from a Kentucky abortion fund to assess characteristics of abortion fund callers. Methods We analyzed 2014–2021 administrative data from the Kentucky Health Justice Network's (KHJN) Abortion Support Fund and compared them to abortion data from the Kentucky Department for Public Health (KDPH). We analyzed age, race, and pregnancy gestation at calling (KHJN) and abortion (KDPH), and calculated Z‐scores and p‐values to compare proportions in each category between the two data sources. Results The fund supported 6162 people from 2014 to 2021, when 28,741 people had abortions in Kentucky. Compared with KDPH data, KHJN had a higher percentage of callers who were under age 30, a higher percentage of callers who were Black or another race, and a higher percentage of callers at 14 weeks' gestation or higher. Conclusions Compared with state data, KHJN supported a higher percentage of young people, people of color, and people at later gestations. These findings support evidence that structurally vulnerable groups are more likely to face barriers to care and that abortion funds provide essential support necessary for reproductive equity.

demography,family studies
Abortion as Essential Health Care and the Critical Role Your Practice Can Play in Protecting Abortion Access

Kathryn E Fay,Khady Diouf,Sharlay K Butler,Chiamaka Onwuzurike,Barbara E Wilkinson,Natasha R Johnson,Julianna Schantz-Dunn,Deborah Bartz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004949

2022-11-01

Abstract:Few obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) provide abortion care, resulting in abortion 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.
Applying global lessons to protect abortion access in the United States

Terry McGovern,Mary Favier,Laura Gil,Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio,Clarisa Bencomo,Ira Memaj,Samantha Garbers,Malia Maier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-073833

2024-01-03

BMJ

Abstract:Since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022, eliminating the federal constitutional right to an abortion, the introduction of state laws and policies has made the legal and healthcare landscape more challenging. Twenty states have banned or severely restricted abortion care,1 and recent legislation is restricting access to abortion medication as well as abortion services, with Wyoming becoming the first state explicitly to ban the use of abortion medication.2In response, US abortion rights advocates have pushed to extend federal protections and the federal government has taken important steps to expand and protect access to medication abortion. These efforts have focused on strengthening executive branch rules and guidance because the lack of a pro-abortion majority in Congress prevents legislation being passed to protect abortion. In January 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration eliminated a requirement that mifepristone, the most common form of medication abortion, be dispensed in...

medicine, general & internal
What’s at stake for science in ‘abortion pill’ case

Meredith Wadman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado6440

IF: 56.9

2024-02-16

Science

Abstract:Supreme Court decision this summer could gut FDA’s authority over drugs

multidisciplinary sciences
More than 200 women faced criminal charges over pregnancy loss in the year after US abortion law was overturned

Janice Hopkins Tanne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2136

2024-09-30

BMJ

Abstract:More than 200 women faced criminal charges after pregnancy loss, abortion, or birth in the year after the US Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to abortion, analysis has found.12The Pregnancy Justice organisation reported that at least 210 women faced criminal charges from 24 June 2022 (when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade) to 23 June 2023. The number is the highest since it began tracking the matter in 1973, but is likely an undercount.Most cases occurred in states that had laws recognising "fetal personhood," the belief that life begins at conception and the embryo or fetus has full legal rights, which extend to "extrauterine children," or frozen embryos.The greatest number of cases were in the southern states of Alabama (104 cases), Oklahoma (68 cases), and South Carolina (10 cases). Alabama and Oklahoma have almost complete abortion bans. South Carolina bans abortion after six weeks, when most women do...

medicine, general & internal
Dobbs and the Civil Dimension of Extraterritorial Abortion Regulation

Katherine Florey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4172494

2022-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:A large body of scholarship has debated the constitutionality of criminalizing travel to seek abortions – an issue with new salience in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overruling Roe v. Wade. Increasingly, however, anti-abortion activists are turning to civil remedies as a supplement or alternative to criminal prosecution in cases involving out-of-state abortions, an issue that has received far less scholarly attention. In contrast to criminal jurisdiction, where the outer bounds of states’ authority to punish out-of-state conduct is highly uncertain, the extraterritorial application of state law in civil litigation is a common, routine effect of choice-of-law analysis that is unlikely to raise constitutional difficulties. As a result, it is reasonable to expect that courts in anti-abortion states may give broad geographical effect to abortion-restrictive law and policies in at least some civil litigation. The resulting decisions are likely to create substantial friction between states, as abortion-permissive states try to protect their own citizens from liability even as the Full Faith and Credit Clause demands recognition of foreign-state judgments that courts may be reluctant to give. To be sure, state policies have clashed (or threatened to) in civil litigation before, and this Article explores the outcomes of such conflicts in the areas of divorce liberalization, cannabis legalization, and the enforceability of noncompete clauses. At the same time, abortion is likely to give rise to broader and more intractable strife between states than any other issue courts have confronted in the recent past. Although individual judges can reduce occasions for interstate friction by applying restrained, conduct-focused conflicts principles, the states’ fundamental disunity on the underlying issue of abortion may prove to be a problem that our choice-of-law system is simply not well equipped to resolve.
Conducting Research in the New Abortion Care Policy Landscape

Paula M. Lantz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.30000

2024-08-30

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:The public policy chaos fueled by the June 2022 Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision has created a critical need for objective and high-quality abortion policy evaluation research. Stevenson and Root 1 rose to this challenge by conducting a convincing analysis of recent trends in maternal mortality, motivated in part by pro-life advocate claims that the recent observed decline in pregnancy-related death is the counterintuitive result of more restrictive abortion policies post– Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health . Using 5.75 years of monthly national maternal mortality data from January 2018 through September 2023, their decomposition approach considered spikes in mortality from COVID-19 and potential seasonal fluctuations in maternal deaths. The findings clearly demonstrate that the observed decline in maternal mortality after the 2022 Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health ruling is the result of a resolution of the COVID-19 mortality shock, not because of new restrictive abortion laws being passed by state legislatures. This work is among the first published analyses of the potential effects of restrictive state abortion policies in the post– Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health aftermath. Additional research on a wide array of potential outcomes needs to be conducted to fully understand the range and magnitude of the outcomes of state-level abortion policies. Based on a plethora of prior research regarding unintended pregnancy and abortion, reduced access to abortion care is thought to decrease the incidence of abortion but also increase the risk and incidence of myriad adverse maternal and infant health outcomes. 2 Restrictive abortion policies are also expected to increase child poverty, increase the number of families that experience serious financial instability or hardship, and put additional pressures on underresourced social welfare systems. 2 In addition, there is great concern that restrictive abortion laws will negatively impact physician choice regarding where to train or practice and the availability of obstetric care across states. 3 After major public policy reforms, it is common for stakeholders—proponents and opponents alike—to look for positive and negative policy effects immediately. While easy to conduct, armchair policy impact pontification is fraught with error and false conclusions. Identifying the impact of public policy change is not a simple task. Besides the obvious cautionary chant that correlation is not causation, evaluating the degree to which public policy shifts are having both intended and unintended consequences requires sound approaches to methods, timely access to quality data, and sophisticated statistical analyses that control for underlying trends and confounding factors. 4 Furthermore, there is often discussion and debate among researchers themselves regarding how to investigate the effects of important public health, medical, and health care interventions and policies. The convening of expert panels or working groups to provide guidance regarding research priorities and best approaches to research design, data or measurement, and analyses on specific topics is long-standing. It can provide essential scientific direction to emerging issues, including ones fraught with political controversy. For example, the National Academy of Medicine has convened many methods-focused committees in challenging areas of research, including reports such as Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence (2013) and A Framework for Assessing Mortality and Morbidity After Large-Scale Disasters (2020). There is a crucial need for investment in scientific discourse regarding how best to investigate the wide range of potential medical, public health, and social welfare effects of public policy related to abortion care. 5 An organization with authority and resources, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, or a foundation with a health-related mission, should quickly convene an ad hoc panel of experts to produce a nonpartisan, nonideological consensus document that provides guidance for objective public policy evaluation research associated with state-level restrictive abortion care policies. Such a panel could help create a priority research agenda for funders and provide guidance regarding data or measurement, research designs, statistical analyses approaches, and other methodology issues. This includes guidance for taking advantage of state differences in policy design, timing, and state contextual factors (eg, state Medicaid policy) and for subpopulation analyses since restrictive abortion laws are likely to have differential effects based on race or ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status, and geography. In summary, the analysis by S -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal

Lawmakers rushed to protect IVF in Alabama—Why wasn’t abortion afforded the same urgency?

University in Alabama halts IVF treatments after court rules embryos are children

Is IVF at risk in the US? Scientists fear for the fertility treatment's future

In Defense of IVF: Time To Get Involved in State-Level Advocacy!

Attitudes, concerns, and perceptions of patients undergoing fertility treatments in an abortion restrictive state in the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade reversal

Beyond Balancing: Rethinking the Law of Embryo Disposition

Court reaffirms Roe but upholds restrictions

Current ethical issues in IVF

Borderlands of Life: IVF Embryos and the Law in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany

How technology is reframing the abortion debate

Legal personhood and frozen embryos: implications for fertility patients and providers in post-Roe America

US Supreme Court hears arguments on whether states can regulate emergency abortions

Fetal tissue research and the misread compromise

Post- Dobbs Abortion Restrictions and the Families They Leave Behind

Seeking financial and practical support in an abortion‐hostile state: Analysis of abortion fund data in Kentucky, 2014–2021

Abortion as Essential Health Care and the Critical Role Your Practice Can Play in Protecting Abortion Access

Applying global lessons to protect abortion access in the United States

What’s at stake for science in ‘abortion pill’ case

More than 200 women faced criminal charges over pregnancy loss in the year after US abortion law was overturned

Dobbs and the Civil Dimension of Extraterritorial Abortion Regulation

Conducting Research in the New Abortion Care Policy Landscape