United Kingdom Data Deficiencies Influencing U.S. FDA Decisions.

The U.S. FDA has permanently removed the in-person prescribing requirements that previously safeguarded the use of mifepristone/misoprostol medical abortions, allowing prescribing through telemedicine or on-line ordering and distribution through the mail and pharmacies, without standard pre-abortion testing. This will increase the risk of complications due to failure to adequately determine the gestational age or rule out ectopic pregnancy by ultrasound or physical exam, failure to perform labs to document whether RhoGAM is indicated, and failure to obtain appropriate informed consent to prevent unwanted abortions, among other concerns. The FDA justified this action by referencing flawed studies with significantly undercounted complications. The details of these study deficiencies are examined in this paper.

Misleading Statements About "Life of the Mother" Exceptions in Pro-life Laws Require Correction.

Misleading statements in a recent Obstetrics & Gynecology article require correction. No state has an abortion law that is a total ban on abortion. Every state law permits abortion when necessary to save a mother's life. Texas law does not require an "imminent" risk and allows a doctor to use his "reasonable medical judgment" to determine if an abortion is necessary to prevent a "risk" of maternal death. Similarly, Idaho allows a doctor to use his "good faith medical judgment" to determine when to intervene, without need for "immediacy".

A Cohort Study of Mental Health Services Utilization Following a First Pregnancy Abortion or Birth.

Objective: To determine whether exposure to a first pregnancy outcome of induced abortion, compared to a live birth, is associated with an increased risk and likelihood of mental health morbidity. Materials and methods: Participants were continuously eligible Medicaid beneficiaries age 16 in 1999, and assigned to either of two cohorts based upon the first pregnancy outcome, abortion (n = 1331) or birth (n = 3517), and followed through to 2015. Outcomes were mental health outpatient visits, inpatient hospital admissions, and hospital days of stay. Exposure periods before and after the first pregnancy outcome, a total of 17 years, were determined for each cohort. Findings: Women with first pregnancy abortions, compared to women with births, had higher risk and likelihood of experiencing all three mental health outcome events in the transition from pre- to post-pregnancy outcome periods: outpatient visits (RR 2.10, CL 2.08-2.12 and OR 3.36, CL 3.29-3.42); hospital inpatient admissions (RR 2.75, CL 2.38-3.18 and OR 5.67, CL 4.39-7.32); hospital inpatient days of stay (RR 7.38, CL 6.83-7.97 and OR 19.64, CL 17.70-21.78). On average, abortion cohort women experienced shorter exposure time before (6.43 versus 7.80 years), and longer exposure time after (10.57 versus 9.20 years) the first pregnancy outcome than birth cohort women. Utilization rates before the first pregnancy outcome, for all three utilization events, were higher for the birth cohort than for the abortion cohort. Conclusion: A first pregnancy abortion, compared to a birth, is associated with significantly higher subsequent mental health services utilization following the first pregnancy outcome. The risk attributable to abortion is notably higher for inpatient than outpatient mental health services. Higher mental health utilization before the first pregnancy outcome for birth cohort women challenges the explanation that pre-existing mental health history explains mental health problems following abortion, rather than the abortion itself.

The Enduring Association of a First Pregnancy Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Outcomes: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Introduction: Multiple abortions are consistently associated with adverse health consequences. Prior abortion is a known risk factor for another abortion. Objective: To determine the persistence of the association of a first-pregnancy abortion with the likelihood of subsequent pregnancy outcomes. Methods: Data was extracted for a study population of 5453 continuously eligible Medicaid beneficiaries in states which funded and reported elective abortions 1999-2015. Women age 16 in 1999 were organized into three cohorts based upon the first pregnancy outcome: abortion, birth, natural loss. Results: Women in the abortion cohort are more likely than those in the birth cohort to experience another abortion rather than a birth or natural loss, and less likely to experience a live birth rather than an abortion or natural loss, for every subsequent pregnancy. The tendency toward abortion (OR 2.99, CL 2.02-4.43) and away from birth (OR 0.49, CL 0.39-0.63) peaks at the sixth pregnancy, but persists throughout the reproductive period ages 16-32. The pattern is reversed, but similarly consistent, for women in the birth cohort. They remain likelier to have another birth rather than an abortion or natural loss in subsequent pregnancies. Compared to the birth cohort, the abortion cohort had 1.35 times as many pregnancies: 4.31 times the abortions, 1.53 times the natural losses, but only 0.52 times the births. They were 4.3 and 5.0 times as likely to have 2-plus and 3-plus abortions, but only 0.47 times and 0.31 times as likely to have 2-plus and 3-plus births. Of the abortion cohort, 37.1% had no births. By contrast, 73.6% of the birth cohort had no abortions. Conclusion: The first-pregnancy abortion maintains a strong and persistent association with the likelihood of another abortion in subsequent pregnancies, enabling a cascade of adverse events associated with multiple abortions.

A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, 1999-2015.

INTRODUCTION: Existing research on postabortion emergency room visits is sparse and limited by methods which underestimate the incidence of adverse events following abortion. Postabortion emergency room (ER) use since Food and Drug Administration approval of chemical abortion in 2000 can identify trends in the relative morbidity burden of chemical versus surgical procedures. OBJECTIVE: To complete the first longitudinal cohort study of postabortion emergency room use following chemical and surgical abortions. METHODS: A population-based longitudinal cohort study of 423 000 confirmed induced abortions and 121,283 subsequent ER visits occurring within 30 days of the procedure, in the years 1999-2015, to Medicaid-eligible women over 13 years of age with at least one pregnancy outcome, in the 17 states which provided public funding for abortion. RESULTS: ER visits are at greater risk to occur following a chemical rather than a surgical abortion: all ER visits (OR 1.22, CL 1.19-1.24); miscoded spontaneous (OR 1.88, CL 1.81-1.96); and abortion-related (OR 1.53, CL 1.49-1.58). ER visit rates per 1000 abortions grew faster for chemical abortions, and by 2015, chemical versus surgical rates were 354.8 versus 357.9 for all ER visits; 31.5 versus 8.6 for miscoded spontaneous abortion visits; and 51.7 versus 22.0 for abortion-related visits. Abortion-related visits as a percent of total visits are twice as high for chemical abortions, reaching 14.6% by 2015. Miscoded spontaneous abortion visits as a percent of total visits are nearly 4 times as high for chemical abortions, reaching 8.9% of total visits and 60.9% of abortion-related visits by 2015. CONCLUSION: The incidence and per-abortion rate of ER visits following any induced abortion are growing, but chemical abortion is consistently and progressively associated with more postabortion ER visit morbidity than surgical abortion. There is also a distinct trend of a growing number of women miscoded as receiving treatment for spontaneous abortion in the ER following a chemical abortion.

Estimating the Period Prevalence of Mothers Who Have Abortions: A Population Based Study of Inclusive Pregnancy Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of induced abortion among women with children has been estimated indirectly by projections derived from survey research. However, an empirically derived, population-based conclusion on this question is absent from the published literature. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the period prevalence of abortion among all other possible pregnancy outcomes within the reproductive histories of Medicaid-eligible women in the U.S. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional, longitudinal analysis of the pregnancy outcome sequences of eligible women over age 13 from the 17 states where Medicaid included coverage of most abortions, with at least one identifiable pregnancy between 1999 and 2014. A total of 1360 pregnancy outcome sequences were grouped into 8 categories which characterize various combinations of the 4 possible pregnancy outcomes: birth, abortion, natural loss, and undetermined loss. The reproductive histories of 4,884,101 women representing 7,799,784 pregnancy outcomes were distributed into these categories. RESULTS: Women who had live births but no abortions or undetermined pregnancy losses represented 74.2% of the study population and accounted for 87.6% of total births. Women who have only abortions but no births constitute 6.6% of the study population, but they are 53.5% of women with abortions and have 51.5% of all abortions. Women with both births and abortions represent 5.7% of the study population and have 7.2% of total births. CONCLUSION: Abortion among low-income women with children is exceedingly uncommon, if not rare. The period prevalence of mothers without abortion is 13 times that of mothers with abortion.

Induced Abortion and the Increased Risk of Maternal Mortality.

After years of failure to obtain accurate statistics on maternal mortality, the United States noted a sharp increase in its maternal mortality rate with widening racial and ethnic disparities. The 2016 report shocked the nation by documenting a 26 percent increase in maternal mortality from 18.8/100,000 live births in 2000 to 23.8 in 2014. Suggested etiologies of this increase included artifact as a result of improved maternal death surveillance, incorrect use of ICD-10 codes, healthcare disparities, lack of family support and other social barriers, substance abuse and violence, depression and suicide, inadequate preconception care, patient noncompliance, lack of standardized protocols for handling obstetric emergencies, failure to meet expected standards of care, aging of the pregnant patient cohort with associated increase in chronic diseases and cardiovascular complications, and lack of a comprehensive national plan. While some of the increase in maternal mortality may be a result of improved data collection, pregnancy-related deaths are occurring at a higher rate in the United States than in other developed countries. Some have suggested that the increased maternal mortality is due to limiting women's access to legal abortion. In order to discover effective strategies to improve pregnancy outcomes, maternal mortality must be investigated in an unbiased manner. This review explores the relationship between legal-induced abortion and maternal mortality. SUMMARY: In Finland, where epidemiologic record linkage has been validated, the risk of death from legal induced abortion is reported to be almost four times greater than the risk of death from childbirth. It is difficult to do this comparison in the United States not only because prior induced abortion history is often not recorded for a pregnancy-related death but also because less than one-quarter of the states require health care providers to report abortion deaths for investigation. These omissions are important because mortality risk in pregnancies subsequent to abortion is increased due to abortion-induced morbidities such as preterm birth and abnormal placentation. Legal induced abortion is a root cause of the racial and ethnic disparity noted in maternal mortality. In the United States, the death rate from legal induced abortion performed at 18 weeks gestation is more than double that observed for women experiencing vaginal delivery.

Improving the Metrics and Data Reporting for Maternal Mortality: A Challenge to Public Health Surveillance and Effective Prevention.

BACKGROUND: The current measuring metric and reporting methods for assessing maternal mortality are seriously flawed. Evidence-based prevention strategies require consistently reported surveillance data and validated measurement metrics. Main Body: The denominator of live births used in the maternal mortality ratio reinforces the mistaken notion that all maternal deaths are consequent to a live birth and, at the same time, inappropriately inflates the value of the ratio for subpopulations of women with the highest percentage of pregnancies ending in outcomes other than a live birth. Inadequate methods for identifying induced or spontaneous abortion complications assure that most maternal deaths associated with those pregnancy outcomes are unlikely to be attributed. Absent the ability to identify all maternal deaths, and without the ability to differentiate those deaths by specific pregnancy outcomes, existing variations in pregnancy outcome-specific maternal deaths are masked by the use of an aggregated (all outcome) numerator. Under these circumstances, clear and accurate data is not available to inform evidence-based preventive strategies. As the result, algorithms applied for analyzing maternal mortality data may return distorted results Conclusion: Improvement in the effectiveness of maternal mortality surveillance will require: mandatory certification of all fetal losses; linkage of death, birth and all fetal loss (induced and natural) certificates; modification of the structure of the overall maternal mortality ratio to enable pregnancy outcome-specific ratio calculations; development of the appropriate ICD codes which are specific to induced and spontaneous abortions; education for providers on identifying and reporting early pregnancy losses; and, flexible information systems and methods which integrate these capabilities and inform users.

Doctors Who Perform Abortions: Their Characteristics and Patterns of Holding and Using Hospital Privileges.

Controversy exists regarding whether doctors who perform abortions should be required to hold hospital admitting privileges, but no research exists as to the extent to which they actually hold and use such privileges. Extensive Internet and government data sources were used to identify and verify abortionists in Florida. All medical and osteopathic abortion doctors who were licensed to practice at any time during the period 2011 to 2016 were included in the study (n = 85). Every abortionist hospital admission of a female patient aged 15 to 44 occurring during the 6-year study period was identified (n = 21 502). Abortionist physicians are 74.1% male, 62% have been in practice for 30 years or longer, 27.1% are graduates of foreign medical schools, and 55.3% are board certified. Nearly half (48.2%) of the abortionists had at least 1 malpractice claim, public complaint, disciplinary action, or criminal charge. Half (50.6%) of the abortionists reported hospital privileges, but only 32 (37.6%) admitted at least 1 patient to a hospital. Seven physicians accounted for 68.2% of all the admissions, and 79.6% of all admissions were related to a live birth. Black was the modal race (47.6%) and Medicaid the most frequent (64.9%) pay source. Nearly one-fifth (19.4%) of admissions came through the emergency department. Physicians who hold hospital privileges are significantly (P < .05) more likely to be board certified and to be approved for Medicaid payment than their colleagues without privileges. Of those doctors who hold and use hospital privileges, the lowest admission volume physicians are significantly less likely to be involved in live births, more likely to admit commercially insured and white inpatients, and much more likely to use the emergency room as the route to hospital admissions for their Medicaid-eligible and black patients. Further study of abortionist physicians is indicated regarding their heterogeneous personal and professional characteristics; their career pathways and practice concentrations; their relative integration with or isolation from peers and the professional network; the importance of black and poor induced abortion patients in their total caseload; and, especially for abortionists without hospital privileges, the means by which their patients requiring emergency care and hospitalization are accommodated.

A second opinion: response to 100 professors.

Induced abortion is a controversial topic among obstetricians. "100 Professors" extolled the benefits of elective abortion in a Clinical Opinion published in AJOG. However, scientific balance requires the consideration of a second opinion from practitioners who care for both patients, and who recognize the humanity of both. Alternative approaches to the management of a problem pregnancy, as well as short and long term risks to women as published in the peer reviewed medical literature are discussed. Maintaining a position of "pro-choice" requires that practitioners also be given a right to exercise Hippocratic principles in accordance with their conscience.