Legal issues in the provision of medical abortion

Borgmann, Caitlin E.; Jones, Bonnie Scott

doi:10.1067/mob.2000.108229

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, as we described earlier, the historical legacy of Planned Parenthood v. Casey has directed challenges of abortion restrictions toward establishing an undue burden for patients. Consequently, this legal standard has dominated much public debate and understanding (Borgmann & Jones, 2000; Luna & Luker, 2013). Yet when an abortion provider successfully navigates new regulations and continues to provide care, it is her invisible labor and clinical adaptations that prevent a restrictive law from imposing undue burden.…”

Section: Abortion Providers and The Public Health Impact Of Us Abortimentioning

confidence: 99%

TRAP laws and the invisible labor of US abortion providers

Mercier

Buchbinder

Bryant

2015

Critical Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers (TRAP laws) are proliferating in the United States and have increased barriers to abortion access. In order to comply with these laws, abortion providers make significant changes to facilities and clinical practices. In this article, we draw attention to an often unacknowledged area of public health threat: how providers adapt to increasing regulation, and the resultant strains on the abortion provider workforce. Current US legal standards for abortion regulations have led to an increase in laws that target abortion providers. We describe recent research with abortion providers in North Carolina to illustrate how providers adapt to new regulations, and how compliance with regulation leads to increased workload and increased financial and emotional burdens on providers. We use the concept of invisible labor to highlight the critical work undertaken by abortion providers not only to comply with regulations, but also to minimize the burden that new laws impose on patients. This labor provides a crucial bridge in the preservation of abortion access. The impact of TRAP laws on abortion providers should be included in the consideration of the public health impact of abortion laws.

show abstract

Section: Abortion Providers and The Public Health Impact Of Us Abortimentioning

confidence: 99%

TRAP laws and the invisible labor of US abortion providers

Mercier

Buchbinder

Bryant

2015

Critical Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Federally, Medicaid currently mandates abortion funding in the event of rape, incest, or endangerment of the pregnant woman's life. 42 Individual states have varying levels of public funding for abortion above this level. The legal implications of mifepristone use and medical abortion are extensive.…”

Section: Unresolved Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…60 Fourteen states (Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin) enforce state laws that require abortion providers to give state-prepared information and/or verbal instruction to patients prior to abortion procedures. 42 These waiting periods range from one hour (South Carolina) to 72 hours (Tennessee), but are most commonly required to be 24 hours in duration.…”

Section: Patient Counselingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mifepristone

DeHart

Morehead

2001

Ann Pharmacother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mifepristone in combination with misoprostol for the termination of early pregnancy (amenorrhea of < or = 49 d) is effective in 92-95% of women. Incomplete abortion requiring surgical abortion after the fact occurs in 3-5% of women, and pregnancy continues 1-2% of the time. Mifepristone with misoprostol treatment is not without significant risks, including hemorrhage, infection, and potential for long-term emotional consequences.

show abstract

“…Borgmann and Jones reviewed states' physician-only laws regarding providers of medical abortion (Borgmann & Jones, 2000). In some cases, it can be argued that when it comes to medical abortion, more recent laws granting prescriptive authority to APCs supercede physician-only restrictions.…”

Section: Practitioners and Medical Abortionmentioning

confidence: 99%