Prior knowledge and experience with self-managed abortion among people seeking abortion care in US midwestern states.

OBJECTIVES: This study seeks to understand what methods people use and/or have heard of others using for self-managed abortion (SMA) prior to coming to a health facility for abortion care. STUDY DESIGN: We collected survey data on sociodemographics, gestational stage, and SMA awareness and methods from patients seeking care in 17 abortion facilities in Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Illinois from April 2020 to April 2022. We used descriptive statistics to examine the proportion of participants who had attempted SMA and separately, who had heard of people attempting SMA. RESULTS: In total, 71 respondents (4.2%) had attempted SMA and 416 (25.5%) had heard of others attempting SMA The most frequently attempted methods for self-management were taking herbs, and/or vitamins (31% each) or hitting oneself/being hit (22.5%). About a third of those who tried SMA reported trying more than one method (30%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that people who attempt SMA are committed to self-managing their abortion. More research is needed to better understand sociodemographic characteristics of people who have attempted or heard of people attempting SMA research.

COVID-19 and abortion in the Ohio River Valley: A case study of Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia.

INTRODUCTION: During early stages of COVID-19 in the United States, government representatives in Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia restricted or threatened to restrict abortion care under elective surgery bans. We examined how abortion utilization changed in these states. METHODOLOGY: We examined COVID-19 abortion-related state policies implemented in March and April 2020 using publicly available sources. We analyzed data on abortions by method and gestation and experiences of facility staff, using a survey of 14 facilities. We assessed abortions that took place in February-June 2020 and February-June 2021. RESULTS: In February-June 2020 the monthly average abortion count was 1916; 863 (45%) were medication abortions and 229 (12%) were ≥14 weeks gestation. Of 1959 abortions performed across all three states in April 2020, 1319 (67%) were medication abortions and 231 (12%) were ≥14 weeks gestation. The shift toward medication abortion that took place in April 2020 was not observed in April 2021. Although the total abortion count in the three-state region remained steady, West Virginia had the greatest decline in total abortions, Ohio experienced a shift from instrumentation to medication abortions, and Kentucky saw little change. Staff reported increased stress from concerns over health and safety and increased scrutiny by the state and anti-abortion protesters. DISCUSSION: Although abortion provision continued in this region, policy changes restricting abortion in Ohio and West Virginia resulted in a decrease in first trimester instrumentation abortions, an overall shift toward medication abortion care, and an increase in stress among facility staff during the early phase of COVID-19.

State of Confusion: Ohio's Restrictive Abortion Landscape and the Production of Uncertainty in Reproductive Health Care.

This study examines an underexplored source of medical uncertainty: the political context of care. Since 2011, Ohio has passed over 16 abortion-restrictive laws. We know little about how this legislation affects reproductive health care outside of abortion clinics. Drawing on focus groups and interviews with genetic counselors and obstetrician-gynecologists, we examine how abortion legislation impacts their work. We find that interpretation and implementation of legislation is not straightforward and varies by institution and region of the state. An ever-changing legislative landscape combined with uneven implementation of restrictions into policy produces uncertainty in reproductive health care. We also found uncertainty about the legal consequences of abortion in restrictive contexts, with obstetrician-gynecologists reporting greater concerns given their proximity to care provision. We argue that uncertainty can result in stricter interpretations of regulations than necessitated by the law, thereby amplifying the impacts of an already restrictive context for abortion care.

Kentucky's abortion landscape, 2010 to 2019: an analysis of pre-Dobbs abortion disparities in a rural, restrictive state.

Background: Since 2010, many US states have passed laws restricting abortion providers' ability to provide care. Such legislation has no demonstrated health benefits and creates inequitable barriers for patients. Methods: To examine how Kentucky's abortion policies coincided with facility closures and abortion utilisation, we conducted a review of state abortion policies from 2010 to 2019 using newspapers and websites. We calculated abortion rates (abortions per 1000 women ages 15-44) by state of residence and provision for Kentucky, the South, and the US using data from the CDC and Kentucky Department of Health. We calculated percentages leaving and from out-of-state, and analysed abortions by race, pregnancy duration, and method. Findings: Of 17 policies passed between 2010 and 2019, ten were enacted, including 20-week and telemedicine bans. One of Kentucky's two abortion facilities closed in 2017. The pooled average abortion rate in Kentucky (4.1) and for Kentuckians (5.8) was lower than national averages (11.8 and 11.1). An average of 38% of Kentuckians left their state for care, compared to 7% nationally. In 2019, the abortion rate in Kentucky was 5.8 times higher for Black patients than White patients (compared to 4.8 times nationally). The majority (62%) of abortions in Kentucky took place at 7-13 weeks' gestation. Interpretation: Abortions in Kentucky were less frequent than in the South and US. The larger Black-White abortion rate gap reflects race- and class-based structural inequities in healthcare. Without federal protections, abortion access in Kentucky will continue waning. Funding: This study was supported by a philanthropic foundation that makes grants anonymously.

Abortion-Related Laws and Concurrent Patterns in Abortion Incidence in Indiana, 2010-2019.

Objectives. To analyze abortion incidence in Indiana concurrent with changes in abortion-related laws. Methods. Using publicly available data, we created a timeline of abortion-related laws in Indiana, calculated abortion rates by geography, and described changes in abortion occurrence coincident with changes in abortion-related laws between 2010 and 2019. Results. Between 2010 and 2019, Indiana's legislature passed 14 abortion-restricting laws, and 4 of 10 abortion-providing clinics closed. The Indiana abortion rate decreased from 7.8 abortions per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 years in 2010 to 5.9 in 2019. At all time points, the abortion rate was 58% to 71% of the Midwestern rate and 48% to 55% of the national rate. By 2019, nearly 1 in 3 (29%) Indiana residents who obtained abortion care did so outside the state. Conclusions. Access to abortion in Indiana over the past decade was low, required increases in interstate travel to obtain care, and co-occurred with the passage of numerous abortion restrictions. Public Health Implications. These findings preview unequal abortion access and increases in interstate travel as state-level restrictions and bans go into effect across the country. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(4):429-437. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307196).

Unlimited Discretion: How Unchecked Bureaucratic Discretion Can Threaten Abortion Availability.

Previous research has assessed the impact of state regulations on abortion clinics and patients, but how bureaucrats implement them is less understood and is increasingly important as states arbitrate abortion regulation. The authors conducted a case study of how bureaucrats use discretion to implement state regulations on abortion, focusing on two abortion facilities in southwest Ohio from 2010 to 2022. Ohio abortion facilities are required to obtain a written transfer agreement, despite it offering no demonstrable health or safety benefits. The authors find that state requirements for obtaining variances-a process that allows abortion facilities to operate without a written transfer agreement-have become exceedingly difficult to comply with. The authors show how state statutes and administrative law have enabled bureaucrats to wield unlimited discretion and enforce arbitrary requirements. This unlimited bureaucratic discretion and accompanying administrative burden exacerbated clinic instability and threatened abortion availability in southwest Ohio for almost a decade. As implementation and interpretation of abortion policy is increasingly left to state bureaucrats and civil servants following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, how bureaucrats use discretion will influence clinic stability and abortion availability. The authors posit that unlimited bureaucratic discretion may exert greater influence on abortion availability across the nation as states scramble to clarify and implement policies after Dobbs.

Provider Mistrust and Telemedicine Abortion Care Preferences Among Patients in Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

Objectives: The convenience and privacy provided by telemedicine medication abortion may make this service preferable to patients who mistrust their abortion provider. We assessed associations between mistrust in the abortion provider and preferences for telemedicine abortion. Study Design: From April 2020 to April 2021, we surveyed patients seeking abortion in Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Using unconditional logistic regression models, we examined unadjusted and adjusted associations between mistrust in the abortion provider and preferences for telemedicine abortion among all participants, and among only participants undergoing medication abortion. Results: Of 1,218 patients who met inclusion criteria, 546 used medication abortion services. Just more than half (56%) of all participants and many (64%) of medication abortion participants preferred telemedicine services. Only 6% of medication abortion participants received telemedicine medication dispensing services. Only 1.4% of all participants and 1% of medication abortion participants mistrusted the abortion provider. Participants who mistrusted the abortion provider were somewhat more likely to prefer telemedicine abortion (unadjusted odds ratio [OR]: 2.5, 95% CI: 0.8-7.9; adjusted OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 0.9-9), and medication abortion participants who mistrusted the abortion provider were also somewhat more likely to prefer telemedicine abortion (unadjusted OR: 3.5, 95% CI: 0.4-28.9; adjusted OR: 5.0, 95% CI: 0.6-43), although these associations were not statistically significant. Conclusions: In three abortion-restrictive states, most patients expressed preferences for telemedicine abortion, but few accessed them. Provider mistrust was rare, but those experiencing mistrust trended toward preferring telemedicine services. Telemedicine may improve access to abortion services for patients experiencing medical mistrust.

Seeking abortion care in Ohio and Texas during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Political and public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic changed provision of abortion care and exacerbated existing barriers. We aimed to explore experiences of individuals seeking abortion care in 2 abortion-restrictive states in the United States where state policies and practice changes disrupted abortion provision during the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted 22 semistructured interviews in Texas (n = 10) and Ohio (n = 12) to assess how state executive orders limiting abortion, along with other public health guidance and pandemic-related service delivery changes, affected individuals seeking abortion care. We included individuals 18 years and older who contacted a facility for abortion care between March and November 2020. We coded and analyzed interview transcripts using both inductive and deductive approaches. RESULTS: Participants reported obstacles to obtaining their preferred timing and method of abortion. These obstacles placed greater demands on those seeking abortion and resulted in delays in obtaining care for as long as 11 weeks, as well as some being unable to obtain an abortion at all. CONCLUSIONS: Political and public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic - exacerbated pre-pandemic barriers and existing restrictions and constrained options for people seeking abortion in Ohio and Texas. Delays were consequential for all participants, regardless of their ultimate ability to obtain an abortion. IMPLICATIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, state executive orders and clinic practices exacerbated already constrained access to care. Findings highlight the importance of protecting timely care and the full range of abortion methods. Findings also preview barriers individuals seeking abortion may encounter in states that restrict or ban abortion.

The double-edged sword of abortion regulations: Decreasing training opportunities while increasing knowledge requirements.

PURPOSE: The authors explore how abortion regulations in Ohio, an abortion-restrictive state in the USA, impact obstetrician-gynecologists' (OB/GYNs) training in reproductive healthcare and describe what OB/GYNs believe to be the broader impact of Ohio's regulations on skill-building, skills maintenance, and professional retention of reproductive healthcare providers in the state. Authors discuss how their findings foreshadow abortion training limitations in Ohio and other abortion-restrictive states now that abortion regulations have returned to the states. METHODS: The authors conducted four semi-structured focus groups and five in-depth interviews between April 2019 and March 2020. Participants included OB/GYNs practicing obstetrics and gynecology in Ohio between 2010 and 2020. Thematic analysis was conducted using Atlas.ti. RESULTS: Twenty attending physicians and 15 fellows and residents participated in the study. Participants discussed the impact of Ohio's written transfer agreement, gestational-limit, and abortion method and facility bans on training and skill-building opportunities. Participants felt that Ohio's strict abortion regulations 1) limit opportunities to observe and perform abortion procedures during training; 2) require learning the ever-changing legality of abortion provision; 3) limit the number of abortions OB/GYNs can provide, leading to the atrophy of their skills over time; and 4) may prevent prospective medical students and residents from choosing to study in Ohio and may lead to physician attrition from the state. CONCLUSION: Prior to the reversal of federal protections for abortion in 2022, OB/GYNs in Ohio and other abortion-hostile states experienced barriers to training in abortion care. In returning abortion regulation to the states, access to training is likely to be increasingly restricted. This research demonstrates how abortion-restrictions hamper physicians' skills needed to care for patients, particularly in emergent situations. This puts patients at risk and places physicians in precarious ethical positions. Expanding protections and reducing restrictions on abortion will ensure OB/GYNs and trainees have the skills necessary to care for patients presenting for reproductive healthcare.

Assessing psychosocial costs: Ohio patients' experiences seeking abortion care.

OBJECTIVES: Existing research has not thoroughly characterized the psychosocial costs associated with seeking abortion care in restrictive states. Our study seeks to fill this gap by analyzing the accounts of Ohio abortion patients from 2018 to 2019. STUDY DESIGN: Using inductive and deductive approaches, we analyzed semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews with 41 Ohio residents who obtained abortion care from one of three clinics in Ohio or Pennsylvania. RESULTS: Ohioans seeking abortion care often experienced fear of judgment, interpersonal strain, and stress as a result of efforts to overcome pre-Dobbs financial, geographic, and timing challenges. Those who needed financial assistance or traveled more than an hour generally reported greater exposure to psychosocial costs. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in this study incurred a complex set of psychosocial costs. Psychosocial costs often resulted from, or were exacerbated by, the financial, geographic, and time-sensitive burdens that patients experienced seeking care. IMPLICATIONS: The psychosocial costs incurred by patients seeking abortion care may be exacerbated in restrictive contexts, especially those who do not have access to insurance coverage for care. Psychosocial costs associated with care seeking are likely to increase as states implement more severe restrictions post-Dobbs. To fully understand abortion costs, researchers must examine costs comprehensively, including both financial and psychosocial costs.

Free, but at what cost? How US crisis pregnancy centres provide services.

In the USA, the most popular form of anti-abortion activism, crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs), provide a variety of services to prevent abortions. Moving beyond debate about misinformation and the ethics of CPCs, this study considers the services they provide and given their popularity among state legislatures, their connection to the state. Using interviews with ten CPC staff in Ohio (a state providing support to CPCs) and supplemental data from both state and CPC organisations, we find three relevant themes. First, CPC services reflect ideas about personal responsibility and Christianity held by the CPC staff. Second, we show that CPCs have assumed a variety of state duties (e.g. pregnancy testing and parenting classes), appealing to lawmakers in conservative states eager to transfer responsibility for disadvantaged residents to other entities. Finally, we consider the future direction of CPCs, highlighting tension between organisational goals (focusing on abortion prevention) and the on-the-ground experience of CPC staff (where non-pregnant clients need material aid). Drawing theoretical connections between CPC staff and social service workers sheds light on whose responsibility it is to address poverty in a post-welfare era.

Factors associated with never-use of long-acting reversible contraception among adult reproductive-aged women in Ohio.

BACKGROUND: The number of women using long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)-intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants-is increasing and 14% of contraceptive users in the United States adopt LARC. We examined correlates of LARC never-use in a population-based survey of reproductive-aged women in Ohio. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2018-19 Ohio Survey of Women. We examined the prevalence of LARC never-use and reasons for never-use among ever users of contraception (N = 2388). Using Poisson regression to generate prevalence ratios (PRs), we examined associations between selected correlates (demographic factors, healthcare access/quality measures, and religious/political views) and LARC never-use. RESULTS: Most Ohio women (74%) had never used LARC. Commonly reported reasons for not using an IUD or an implant were preferring a different method (46% and 45%, respectively), not wanting an object inside their body (45% and 43%), side effect concerns (39% and 33%), insertion/removal concerns (31% and 25%), and unfamiliarity (13% and 20%). Conservative political views (PR: 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.22), pro-life affiliation (PR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.02-1.20), placing high importance on religion in daily life (PR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.06-1.26), and being non-Hispanic white as compared to non-Hispanic Black (PR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.02-1.41) were significantly associated with LARC never-use. Findings were generally similar for models analyzing IUD and implant never-use separately. CONCLUSIONS: Among ever-users of contraception, LARC never-use was associated with having conservative political views, being religious, and having a pro-life affiliation. Except for race/ethnicity, demographic and healthcare measures were not associated with LARC never-use among women in Ohio.

Housing Stability and Access to General Healthcare and Reproductive Healthcare Among Women in Ohio.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between housing instability and reproductive healthcare is understudied. We examined the association between housing insecurity and access and utilization of general healthcare, contraceptive healthcare, and abortion care. METHODS: Using data from a population-representative survey of adult reproductive-age Ohio women (N = 2,529), we assessed housing insecurity (not paying rent/mortgage on time in the past year). We examined associations between housing insecurity and the following outcomes: (1) not being able to access general healthcare in the past year; (2) experiencing delays or difficulties in accessing contraceptive healthcare in the past year; and (3) ever having an abortion. We used unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models. We selected confounders a priori and included age, socioeconomic status, and healthcare status. RESULTS: Overall, 10.6% of Ohio women of adult reproductive age experienced housing insecurity. Approximately 27.5% of respondents were not able to access general healthcare and 10.4% experienced delays or difficulties in accessing contraceptive care. Compared to housing-secure respondents, housing-insecure women were less able to access general healthcare (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]:2.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.45-3.23) and more likely to experience delays or difficulties when accessing contraceptive care (aOR:1.74; 95% CI:1.00-3.04). Insecure housing was not statistically associated with ever having an abortion (aOR:1.76; 95% CI:0.93-3.34). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, recent housing insecurity was associated with poorer access to general and contraceptive healthcare. Studies utilizing multidimensional measures of housing insecurity and other material insecurity measures are needed to further explore the relationship between material insecurity and access to general and contraceptive care.

Community-based Systems Dynamics for Reproductive Health: An Example from Urban Ohio.

BACKGROUND: Health outcomes, risk factors, and policies are complexly related to the reproductive health system. Systems-level frameworks for understanding and acting within communities through community-engaged research are needed to mitigate adverse reproductive health outcomes more effectively within the community. OBJECTIVES: To describe and share lessons learned from an ongoing application of a participatory modeling approach (community-based system dynamics) that aims to eliminate racial inequities in Black-White reproductive health outcomes. METHODS: The community-based system dynamics approach involves conducting complementary activities, workshops, modeling, and dissemination. We organized workshops, co-developed a causal loop diagram of the reproductive health system with participants from the community, and created materials to disseminate workshop findings and preliminary models. LESSONS LEARNED: Many opportunities exist for cross-fertilization of best practices between community-based system dynamics and community-based participatory research. Shared learning environments offer benefits for modelers and domain experts alike. Additionally, identifying local champions from the community helps manage group dynamics. CONCLUSIONS: Community-based system dynamics is well-suited for understanding complexity in the reproductive health system. It allows participants from diverse perspectives to identify strategies to eliminate racial inequities in reproductive health outcomes.

Ohio Abortion Regulations and Ethical Dilemmas for Obstetrician-Gynecologists.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze obstetrician-gynecologists' (ob-gyns') experiences with, and perspectives on, how Ohio's abortion-restrictive regulatory landscape affects their health care practices. METHODS: Between 2019 and 2020, we conducted qualitative interviews and focus groups with ob-gyns (N=35) who had practiced in Ohio for at least 6 months between 2010 and 2020. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically using ATLAS.ti software. RESULTS: Participants perceived Ohio abortion regulations affecting their practice in three key ways: abortion regulations framed abortion and physicians who provide abortion as separate and distinct from other medical practices and physicians; many institutional interpretations of abortion regulations undermined physician expertise and professional autonomy; and the constellation of abortion regulations, institutional interpretations, physicians' trepidation, and their perceived inability to exercise clinical judgment worked together to limit abortion access and increase risks to patients' lives and health. The combined factors left participants feeling distraught that they were unable to practice medicine in an ethical and compassionate manner. CONCLUSION: Ohio abortion regulations limit ob-gyns' ability to provide comprehensive reproductive health care, creating ethical dilemmas for these physicians as they attempt to care for their patients. As Ohio's abortion laws increase in number and restrictiveness, they further undermine obstetric and gynecologic ethical practice guidelines. However, medical institutions play a key role in determining abortion provision in Ohio; through their interpretation of the law, institutions can demonstrate support or further limit ob-gyns' ability to exercise clinical judgment and provide ethical, compassionate care to their patients. Considerable work remains to bring Ohio's abortion regulations, institutional interpretations, and physician practices into alignment with professional clinical practice and ethics guidelines.

How Ohio's proposed abortion bans would impact travel distance to access abortion care.

CONTEXT: Since March 2021, the Ohio legislature has been actively considering laws that would ban abortion if the United States Supreme Court overturns the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationally in 1973. METHODS: We used a national database of publicly advertised abortion facilities to calculate driving distances for Ohioans before and after the activation of proposed abortion bans. Using a legal analysis of abortion laws following the overturn of Roe, we determined which states surrounding Ohio would continue providing abortion care. We calculated distances from each Ohio county centroid to the nearest open abortion facility in three scenarios: (1) as of February 2022, (2) the best-case post-Roe scenario (two of the five surrounding states continue to offer abortion care), and (3) worst-case post-Roe scenario (no surrounding states continue to offer abortion care). We calculated population-weighted distances using county-level data about women aged 15-44 years from the 2019 American Community Survey. RESULTS: In February 2022, all Ohio county centroids were at most 99 miles from an abortion facility (median = 50 miles). The best-case post-Roe scenario shows 62 of Ohio's 88 counties to be 115-279 miles away from the nearest facility (median = 146). The worst-case shows 85 counties to be 191-339 miles away from the nearest facility (median = 264). The current average population-weighted driving distance from county centroid to the nearest facility is 26 miles; the post-Roe scenarios would increase this to 157 miles (best-case) or 269 miles (worst-case). CONCLUSIONS: Ohio's proposed abortion bans would substantially increase travel distances to abortion care, impacting over 2.2 million reproductive-aged Ohioans.

Ohio survey data assessing perceptions of abortion safety.

OBJECTIVE: Despite overwhelming data supporting the safety of abortion care in the U.S., public perceptions of abortion safety vary widely. While evidence suggests that the public overestimates abortion risk, few studies have analyzed why people think abortion is safe or unsafe. STUDY DESIGN: Using data from the Ohio Survey of Women, a representative survey of women aged 18 to 44 years with a residential address in Ohio, we examined responses to 2 questions about abortion safety perceptions: the first asked respondents to rate abortion safety in Ohio, and the second asked respondents why they chose this rating of abortion safety. We analyzed these responses with inductive and deductive approaches. RESULTS: There were 2529 responses, of which 1368 (54%) provided a response to the open-ended question about abortion safety. From this subset, 529 gave open-ended responses indicating that they perceive abortion as safe, with 47% attributing this perception to the procedure being performed by a professional in a regulated environment. In contrast, 370 gave open-ended responses indicating that they perceive abortion as unsafe; the most common explanations referred to health risks (19%) and that safety depends on preexisting health conditions (19%). CONCLUSION: Many participants perceived abortion as safe because it is performed by professionals in a clinical environment or because of personal experiences with abortion. Those perceiving a lack of safety provided more varied responses, including that abortion was dangerous due to a detrimental effect on mental health or protesters at abortion clinics. IMPLICATIONS: We identified that women have a broad range of reasons for perceiving abortion as safe or unsafe. Providers should be aware of this diversity of abortion safety perceptions so that they can best engage with their patients.This updated characterization of pain experienced during an evidence-based medication abortion regimen may allow for better pain-related counseling, tailoring of opioid prescription practices, and improvement in patient satisfaction.

Selecting an Abortion Clinic: The Role of Social Myths and Risk Perception in Seeking Abortion Care.

Recent shifts in the abortion provision landscape have generated increased concern about how people find abortion care as regulations make abortion less accessible and clinics close. Few studies examine the reasons that people select particular facilities in such constrained contexts. Drawing from interviews with 41 Ohio residents, we find that people's clinic selections are influenced by the risks they associate with abortion care. Participants' strategies for selecting an abortion clinic included: drawing on previous experience with clinics, consulting others online, discerning reputation through name recognition and clinic type, and considering location, especially perceptions about place (privacy, legality, safety). We argue that social myths inform the risks people anticipate when seeking health care facilities, shaping care seeking in ways that are both abortion-specific and more general. These findings can also inform research in other health care contexts where patients increasingly find their options constrained by rising costs, consolidation, and facility closure.

Experiences of reproductive genetic counselors with abortion regulations in Ohio.

Since 2010, Ohio legislators have passed more than 15 legislative changes related to abortion and abortion providers, and nine procedural abortion clinics have closed. We investigated reproductive genetic counselors' perceptions, attitudes and self-reported practices regarding Ohio's current and proposed abortion regulations. We conducted five focus groups and two telephone interviews in 2019-2020, with a total of 19 reproductive genetic counselors. Participants discussed difficulties keeping current on abortion legislation and clinics' and hospitals' policies, resulting in anticipatory anxiety and leading to additional work to discuss the laws with patients. Participants articulated that practices of reproductive genetic counseling-and patient advocacy-are impeded by the legislation. Genetic counselors perceive negative impacts on patients' autonomy, particularly reflective of healthcare disparities of marginalized groups, which may contribute to frustration and anger. Ultimately, the mental and emotional burden on genetic counselors created by abortion legislation contributes to compassion fatigue and burnout. Our findings show that Ohio's abortion regulations negatively impact reproductive genetic counselors and their relationships with their patients. Repealing existing abortion regulations and preventing future restrictive legislation may ameliorate the negative effects of regulations on reproductive genetic counselors and their patients. In the event that these laws remain, innovative communication tools and proactive professional society advocacy are potential means to mitigate the negative impact on reproductive genetic counselors.