Mandatory Waiting Periods Before Abortion and Sterilization: Theory and Practice

A Multidimensional and Longitudinal Exploratory Study of the Stability of Pregnancy Contexts in the United States

Objective

Evaluate the longitudinal stability of six pregnancy contexts, including intention, in a diverse cohort of individuals experiencing delivery, abortion, or miscarriage.

Methods

We enrolled individuals 16-44 years of age with pregnancies <24 weeks gestation in this longitudinal study between June 2014 and June 2015 in four US urban clinics. We assessed six pregnancy contexts (intention, wantedness, planning, timing, desirability, and happiness) at enrollment and 3-month follow-up. We constructed three-level categorical measures for each context defined as favorable, ambivalent, or unfavorable. We used Wilcoxon sign tests to evaluate changes in paired observations between pregnancy context measures over time and by pregnancy outcome.

Results

Among 121 participants at median gestational age of 7 weeks and 3 days, we found intention, wantedness, planning, timing, and happiness remained unchanged from enrollment in early pregnancy to 3-month follow-up. Individuals demonstrated changes in desirability; pregnancy assessments shifted toward less desirable from enrollment to follow-up (p = 0.01) (i.e., desired to ambivalent, or ambivalent to undesired). Among participants choosing delivery (57%), assessments shifted toward more favorable planning (i.e., unplanned to ambivalent, or ambivalent to planned) (p < 0.01), and less favorable desirability (i.e., desired to ambivalent or ambivalent to undesired) (p < 0.01) at follow-up. Among participants choosing abortion (28%), assessments shifted toward more unfavorable planning (i.e., planned to ambivalent, or ambivalent to unplanned) at follow-up (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

In multidimensional, longitudinal assessment, pregnant participants' perspectives on five of six pregnancy contexts remained unchanged between enrollment and 3-month follow-up; only desirability shifted. Pregnancy planning perspectives differed by pregnancy outcome.Human Research Subjects Protection Program: 1310012926.

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.

Ethics of a Mandatory Waiting Period for Female Sterilization

Due to a history of coerced sterilization, a federal Medicaid sterilization policy mandates that a specific consent form be signed by a patient at least thirty days prior to when the patient undergoes sterilization. However, in contemporary obstetrical practice, the Medicaid sterilization policy serves as a policy-level barrier to autonomously desired care. We review the clinical and ethical implications of the current Medicaid sterilization policy. After discussing the utility and impact of waiting periods for other surgical procedures, we explore the psychology of time required for decision-making and consider scientific understanding of regret. We argue that the current Medicaid sterilization waiting period is clinically and ethically unjustifiable and that the policy ought to be revised in light of the goals, preferences, and concerns of the people most affected by it. While the need for continued protection against coercion remains, the current mandated waiting period does little to enforce the high-quality shared decision-making that is desired for sterilization counseling.

The impact of mandatory waiting periods on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence

This review follows an established methodology for integrating human rights to address knowledge gaps related to the health and non-health outcomes of mandatory waiting periods (MWPs) for access to abortion. MWP is a requirement imposed by law, policy, or practice, to wait a specified amount of time between requesting and receiving abortion care. Recognizing that MWPs “demean[] women as competent decision-makers”, the World Health Organization recommends against MWPs. International human rights bodies have similarly encouraged states to repeal and not to introduce MWPs, which they recognize as operating as barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive healthcare. This review of 34 studies published between 2010 and 2021, together with international human rights law, establishes the health and non-health harms of MWPs for people seeking abortion, including delayed abortion, opportunity costs, and disproportionate impact. Impacts on abortion providers include increased workloads and system costs.

Variation in the interpretation and application of the Medicaid sterilization consent form among Medicaid officials

OBJECTIVE

The Medicaid consent policy has been identified as a major barrier to desired permanent contraception, particularly for low-income communities and communities of color. As each state may modify their state Medicaid sterilization consent form, variation in the form has been reported. This study aims to characterize state-level variation in Medicaid Title XIX consent form interpretation and application.

STUDY DESIGN

We aimed to collect primary data from Medicaid officials in all 50 United States from January to May 2020 via a 25-question electronic survey regarding state-level consent form implementation. Questions targeted consent form details and definitions, insurance and billing, clinician correspondence, and administrative processes. We used Qualtrics XM to collect survey responses. We performed descriptive statistics on the survey responses. There were no exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

We had 41 responses from 36/50 states (72% participation rate). Heterogeneity existed in the key definitions of "Premature Delivery" and "Emergency Abdominal Surgery." One in five respondents reported the consent form was only available in English. Variation among Current Procedural Terminology codes covered in each state's sterilization policy were noted. Nearly a quarter of respondents did not know how Medicaid informed healthcare providers of consent form denials. Most participants (90%) were unaware of differences between state sterilization policies.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates variation in terms of consent form definitions, procedures covered, correspondence with clinicians, and administrative review processes among state Medicaid offices regarding the sterilization consent form. Greater transparency is necessary in order to reduce administrative barriers to desired permanent contraception.

IMPLICATIONS

Inconsistent interpretation poses an administrative barrier to care, raises concern regarding appropriate clinician reimbursement, and can potentially lead to unnecessarily denying patients the contraceptive option of their choice. Permanent contraception policies should be equitable no matter insurance status, preserve reproductive autonomy and effectively protect vulnerable populations.

Legal and policy responses to the delivery of abortion care during COVID-19

Access to abortion care has long been a global challenge, even in jurisdictions where abortion is legal. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated barriers to access, thereby preventing many women from terminating unwanted pregnancies for an extended period. In this paper, we outline existing and COVID-specific barriers to abortion care and consider potential solutions, including the use of telemedicine, to overcome barriers to access during the pandemic and beyond. We explore the responses of governments throughout the world to the challenge of abortion access during the pandemic, which are an eclectic mix of progressive, neutral, and regressive policies. Finally, we call on all governments to recognize abortion as essential healthcare and act to ensure that the law does not continue to interfere with providers' ability to adapt to circumstances and to guarantee safe and appropriate care not only during the pandemic, but permanently.