The Ethics of Access: Reframing the Need for Abortion Care as a Health Disparity

Prescriptive Authority for Direct Entry Midwives in Washington State: Increasing Client Access to Contraception

Improving health and achieving health equity includes access to sexual and reproductive health care for all populations, especially those most in need. However, access to life-saving and life-affirming contraception with an individual's chosen perinatal provider can be impeded by restrictive regulations that limit scope and practice authority. This is especially true for the majority of community and direct entry midwives in the United States who have historically been unable to legally provide effective contraceptive methods. Recently, licensed midwives in Washington state were the first in the nation to achieve prescriptive authority, enabling their clients to directly obtain contraception and access to medications for common prenatal and postpartum conditions. Sustained advocacy efforts in the state's capitol enabled the Midwives' Association of Washington State to build relationships over time with legislators and government agencies to achieve this long-term goal. We present a successful midwifery-led innovation that achieved scope expansion for licensed midwives whose practice authority was limited by restrictive laws. Lessons learned are described and strategies offered to aid midwives and their advocates in other locales who want to improve health equity and access to contraception. Midwives are well positioned to provide this essential care to individuals living in underserved rural and urban areas and those from historically marginalized communities, but their ability to do so is limited by restrictive legislation.

Reproductive Justice as a Framework for Abortion Care

This article presents an in-depth analysis of abortion access and rights within the Reproductive Justice framework, underscoring the health, social, and economic consequences of limited access. It emphasizes the critical role of abortion as essential, safe health care and highlights the complexities surrounding abortion decisions and the barriers faced by poor and historically marginalized populations. Amid the escalating access restrictions, the article concludes with a call to action for obstetricians and gynecologists and our allied health care providers to recognize, support, and advocate for safe, legal, and affordable abortion services as fundamental to health care equity and human rights.

Abortion Access and the Benefits and Limitations of Abortion-Permissive Legal Frameworks: Lessons from the United Kingdom

This paper argues that abortion access is an important subject for bioethics scholarship and reflects on the relationship between legal frameworks and access to care. The author uses the example of the United Kingdom to examine the benefits and limitations of abortion-permissive legal frameworks in terms of access. These are legal frameworks that enable the provision of abortion but subject to restrictions. An abortion-permissive regime-first in Great Britain and then in Northern Ireland-has gone some way to improving access to care over time. However, aspects of the regime (that lead to its description as permissive rather than supportive of abortion) have the potential to endanger abortion access in the future and so legal reform is necessary.

Does overruling Roe discriminate against women (of colour)?

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.

Society for Medical Anthropology Statement on Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Decision

This statement summarizes key findings from anthropological and related scholarship on the harmful consequences of inadequate abortion access, leading the Society for Medical Anthropology to register profound concern about the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson. After circulation to SMA members for input, a finalized version passed a membership vote by an overwhelming margin. This statement complements one produced by the Council for Anthropology and Reproduction, available here.