Medication Abortion “Reversal” Laws: How Unsound Science Paved the Way for Dangerous Abortion Policy

Abstract

Objectives. To longitudinally examine the legal landscape of laws requiring abortion patients be informed about the possibility of medication abortion (MAB) “reversal” (in quotes as it does not refer to an evidence-based medical procedure). Methods. We collected legal data on enacted state MAB-reversal laws across all 50 US states and Washington, DC, (collectively, states) from 2012 through 2021. We descriptively analyzed these laws to identify legal variation over time and geography, and conducted a content analysis to identify qualitative themes and patterns in MAB-reversal laws. Results. As of 2021, 14 states (27%)—mostly in the midwestern and southern United States—have enacted MAB-reversal laws. States largely use explicit language to describe reversal, require patients receive information during preabortion counseling, require physicians or physicians' agents to inform patients, instruct patients to contact a health care provider or visit “abortion pill reversal” resources for more information, and require reversal information be posted on state-managed Web sites. Conclusions. Reversal laws continue a dangerous precedent of using unsound science to justify laws regulating abortion access, intrude upon the patient‒provider relationship, and may negatively affect the emotional and physical health of patients seeking an MAB. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(2):202–212. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307140 )

Challenging misleading information about ‘abortion reversal’

“…5 A recent law-related article claimed that all published abortion reversal case reports demonstrated a failure to obtain consent from the women involved. 6 However, one of these reports clearly documented that women were consented, and institutional research ethics approval was obtained. Ironically, this inaccurate law-related article expounded abortion policy as being formed by unsound science, yet partly based this claim on their unsound statement discussed above.…”