The June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization resulted in state-specific differences in abortion care access across the country. The primary concern in the obstetrics and gynecology education community has been the impact on resident and fellowship training programs. However, the impact on undergraduate medical education and the broad implications for future generations of physicians are crucial to address. It is estimated that 48% of matriculants to MD-granting medical schools will receive their medical education in the 26 states with significant abortion restrictions or bans. Undergraduate medical educators need to continue to adequately teach the basic science, clinical care, and population health outcomes of reproductive medicine, including pregnancy and abortion. In addition, students in states with more restrictions on abortion will have less or no clinical exposure, and those in states with few restrictions may be excluded due to overcrowding of learners from restricted states. Students’ own health care also needs to be considered, as access to abortion care for themselves or their partners may create applicant pool demographic shifts by state as applicants consider options for where to pursue their medical education. It is important to ensure that teaching of foundational science of pregnancy, abortion, and reproductive health continues throughout the United States. Undergraduate and graduate medical educators will need to closely monitor the downstream impact of decreased clinical exposure of abortion. Further study of the personal health impact of abortion care access for medical students and awareness of the changing applicant pool demographics by state is needed.

Personal or nonessential information may be redacted at the editor's discretion.

Recognition of the spectrum of gender identities has been a recent phenomenon in the medical profession. Over the past 20 years, medical literature related to gender identity diversity has increased several-fold, yet it more commonly addresses clinical care rather than aspects related to medical education. Medical educators continue to struggle with appropriate language and inclusive approaches when discussing gender-based aspects of medical education. Reproductive health education, including obstetrics and gynecology clerkships, is particularly vulnerable to missteps and anachronisms regarding gender identity. This article aims to provide preclinical and clinical medical educators with strategies to identify and predict situations where missteps related to gender identity inclusivity may occur in their curriculum or learning environment, and to develop approaches to improve gender identity inclusivity within medical education. The authors explore 3 areas that commonly pose challenges for medical educators: inclusive language and terminology, anatomy education, and reproductive genetics and genetic counseling. They hope the tools and strategies provided here will be useful to reproductive health medical educators across specialties to enable the realization of a more inclusive learning environment in reproductive health.