Federal, state, and institutional barriers to the expansion of medication and telemedicine abortion services in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterize the combined impact of federal, state, and institutional policies on barriers to expanding medication and telemedicine abortion care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic in the abortion-restrictive states of Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed 4 state policies, 2 COVID-related state executive orders, and clinic-level survey data on medication abortion provision from fourteen abortion facilities in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia from December 2019 to December 2020. We calculated the percent of medication abortions provided at these facilities during the study period by state, to assess changes in medication abortion use during the pandemic. RESULTS: We ascertained that COVID-19-executive orders in Ohio and West Virginia that limited procedural abortion in Spring 2020 coincided with an increase in the overall number and proportion of medication abortions in this region, peaking at 1613 medication abortions (70%) in April 2020. Ohio and West Virginia, which had executive orders limiting procedural abortion, saw relatively greater increases in April compared to Kentucky. Despite temporary lifting of the mifepristone REMS, prepandemic regulations banning telemedicine abortion in Kentucky and West Virginia and requiring in-person clinic visits for medication abortion distribution in Ohio limited clinics' ability to adapt to offer medication abortion by mail. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate how restrictive medication and telemedicine abortion policies in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia created additional obstacles for patients seeking medication abortion during the pandemic. Permanently lifting federal regulations on in-clinic distribution of mifepristone would only advantage abortion seekers in states without restrictive telehealth and medication abortion policies. State policies that limit access to comprehensive abortion services should be central in larger efforts toward dismantling barriers that impinge upon reproductive autonomy. IMPLICATION STATEMENT: We find that abolishing the REMS on mifepristone would not be enough to expand access to patients in abortion-restrictive states with telemedicine and medication abortion laws. While the REMS is a barrier, it represents one of several hindrances to the expansion of telemedicine abortion distribution across the United States.

Abortion Access in Ohio's Changing Legislative Context, 2010-2018.

Objectives. To examine abortion utilization in Ohio from 2010 to 2018, a period when more than 15 abortion-related laws became effective.Methods. We evaluated changes in abortion rates and ratios examining gestation, geographic distribution, and abortion method in Ohio from 2010 to 2018. We used data from Ohio's Office of Vital Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Abortion Surveillance Reports, the American Community Survey, and Ohio's Public Health Data Warehouse.Results. During 2010 through 2018, abortion rates declined similarly in Ohio, the Midwest, and the United States. In Ohio, the proportion of early first trimester abortions decreased; the proportion of abortions increased in nearly every later gestation category. Abortion ratios decreased sharply in most rural counties. When clinics closed, abortion ratios dropped in nearby counties.Conclusions. More Ohioans had abortions later in the first trimester, compared with national patterns, suggesting delays to care. Steeper decreases in abortion ratios in rural versus urban counties suggest geographic inequity in abortion access.Public Health Implications. Policies restricting abortion access in Ohio co-occur with delays to care and increasing geographic inequities. Restrictive policies do not improve reproductive health.

Constituting children's bodily integrity.

Children have a constitutional right to bodily integrity. Courts do not hesitate to vindicate that right when children are abused by state actors. Moreover, in at least some cases, a child's right to bodily integrity applies within the family, giving the child the right to avoid unwanted physical intrusions regardless of the parents' wishes. Nonetheless, the scope of this right vis-à-vis the parents is unclear; the extent to which it applies beyond the narrow context of abortion and contraception has been almost entirely unexplored and untheorized. This Article is the first in the legal literature to analyze the constitutional right of minors to bodily integrity within the family by spanning traditionally disparate doctrinal categories such as abortion rights; corporal punishment; medical decisionmaking; and nontherapeutic physical interventions such as tattooing, piercing, and circumcision. However, the constitutional right of minors to bodily integrity raises complex philosophical questions concerning the proper relationship between family and state, as well as difficult doctrinal and theoretical issues concerning the ever-murky idea of state action. This Article canvasses those issues with the ultimate goal of delineating a constitutional right of bodily security and autonomy for children.

Casey meets the crisis pregnancy centers.

Recent cases have found factual disclosure requirements to be constitutional when imposed on abortion providers but unconstitutional when imposed on crisis pregnancy centers. This paper argues that the outcomes in both kinds of cases can be explained by courts' perception of abortion as an ideological, political, or moral act rather than as health care.