The Ninth Amendment: An Underutilized Protection for Reproductive Choice.

Concern about individual rights and the desire to protect them has been part of our nation since its founding, and continues to be so today. The Ninth Amendment was created to assuage the Framers' concerns that enumerating some rights in the Bill of Rights would leave unenumerated rights unrecognized and unprotected, affirming that those rights are not disparaged or denied by their lack of textual support. The Ninth Amendment has appeared infrequently in our jurisprudence, and Courts initially construed it rather narrowly. But starting in the 1960s, the Ninth Amendment emerged as a powerful tool not just for recognizing unanticipated rights, but for protecting or expanding even enumerated rights. The right to privacy--encompassing the right to contraception and abortion--the right to preserve the integrity of your family, the right to vote, the right to own a firearm as an individual--all these rights have been asserted under and found to be supported by the Ninth Amendment. In its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision overturning Roe, the Supreme Court found that there is no right to abortion because it is not in the Constitution. But the potential of the Ninth Amendment is such that reproductive choice need not be mentioned in the Constitution to be protected. Reproductive choice may rightfully be considered as part of a right to privacy, an unenumerated right that nevertheless has abundant precedent behind it. The Ninth Amendment, and its counterparts found in many state constitutions, has the power to protect not just reproductive choice, but all of our fundamental rights.

The Dead Unborn, Postmortem Privacy Cases, and Abortion Rights.

The privacy of the dead is an interesting area of concern for bioethicists. There is a legal doctrine that the dead can't have privacy rights, but also a body of contrary law ascribing privacy rights to the deceased and kin in relation to the deceased. As women's abortion privacy is under assault by American courts and legislatures, the implications of ascribing privacy rights to embryos and fetuses is more important than ever. Caution is called for in this domain.

"We need to confirm at least from two or three": Healthcare workers' discretion as gatekeepers in the context of the Ethiopian abortion law.

INTRODUCTION: Women's access to legal and safe abortion is a vital means to reduce unsafe abortion, which in turn is known to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality. In 2005, Ethiopia enacted a relatively permissive abortion legislation. However, there is evidence that access to abortion care services may be challenging and controversial even if progressive abortion laws are in place. This article examines women's access to abortion services from the perspective of healthcare workers in a rural setting in Ethiopia. Drawing on Lipsky's theory of street-level bureaucrats, the article discusses healthcare workers' discretion and the substantial authority they hold as gatekeepers to safe abortion services. METHODS: The study draws upon a qualitative, interpretative methodological approach, with in-depth semi-structured interviews with healthcare workers as the key method of data generation. The data was analyzed and interpreted thematically. Healthcare workers' perspectives were examined with reference to the national abortion legislation and guidelines. RESULTS: The findings reveal that healthcare workers make decisions on behalf of the women who seek abortion, and they involve parents and partners in abortion-related decision-making processes. Moreover, they assess the social context of the pregnancy such as the marital and economic statuses of the abortion-seeking women in ways that restrict women's access to legally-endorsed abortion services. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers' practices in this rural area were found to challenge the basic provisions laid out in Ethiopia's abortion legislation. Their negative discretion of the legislation contributes to the substantial barriers Ethiopian abortion-seeking women face in gaining access to legal abortion services, despite the presence of a progressive legal framework and guidelines.

States' Abortion Laws Associated With Intimate Partner Violence-Related Homicide Of Women And Girls In The US, 2014-20.

Women who are pregnant or recently gave birth are significantly more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than nonpregnant, nonpostpartum women of reproductive age, implicating the risk of fatal violence conferred by pregnancy itself. The rapidly increasing passage of state legislation has restricted or banned access to abortion care across the US. We used the most recent and only source of population-based data to examine the association between state laws that restrict access to abortion and trends in intimate partner violence-related homicide among women and girls ages 10-44 during the period 2014-20. Using robust difference-in-differences ecologic modeling, we found that enforcement of each additional Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) law was associated with a 3.4 percent increase in the rate of intimate partner violence-related homicide in this population. We estimated that 24.3 intimate partner violence-related homicides of women and girls ages 10-44 were associated with TRAP laws implemented in the states and years included in this analysis. Assessment of policies that restrict access to abortion should consider their potential harm to reproductive-age women through the risk for violent death.

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".

Inflation in 2022 did not affect congressional voting, but abortion did.

This study examines voting in the 2022 United States congressional elections, contests that were widely expected to produce a sizable defeat for Democratic candidates for largely economic reasons. Based on a representative national probability sample of voters interviewed in both 2020 and 2022, individuals who changed their vote from one party's congressional candidate to another party's candidate did not do so in response to the salience of inflation or declining economic conditions. Instead, we find strong evidence that views on abortion were central to shifting votes in the midterm elections. Americans who favored (opposed) legal abortions were more likely to shift from voting for Republican (Democratic) candidates in 2020 to Democratic (Republican) candidates in 2022. Since a larger number of Americans supported than opposed legal abortions, the combination of these shifts ultimately improved the electoral prospects of Democratic candidates. New voters were especially likely to weigh abortion views heavily in their vote-shifting calculus. Likewise, those respondents whose confidence in the US Supreme Court declined from 2020 to 2022 were more likely to shift from voting for Republican to Democratic congressional candidates. We provide direct empirical evidence that changes in support for the Supreme Court, a nonpartisan branch of the federal government, are implicated in partisan voting behavior in another branch of government. We explore the implications of these findings for prevalent assumptions about how economic conditions influence voting, as well as for the relationship between the judiciary and electoral politics.

Our hands are tied: abortion bans and hesitant medicine.

Trained for decades to analyze risks, benefits, unique body compositions, and complex medical scenarios, healthcare providers are now faced with one of medicine's most trying obstacles: how to practice medicine when new abortion bans contradict best practice standards. Drawn from qualitative interviews with medical providers in Tennessee, USA conducted between October 2022 and December 2022, this study shows how medical providers often must make medical decisions based on legal risks as opposed to standards of care. This is particularly significant as malpractice insurance does not cover criminal charges. In states with abortion bans, often hastily implemented and subject to changes by lawmakers, medical providers are now practicing a new kind of defensive medicine in an effort to protect themselves from legal threats. We call this hesitant medicine, where providers often experience a tension between their own legal protection and the well-being of their patients, making them hesitant to provide necessary abortion care. This has serious, far-reaching consequences. We focus on three distinct arenas impacted by this new form of defensive medicine, specifically: providers' decision-making around patient care, impacts on patient relationships, and finally, what we call the ultimate defense, leaving states with abortion bans to move to states with fewer legal risks. We conclude with commentary on potential ways to reduce the negative impacts of these trends.

Race and Ethnicity of Reproductive-Age Females Affected by US State Abortion Bans.

This study compares the race and ethnicity of reproductive-age females between states that implemented restrictive abortion policies after the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision and states that did not.

Abortion Provision and Delays to Care in a Clinic Network in Washington State After Dobbs.

Importance: The Supreme Court decision Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs) overturned federal protections to abortion care and altered the reproductive health care landscape. Thus far, aggregated state-level data reveal increases in the number of abortions in states where abortion is still legal, but there is limited information on delays to care and changes in the characteristics of people accessing abortion in these states after Dobbs. Objective: To examine changes in abortion provision and delays to care after Dobbs. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of all abortions performed at an independent, high-volume reproductive health care clinic network in Washington state from January 1, 2017, to July 31, 2023. Using an interrupted time series, the study assessed changes in abortion care after Dobbs. Exposure: Abortion care obtained after (June 24, 2022, to July 31, 2023) vs before (January 1, 2017, to June 23, 2022) Dobbs. Main Outcome and Measure: Primary outcomes included weekly number of abortions and out-of-state patients and weekly average of gestational duration (days) and time to appointment (days). Results: Among the 18 379 abortions during the study period, most were procedural (13 192 abortions [72%]) and funded by public insurance (11 412 abortions [62%]). The mean (SD) age of individuals receiving abortion care was 28.5 (6.44) years. Following Dobbs, the number of procedural abortions per week increased by 6.35 (95% CI, 2.83-9.86), but then trended back toward pre-Dobbs levels. The number of out-of-state patients per week increased by 2 (95% CI, 1.1-3.6) and trends remained stable. The average gestational duration per week increased by 6.9 (95% CI, 3.6-10.2) days following Dobbs, primarily due to increased gestations of procedural abortions. The average gestational duration among out-of-state patients did not change following Dobbs, but it did increase by 6 days for in-state patients (5.9; 95% CI, 3.2-8.6 days). There were no significant changes in time to appointment. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings provide a detailed picture of changes in abortion provision and delays to care after Dobbs in a state bordering a total ban state. In this study, more people traveled from out of state to receive care and in-state patients sought care a week later in gestation. These findings can inform interventions and policies to improve access for all seeking abortion care.

Societal implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization marked the removal of the constitutional right to abortion in the USA, introducing a complex ethical and legal landscape for patients and providers. This shift has had immediate health and equity repercussions, but it is also crucial to examine the broader impacts on states, health-care systems, and society as a whole. Restrictions on abortion access extend beyond immediate reproductive care concerns, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of the ruling's consequences across micro and macro levels. To mitigate potential harm, it is imperative to establish a research agenda that informs policy making and ensures effective long-term monitoring and reporting, addressing both immediate and future impacts.

Health-care workforce implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

The Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision, which revoked the constitutional right to abortion in the USA, has impacted the national medical workforce. Impacts vary across states, but providers in states with restrictive abortion laws now must contend with evolving legal and ethical challenges that have the potential to affect workforce safety, mental health, education, and training opportunities, in addition to having serious impacts on patient health and far-reaching societal consequences. Moreover, Dobbs has consequences on almost every facet of the medical workforce, including on physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and others who work within the health-care system. Comprehensive research is urgently needed to understand the wide-ranging implications of Dobbs on the medical workforce, including legal, ethical, clinical, and psychological dimensions, to inform evidence-based policies and standards of care in abortion-restrictive settings. Lessons from the USA might also have global relevance for countries facing similar restrictions on reproductive care.

Bridging the Knowledge Gap: A Toolkit on Reproductive Rights for Pediatric Surgeons in the Post-Dobbs Era.

BACKGROUND: The ripple effect of the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization has impacted physicians and patients across numerous medical specialties. In pediatric surgery, the patient population ranges from fetus to the pregnant patient. There is a gap in the knowledge of pediatric surgeons regarding abortion laws and access. This project aims to bridge the gap by creating access to reliable resources which may be used to optimize patient care and support physicians. METHODS: We collaborated with the Reproductive Health Coalition, co-founded by the American Medical Women's Association and Doctors for America, to curate a list of resources beneficial to pediatric surgeons. RESULTS: We created a web-based toolkit with the purpose of providing easily accessible and reliable information on reproductive rights in the United States. We identified up-to-date resources on state-by-state abortion laws, legal resources, patient-centered information on obtaining abortion care, and resources for physicians interested in getting involved in advocacy. CONCLUSION: Pediatric surgery rests at a critical juncture with respect to reproductive rights in the United States. Our toolkit enables users to understand the current climate and identify next steps to advocate for patients and physicians amidst a formidable legal environment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

State Abortion Bans Heap Burdens on Already Traumatized Rape Survivors.

The laws exacerbate stigma and impede access to needed health care.

Legal abortion requests and outcomes for women when the law is restrictive - experience from a referral centre in south-eastern Brazil.

METHODS: Retrospective cohort study with review of medical records of women assisted between 2015 and 2020. The variables were socio-demographic and SV characteristics, gestational age, reactions towards pregnancy and outcome. We compared outcome groups using the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test and the Kruskal-Wallis test. The significance level was 5%. RESULTS: We evaluated the medical records of 235 women, of which 153(65%) had undergone to abortion; 17(7.2%) had a spontaneous abortion; 19(8%) remained pregnant; 25(10.6%) had an abortion denied; and 21(8.9%) had been lost to follow-up. Out of the total number of women, 44(18.7%) were adolescents, 152(65.2%) were white and 201(88.5%) had an education ≥9 years. Women who remained pregnant had a known aggressor, disclosed the pregnancy (p < 0.001) and were more ambivalent (p < 0.001) than the other groups. Gestational age was higher in the denied abortion group than in the performed abortion group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Feelings related to decision-making about abortion affected all groups, with differences. It is important to give women space to be heard, so they can make their own decisions.

Abortion care is possible in places with restrictive laws; however, women with more vulnerable characteristics did not seek the service. Legal restrictions interfere with women's decision-making about abortion and can promote inequality in gaining access to health services.

The FDA in the Crosshairs-Science, Politics, and Abortion.

In this Viewpoint, the Supreme Court case FDA v AHM is used to illustrate the tension the FDA faces between science and politics, and state authority over abortion vs federal authority over which drugs may be marketed nationwide.