Beyond Abortion: The Consequences of Overturning Roe

Post-Roe v Wade psychiatry: legal, clinical, and ethical challenges in psychiatry under abortion bans

In recent history, the world has witnessed a trend towards liberalization of abortion laws driven by an increasing understanding of the negative personal and public health consequences of criminalizing abortion. By contrast, several countries have recently implemented restrictive reproductive laws, joining the 112 countries where access to abortion care is banned completely or with narrow exceptions. On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned its landmark decisions in Roe v Wade that established abortion until the point of viability of the fetus as a constitutional right. After Roe v Wade having been overturned, it is projected that many women in the USA will be prevented from accessing safe abortion care. Importantly, abortion bans not only impose constraints on patient autonomy, they also restrict physicians' ability to practice evidence-based medicine, which will negatively impact psychiatric care. It is therefore crucial for the practicing psychiatrist to be familiar with this new legal landscape. In this Personal View, we aim to provide a topical overview to help clinicians gain a clear understanding of legal, clinical, and ethical responsibilities, focusing on the USA. We also discuss the reality that psychiatrists might be called upon to determine medical necessity for an abortion on psychiatric grounds, which is new for most US psychiatrists. We predict that psychiatrists will be confronted with very difficult situations in which lawful and ethical conduct might be incongruent, and that abortion bans will result in greater numbers of patients needing psychiatric care from a system that is ill-prepared for additional demands.

Vasectomy incidence in the military health system after the reversal of Roe v. Wade

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs decision) has already had profound impact on reproductive health care in the United States. Some studies have reported increased incidence of vasectomy after the Dobbs decision. The Military Health System (MHS) provides a unique opportunity to evaluate this relationship in a universally insured, geographically representative population. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of vasectomies among all male beneficiaries in the MHS, ages 18 to 64, from 2018 to 2022. Beneficiaries receiving a vasectomy were identified via billing data extraction from the MHS Data Repository (MDR). Descriptive statistics of demographic factors of all those receiving a vasectomy in the study period were evaluated. Crude and multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate for differences in demographic variables in those receiving a vasectomy pre-Dobb's decision as compared to after the Dobb's decision. The total number of men receiving a vasectomy each month over the study period was analyzed, as were the numbers in a state immediately implementing abortion access restrictions (Texas), and one without any restrictions on abortion access (Virginia). Our analysis found that men receiving a vasectomy post-Dobbs decision were more likely to be younger, unmarried, and of junior military rank than prior to the Dobbs decision. In the months following the Dobbs decision in 2022 (June-December), there was a 22.1% increase in vasectomy utilization as compared to the averages of those months in 2018-2021. Further, it was found that the relative increase in vasectomy after the Dobbs decision was greater in Texas (29.3%) compared to Virginia (10.6%). Our findings highlight the impact of the Dobbs decision on reproductive health care utilization outside of abortion.

Navigating the post-Dobbs landscape: ethical considerations from a perinatal perspective

Restrictive abortion laws have impacts reaching far beyond the immediate sphere of reproductive health, with cascading effects on clinical and ethical aspects of neonatal care, as well as perinatal palliative care. These laws have the potential to alter how families and clinicians navigate prenatal and postnatal medical decisions after a complex fetal diagnosis is made. We present a hypothetical case to explore the nexus of abortion care and perinatal care of fetuses and infants with life-limiting conditions. We will highlight the potential impacts of limited abortion access on families anticipating the birth of these infants. We will also examine the legally and morally fraught gray zone of gestational viability where both abortion and resuscitation of live-born infants can potentially occur, per parental discretion. These scenarios are inexorably impacted by the rapidly changing legal landscape in the U.S., and highlight difficult ethical dilemmas which clinicians may increasingly need to navigate.

Medical Implications of Restricting Abortions on Women Diagnosed With Fetal Anomalies Following the Overturn of Roe v. Wade: A Scoping Review

This scoping review addresses the potential maternal health outcomes of abortion restrictions in the U.S. by studying and analyzing the reported effects of abortion bans or limitations globally. The goal was to examine the medical implications for pregnant women who are unable to abort fetuses that have severe medical anomalies due to imposed restrictions. EMBASE, Medline, and CINAHL databases were searched for studies published in English concerning the medical implications of abortion restrictions in any country prior to the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022. For the search criteria using Boolean operators, keywords included the terms "fetal anomaly," "abortion ban," and "implications." Inclusion criteria incorporated studies published between 1980 and 2021, and controlled experimental research studies aimed to evaluate interventions were excluded. This resulted in 469 records initially found. Duplicate records were removed, and two separate tier reviews were conducted. Eleven reviewers independently screened abstracts and titles of 332 records to ascertain eligibility. Eligibility included pregnant women diagnosed with fetal anomalies, women denied access to safe abortions, and the maternal and fetal medical impacts of this. Three reviewers in the second screening independently read 36 full articles to further assess eligibility, resulting in 14 articles in the final review. Findings from this study showed that abortion bans in countries around the world have led to health complications in women seeking illegal abortion services, a decline in maternal mental health, including stress and depression, various medical complications such as obstructed labor, and an increase in high-risk fetuses born with severe deficits. The findings of this review portend similar negative consequences to be experienced by women who are subject to stricter abortion laws in the U.S.

The Two Front War on Reproductive Rights-When the Right to Abortion is Banned, Can the Right to Refuse Obstetrical Interventions Be Far behind?

The loss of the federally protected constitutional right to an abortion is a threat to the already tenuous autonomy of pregnant people, and may augur future challenges to their right to refuse unwanted obstetric interventions. Even before Roe's demise, pregnancy led to constraints on autonomy evidenced by clinician-led legal incursions against patients who refused obstetric interventions. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court found that the right to liberty espoused in the Constitution does not extend to a pregnant person's right to an abortion. With Roe's demise, the right to request specific types of care has been vitiated. The same argument underpinning that holding may now become ballast for attacks on the traditionally more robust right, the right to refuse. Here we discuss how the elevation of fetal and embryonic rights may lead to a cascade of medical intrusions and deprivations of liberty against pregnant persons, and offer an argument opposing these improprieties.

Mistreatment in health care among women in Appalachia

Good quality patient care requires health care providers to respect the humanity and autonomy of their patients. However, this is not achieved in all settings. This study used cross-sectional survey data including open-ended text responses to explore negative experiences with health care providers among women in Appalachia. We used the Heath Stigma & Discrimination Framework (HSDF) to identify how stigma is created and perpetuated through interactions with health care providers. Survey data from 628 women collected through purposive sampling identified that two out of three participants had had a bad encounter with a provider that made them not want to return for care. One in six participants had a negative experience specifically while seeking contraception. Using the domains of the HSDF framework, qualitative answers to open-ended questions illuminated how health care providers, influenced by social and cultural norms related to religiosity, patriarchal views, poverty, poor health infrastructure, and the opioid crisis, created and perpetuated stigma through dehumanising treatment, low-quality care, and health care misogyny. Because stigma is a driver of health inequity, these findings highlight the important and sometimes problematic role that health care providers can play when they create a barrier to future care through poor treatment of patients.

Privileging Midwives for Abortion Care

Since the US Supreme Court overturned Dobbs v Jackson, expanded access to abortion has been critical. Abortion is safe, and related complications are rare. The safety of abortion provision by advanced practice clinicians (APCs) is well documented. Despite the increase in targeted restrictions for patients and clinicians in many states post-Dobbs, in recent years there have been meaningful gains in recognition and codification of abortion as part of an expanded scope of practice for APCs. Thus, creating a formal written pathway for midwives to obtain privileges in abortion provision could also improve abortion access. In New York City's public health care system, the largest in the United States, midwives provide a significant portion of perinatal and gynecologic care. Yet, until recently, a process to privilege midwives in the provision of abortion services did not exist. In response, midwives and physicians at a large New York City hospital system sought key stakeholder support to develop a pathway for certified nurse-midwives and certified midwives, licensed midwives in New York state, to obtain the necessary training needed for independent abortion provision. This article describes the development of a midwifery-led pilot program to improve abortion access by increasing the availability of trained midwifery abortion providers, along with the results of staff meetings exploring attitudes toward abortion care by APCs. We report our safety statistics from this pilot program and share existing evidence for safety of abortion provision by midwives and other APCs.

Otolaryngologists and Reproductive Rights

Our nation faces contentious questions regarding reproductive rights and access to abortion which have long been viewed as beyond the scope of otolaryngology. The broad implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Jackson) impact all people who are, or can become, pregnant and their health care providers. The consequences for otolaryngologists are thus far-reaching and poorly understood. Here we describe how the post-Dobbs landscape is relevant to the practice of otolaryngology and offer suggestions for how otolaryngologists can best respond, prepare, and support their patients in this tenuous political landscape.

Teratology research in the shadow of the Dobbs decision

Following the 2022 US Supreme Court decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, numerous states have passed laws banning or severely restricting abortion. The consequences of the decision stretch beyond abortion contexts, including progress on developing a more robust evidence base for care in pregnancy. In this Robert L. Brent lecture, I explore the impact of the Dobbs decision on teratology research, arguing that it is of importance even and perhaps especially for those concerned about the moral complexities of ending a pregnancy. For as abortion restrictions threaten teratology research, they also threaten its life-affirming aims. First, I show how teratology research and abortion are intertwined, highlighting the stories of Sherri Finkbine and Frances Kelsey, two courageous women whose lives intersected with both. Second, I describe how restrictions on abortion make teratology research more difficult and ethically complex, highlighting additional risks to research participants and staff, as well as new challenges to scientific validity and feasibility. And third, foregrounding yet another story of courage (and heartbreak), I highlight how abortion restrictions make teratology research more important than ever. Honoring Dr. Brent's legacy requires addressing-rather than avoiding-the ethical challenges of pregnancy-related research, especially now in the post-Dobbs era.

The patient/physician relationship in a post-Roe world: a neonatologist viewpoint

The Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization has far-reaching implications that go beyond the practice of obstetrics and gynecology. The ruling and subsequent laws and bills impact many specialties and have implications for healthcare as a whole. The rapidly changing medicolegal landscape has significant bearings on and implications for the fields of neonatology and pediatrics. These rulings have an impact on the patient-physician relationship and a shared decision-making approach to care. Furthermore, there are significant sequelae of forced birth and resuscitation. This review provides a clinically relevant update of the current medicolegal landscape and applications to the practice of neonatology.

Examining ethno-racial attitudes of the public in Twitter discourses related to the United States Supreme Court Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling: A machine learning approach

Background

The decision of the US Supreme Court to repeal Roe vs. Wade sparked significant media attention. Although primarily related to abortion, opinions are divided about how this decision would impact disparities, especially for Black, Indigenous, and people of color. We used advanced natural language processing (NLP) techniques to examine ethno-racial contents in Twitter discourses related to the overturn of Roe vs. Wade.

Methods

We screened approximately 3 million tweets posted to Roe vs. Wade discussions and identified unique tweets in English-language that had mentions related to race, ethnicity, and racism posted between June 24 and July 10, 2022. We performed lexicon-based sentiment analysis to identify sentiment polarity and the emotions expressed in the Twitter discourse and conducted structural topic modeling to identify and examine latent themes.

Results

Of the tweets retrieved, 0.7% (n = 23,044) had mentions related to race, ethnicity, and racism. The overall sentiment polarity was negative (mean = -0.41, SD = 1.48). Approximately 60.0% (n = 12,092) expressed negative sentiments, while 39.0% (n = 81,45) expressed positive sentiments, and 3.0% (n = 619) expressed neutral sentiments. There were 20 latent themes which emerged from the topic model. The predominant topics in the discourses were related to "racial resentment" (topic 2, 11.3%), "human rights" (topic 2, 7.9%), and "socioeconomic disadvantage" (topic 16, 7.4%).

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates wide ranging ethno-racial concerns following the reversal of Roe and supports the need for active surveillance of racial and ethnic disparities in abortion access in the post-Roe era.

ASCO Ethical Guidance for the US Oncology Community Where Reproductive Health Care Is Limited by Law

The decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned federal protections for abortion rights, making way for states to enact abortion bans with or without exceptions for the health or life of the pregnant patient. Patient care across many areas of medicine including oncology continues to be affected. Although the change in the legal landscape is widely felt, the core ethical considerations for physicians do not change because of restrictions on the practice of medicine. ASCO offers this guidance to assist US oncologists and institutions who must balance limitations with established ethical duties. This paper articulates principles for cancer care and pregnancy, offers a framework for ethical reflection and action for oncologists who care for pregnant patients, and makes recommendations for individual and institutional action to support evidence-based, patient-centered care in the United States where abortion is illegal or access is limited.

Dobbs, the Intrusive State, and the Future of Solidarity

The intrusive state has long viewed women as fetal containers. The Dobbs decision goes further, essentially causing women to vanish when fetuses are abstracted from their relationships to pregnant persons. The ways in which women are first controlled and then made invisible are clearly connected with the move from obedience to omission that has historically affected black Americans. When personal decisionmaking and participation in democracy are regarded as threats, those threatened restrict decisional freedom and political power, deepening structural injustices relating to sex, race, and poverty. Fear of Dobbs has health effects on conditions unrelated to pregnancy and connects with erasures of human value that are not health-related. We reaffirm solidarity as a countering influence. Taking account of the richly relational context in which issues like abortion and political representation arise should lead to better, more meaningful policies, making so many people impossible to unsee.

The Dobbs Decision: Can It Be Justified by Public Reason?

John Rawls has held up as a model of public reason the U.S. Supreme Court. I argue that the Dobbs Court is justifiably criticized for failing to respect public reason. First, the entire opinion is governed by an originalist ideological logic almost entirely incongruent with public reason in a liberal, pluralistic, democratic society. Second, Alito's emphasis on "ordered liberty" seems completely at odds with the "disordered liberty" regarding abortion already evident among the states. Third, describing the embryo/fetus from conception until birth as an "unborn human being" begs the question of the legal status of the embryo/fetus, as if an obiter dictum settled the matter. Fourth, Alito accuses the Roe court of failing to exercise judicial restraint, although Alito argued to overturn Roe in its entirety. In brief, the Dobbs opinion is an illiberal, disingenuous, ideological swamp that swallows up public reason and the reproductive rights of women.

A Balance of Rights: The Italian Way to the Abortion Controversy

The U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling triggered a global debate about access to abortion and the legislative models governing it. In the United States, there was a sudden reversal of federal guidance about pregnancy termination that is unprecedented in Western and high-income countries. The strong polarization on the issue of abortion and the difficulty of finding a point of compromise lead one to consider the experiences of countries that have had different paths. Italy stands as a candidate for being a partially alternative model because it allows abortion up to 12 weeks, but without considering it a subjective right. The legislation in place since 1978 aims to balance the interests of the fetus and those of the woman. An issue often raised concerning Italian law is that of conscientious objection granted to doctors. Many gynecologists declare themselves objectors, and this makes access to abortion more difficult in some regions of Italy. After discussing this issue and envisaging different ways to deal with it, the article concludes by highlighting new dilemmas about a possible divorce between the law and medical ethics in different directions and offers some avenues to begin setting up a response.

Trauma of abortion restrictions and forced pregnancy: urgent implications for acute care surgeons

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.

Bioethics and the Moral Authority of Experience

While experience often affords important knowledge and insight that is difficult to garner through observation or testimony alone, it also has the potential to generate conflicts of interest and unrepresentative perspectives. We call this tension the paradox of experience. In this paper, we first outline appeals to experience made in debates about access to unproven medical products and disability bioethics, as examples of how experience claims arise in bioethics and some of the challenges raised by these claims. We then motivate the idea that experience can be an asset by appealing to themes in feminist and moral epistemology, distinguishing between epistemic and justice-based appeals. Next, we explain the concern that experience may be a liability by appealing to empirical work on cognitive biases and theoretical work about the problem of partial representation. We conclude with preliminary recommendations for addressing the paradox and offer several questions for future discussion.

Does overruling Roe discriminate against women (of colour)?

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.

Society for Medical Anthropology Statement on Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Decision

This statement summarizes key findings from anthropological and related scholarship on the harmful consequences of inadequate abortion access, leading the Society for Medical Anthropology to register profound concern about the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson. After circulation to SMA members for input, a finalized version passed a membership vote by an overwhelming margin. This statement complements one produced by the Council for Anthropology and Reproduction, available here.

One degree of separation: urgent questions surrounding new USA laws in women's healthcare

The criminalization of women's healthcare in many USA states has created uncertainty about women's access to evidence-based medical care and will affect the physical, mental, and emotional health and well-being of women. This article is intended to start a discussion on this complex topic in the immunology community.

Prenatal genetics in a post-Roe United States

The Supreme Court removed a federal right to abortion access in June 2022. This returned the legality of abortion to each of the 50 states. This will have a profound impact on the provision of prenatal care in general and prenatal genetic screening and testing.