Undue burdens created by the Texas Abortion Law for vulnerable pregnant women

Gordon, Mollie; Coverdale, John; Chervenak, Frank A.; McCullough, Laurence B.

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2021.12.033

Cited by 19 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is not only women of colour that are disproportionately affected by abortion restrictions. Pregnant minors and cognitively disabled women often lack the ability to travel21—which makes it difficult to have an abortion if one must travel to a different state to get one. It is also the case that women of colour have already been subject to surveillance, forced pregnancy interventions, civil detentions and even arrests related to pregnancy at higher rates than white women 22…”

Section: Does Overruling Roe Discriminate Against Women Of Colour?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does overruling Roe discriminate against women (of colour)?

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On 24 July 2022, the landmark decision Roe v. Wade (1973), that secured a right to abortion for decades, was overruled by the US Supreme Court. The Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation severely restricts access to legal abortion care in the USA, since it will give the states the power to ban abortion. It has been claimed that overruling Roe will have disproportionate impacts on women of color and that restricting access to abortion contributes to or amounts to structural racism. In this paper, we consider whether restricting abortion access as a consequence of overruling Roe could be understood as discrimination against women of color (and women in general). We argue that banning abortion is indirectly discriminatory against women of color and directly (but neither indirectly, nor structurally) discriminatory against women in general.

show abstract

Section: Does Overruling Roe Discriminate Against Women Of Colour?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does overruling Roe discriminate against women (of colour)?

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two of us (MG, JC) have identified several vulnerable populations at risk of restricted access to abortion services [28] and who likely will experience significant burdens from laws requiring the physician to determine whether a fetal heartbeat is present and prohibiting an abortion after a heartbeat was detected [29]. These populations include women of color and immigrants, those with decreased freedom to travel, pregnant minors, women with major mental disorders or cognitive disabilities, and those who are victims of violence.…”

Section: Particularly Vulnerable Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Restrictive abortion policies are associated with lower abortion rates, especially for those who have low incomes, who are also disproportionately Black and American Indian groups [30], and those living further away from abortion clinics [31][32][33]. Other groups restricted by a decreased freedom of movement include women who are primary care providers for young children, women who are incarcerated or in detention centers, or who are impoverished or homeless [28]. Adolescents or minors may face challenges in accessing abortion services [34], lack knowledge about sources of care, delay care because of a lack of resources particularly when emancipated and living away from family support, or depend on their parents for support.…”

Section: Particularly Vulnerable Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recognition of the potential consequences of the Dobbs decision should inspire psychiatrists to action to support women who are harmed, to mitigate those harms, and to support our professional organizations to do the same. These potential harms justify efforts at local, state, and federal levels to improve access to abortion services and to overturn restrictive laws [28] and to promote the professional principles that apply when assisting pregnant women's decision-making [55]. The psychiatric profession, especially because of its long-standing and strong commitments to benefiting vulnerable and marginalized populations, should lead these efforts in collaboration with obstetricians and gynecologists and others in the medical and health care professions.…”

Section: Advocacymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Access to Abortion After Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: Advocacy and a Call to Action for the Profession of Psychiatry

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court released a decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that the Constitution of the United States does not "prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion" ([1], page 79]. "We now …. turn that authority to the people and their elected representatives" ([1], page 79]). Thus, decades of legal precedent on abortion law were overturned. This decision allows individual states to determine access to abortion services. As of August 25, 2022, nine states have banned abortion, four states have banned abortion at 6 weeks after the last menstrual period, and one state has banned abortion at 20 weeks after the last menstrual period [2]. According to the Guttmacher Institute, it is estimated that 58% of women in the USA of reproductive age live in a state "hostile to abortion rights" [3]. When states prohibit abortion, women's decision-making as to whether to continue their pregnancy to viability and term is negated.Numerous medical organizations have denounced the Court's decision. The American Medical Association, in an alliance with the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists and more than 75 health care organizations, opposed all legislative interference in the patient-clinician relationship [4]. The alliance stated that patients needed to be able to access-and * John Coverdale

show abstract

“…Bernie and Clavier poignantly note that “health promotion research is inherently political” and caution researchers against conceptualizing a fictitious world where health interventions and scientific research are politically neutral topics [ 21 ]. For example, recent policy changes in the USA demonstrate strong political influence, some to the detriment of public health and individual rights through restrictions in access to care [ 23 – 25 ]. Public health is also criticized for naïvely perceiving policymaking as a linear process with research serving as the strongest influence over decision-makers [ 20 , 21 , 26 , 27 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where is “policy” in dissemination and implementation science? Recommendations to advance theories, models, and frameworks: EPIS as a case example

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Implementation science aims to accelerate the public health impact of evidence-based interventions. However, implementation science has had too little focus on the role of health policy — and its inseparable politics, polity structures, and policymakers — in the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based healthcare. Policies can serve as determinants, implementation strategies, the evidence-based “thing” to be implemented, or another variable in the causal pathway to healthcare access, quality, and patient outcomes. Research describing the roles of policy in dissemination and implementation (D&I) efforts is needed to resolve persistent knowledge gaps about policymakers’ evidence use, how evidence-based policies are implemented and sustained, and methods to de-implement policies that are ineffective or cause harm. Few D&I theories, models, or frameworks (TMF) explicitly guide researchers in conceptualizing where, how, and when policy should be empirically investigated. We conducted and reflected on the results of a scoping review to identify gaps of existing Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework-guided policy D&I studies. We argue that rather than creating new TMF, researchers should optimize existing TMF to examine policy’s role in D&I. We describe six recommendations to help researchers optimize existing D&I TMF. Recommendations are applied to EPIS, as one example for advancing TMF for policy D&I. Recommendations (1) Specify dimensions of a policy’s function (policy goals, type, contexts, capital exchanged). (2) Specify dimensions of a policy’s form (origin, structure, dynamism, outcomes). (3) Identify and define the nonlinear phases of policy D&I across outer and inner contexts. (4) Describe the temporal roles that stakeholders play in policy D&I over time. (5) Consider policy-relevant outer and inner context adaptations. (6) Identify and describe bridging factors necessary for policy D&I success. Conclusion Researchers should use TMF to meaningfully conceptualize policy’s role in D&I efforts to accelerate the public health impact of evidence-based policies or practices and de-implement ineffective and harmful policies. Applying these six recommendations to existing D&I TMF advances existing theoretical knowledge, especially EPIS application, rather than introducing new models. Using these recommendations will sensitize researchers to help them investigate the multifaceted roles policy can play within a causal pathway leading to D&I success.

show abstract

Undue burdens created by the Texas Abortion Law for vulnerable pregnant women

Cited by 19 publications

References 45 publications

Does overruling Roe discriminate against women (of colour)?

Does overruling Roe discriminate against women (of colour)?

Access to Abortion After Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: Advocacy and a Call to Action for the Profession of Psychiatry

Where is “policy” in dissemination and implementation science? Recommendations to advance theories, models, and frameworks: EPIS as a case example

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About