Constructing a longitudinal database of Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws

Abstract

Objective: To build a longitudinal state-level database on targeted regulation of abortion provider (TRAP) laws. Data sources: Primary sources included state websites, Lexis Nexis Quicklaw, and WestlawNext. We also relied on a range of secondary sources (including media reports and existing cross-sectional data) to pinpoint policy enactment and enforcement. Study design: This was an iterative state-level review and compilation of data on TRAP shifts from 1973 to present. Data collection: Two coders captured quantitative and qualitative data on TRAP policy activity and timing, focusing specifically on ambulatory surgical center (ASC) laws, admitting privilege requirements, and transfer agreements as these policies may pose significant compliance challenges to providers. Data were repeatedly cross-referenced and ultimately compiled to build a comprehensive record of state-level TRAP shifts over time. Principal findings: According to our search results, 25 states had ever enacted an ASC, admitting privilege, or transfer agreement law. Fewer states (n=21) enforced these laws, and many currently face legal challenges. Conclusions: TRAP laws are favored by many states as a way to regulate abortion provision, but the lack of longitudinal data on state-level policy shifts hinders our ability to quantify the impact of these laws beyond a single-state setting.These data can be used to better understand the impact of TRAP laws.