What Did Obergefell Change? Clearance of Intimate Partner Violence Before and After the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage

Historically, same-sex intimate partner violence (IPV) was ignored, and victims often experienced high rates of harassment and intimidation from police, leading to low reporting of same-sex IPV incidents, victims' unwillingness to cooperate with the police, and common arrests in such incidents. Although the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) legalized and legitimized same-sex marriages and relationships in the U.S., mandating the inclusion of same-sex partners in protective order laws and yielding collateral benefits for victims of same-sex IPV, it is unclear if the decision has had a positive effect on same-sex IPV clearance rates. This study uses National Incident-Based Reporting System data to compare IPV clearance (arrest, dual arrest, victim noncooperation, and prosecution declined) pre (2013/2014) and post (2016/2017) Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Regression results show no substantial changes in same-sex IPV clearance after Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Compared to opposite-sex IPV, same-sex IPV was less likely to be cleared by arrest but much more likely to be cleared by dual arrest, victim noncooperation, and prosecution declined. Same-sex IPV involving Black couples and married partners were also less likely to be cleared by arrest but more likely to be cleared by dual arrest than Black/White same-sex IPV and incidents involving unmarried partners, respectively. Moreover, same-sex IPV victims experience unfavorable criminal justice outcomes in states with mandatory arrest policies but fare better in states that supported same-sex relationships prior to Obergefell. The implications of these findings for practice and research are discussed.

Inflation in 2022 did not affect congressional voting, but abortion did

This study examines voting in the 2022 United States congressional elections, contests that were widely expected to produce a sizable defeat for Democratic candidates for largely economic reasons. Based on a representative national probability sample of voters interviewed in both 2020 and 2022, individuals who changed their vote from one party's congressional candidate to another party's candidate did not do so in response to the salience of inflation or declining economic conditions. Instead, we find strong evidence that views on abortion were central to shifting votes in the midterm elections. Americans who favored (opposed) legal abortions were more likely to shift from voting for Republican (Democratic) candidates in 2020 to Democratic (Republican) candidates in 2022. Since a larger number of Americans supported than opposed legal abortions, the combination of these shifts ultimately improved the electoral prospects of Democratic candidates. New voters were especially likely to weigh abortion views heavily in their vote-shifting calculus. Likewise, those respondents whose confidence in the US Supreme Court declined from 2020 to 2022 were more likely to shift from voting for Republican to Democratic congressional candidates. We provide direct empirical evidence that changes in support for the Supreme Court, a nonpartisan branch of the federal government, are implicated in partisan voting behavior in another branch of government. We explore the implications of these findings for prevalent assumptions about how economic conditions influence voting, as well as for the relationship between the judiciary and electoral politics.

Understanding the Impacts of the Supreme Court Case FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

This Viewpoint outlines the potential effects of the Supreme Court case regarding mifepristone restrictions: a decision for the FDA would allow current dispensing, while ruling against the FDA would severely curtail access to reproductive health options.

Provision of Medications for Self-Managed Abortion Before and After the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Decision

Importance

The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned the right to choose abortion in the US, with at least 16 states subsequently implementing abortion bans or 6-week gestational limits. Prior research indicates that in the 6 months following Dobbs, approximately 32 360 fewer abortions were provided within the US formal health care setting. However, trends in the provision of medications for self-managed abortion outside the formal health care setting have not been studied.

Objective

To determine whether the provision of medications for self-managed abortion outside the formal health care setting increased in the 6 months after Dobbs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional study using data from sources that provided abortion medications outside the formal health care setting to people in the US between March 1 and December 31, 2022, including online telemedicine organizations, community networks, and online vendors. Using a hierarchical bayesian model, we imputed missing values from sources not providing data. We estimated the change in provision of medications for self-managed abortion after the Dobbs decision. We then estimated actual use of these medications by accounting for the possibility that not all provided medications are used by recipients.

Exposure

Abortion restrictions following the Dobbs decision.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Provision and use of medications for a self-managed abortion.

Results

In the 6-month post-Dobbs period (July 1 to December 31, 2022), the total number of provisions of medications for self-managed abortion increased by 27 838 (95% credible interval [CrI], 26 374-29 175) vs what would have been expected based on pre-Dobbs levels. Excluding imputed data changes the results only slightly (27 145; 95% CrI, 25 747-28 246). Accounting for nonuse of medications, actual self-managed medication abortions increased by an estimated 26 055 (95% CrI, 24 739-27 245) vs what would have been expected had the Dobbs decision not occurred.

Conclusions and Relevance

Provision of medications for self-managed abortions increased in the 6 months following the Dobbs decision. Results suggest that a substantial number of abortion seekers accessed services despite the implementation of state-level bans and restrictions.

US Supreme Court Limits on the Power of US Health Agencies

This Viewpoint describes how the overturning of Chevron deference would shift the ability to make policy decisions about public health and the environment from administrative agencies to the courts.

Addressing challenges related to the professional practice of abortion post-Roe

The landmark Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion. In June 2022, the Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision brought an end to the established professional practice of abortion throughout the United States. Rights-based reductionism and zealotry threaten the professional practice of abortion. Rights-based reductionism is generally the view that moral or ethical issues can be reduced exclusively to matters of rights. In relation to abortion, there are 2 opposing forms of rights-based reductionism, namely fetal rights reductionism, which emphasizes the rights for the fetus while disregarding the rights and autonomy of the pregnant patient, and pregnant patient rights reductionism, which supports unlimited abortion without regards for the fetus. The 2 positions are irreconcilable. This article provides historical examples of the destructive nature of zealotry, which is characterized by extreme devotion to one's beliefs and an intolerant stance to opposing viewpoints, and of the importance of enlightenment to limit zealotry. This article then explores the professional responsibility model as a clinically ethically sound approach to overcome the clashing forms of rights-based reductionism and zealotry and to address the professional practice of abortion. The professional responsibility model refers to the ethical and professional obligations that obstetricians and other healthcare providers have toward pregnant patients, fetuses, and the society at large. It provides a more balanced and nuanced approach to the abortion debate, avoiding the pitfalls of reductionism and zealotry, and allows both the rights of the woman and the obligations to pregnant and fetal patients to be considered alongside broader ethical, medical, and societal implications. Constructive and respectful dialogue is crucial in addressing diverse perspectives and finding common ground. Embracing the professional responsibility model enables professionals to manage abortion responsibly, thereby prioritizing patients' interests and navigating between absolutist viewpoints to find balanced ethical solutions.

The FDA in the Crosshairs-Science, Politics, and Abortion

In this Viewpoint, the Supreme Court case FDA v AHM is used to illustrate the tension the FDA faces between science and politics, and state authority over abortion vs federal authority over which drugs may be marketed nationwide.

Consumer Protection, Agencies, and the Supreme Court

This Viewpoint discusses an upcoming US Supreme Court case that could result in the termination of the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which protects the financial well-being of consumers.

Changes in Permanent Contraception Procedures Among Young Adults Following the Dobbs Decision

This cross-sectional study evaluates changes in tubal ligation and vasectomy procedures among younger adults following the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.

Overturning Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey: An Assault to Reproductive and Racial Justice and the Mental Health of Youth

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, ending a woman's constitutional right to access abortion. Child and adolescent psychiatrists should be gravely concerned about these decisions. Youth with mental health disorders are an at-risk population. Lack of access to reproductive care, including abortion, will adversely impact the physical and mental health of teens,2 exerting a disproportionate impact on Black and Brown youth, many of whom experience systemic racism and are in systems that leave them structurally vulnerable (ie, in foster care or legal system). These decisions will have a lasting, negative impact on medical, social, and economic outcomes of youth for generations to come. Thus, we make the case that access to reproductive care is a matter of reproductive and racial justice.

The importance of professional responsibility and fetal viability in the management of abortion

In June 2022, the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision ended the constitutional right to the professional practice of abortion throughout the United States. The removal of the constitutional right to abortion has significantly altered the practice of obstetricians and gynecologists across the US. It potentially increases risks to pregnant patients, leads to profound changes in how physicians can provide care, especially in states with strict bans or gestational limits to abortion, and has introduced personal challenges, including moral distress and injury as well as legal risks for patients and clinicians alike. The professional responsibility model is based on the ethical concept of medicine as a profession and has been influential in shaping medical ethics in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. It provides the framework for the importance of ethical and professional conduct in obstetrics and gynecology. Viability marks a stage where the fetus is a patient with a claim to access to medical care. By allowing unrestricted abortions past this stage without adequate justifications, such as those concerning the life and health of the pregnant individual, or in instances of serious fetal anomalies, the states may not be upholding the equitable ethical consideration owed to the fetus as a patient. Using the professional responsibility model, we emphasize the need for nuanced, evidence-based policies that allow abortion management prior to viability without restrictions and allow abortion after viability to protect the pregnant patient's life and health, as well as permitting abortion for serious fetal anomalies.

Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of court approval and legitimacy in a post-Dobbs world

Have perceptions of the U.S. Supreme Court polarized, much like the rest of American politics? Because of the Court's unique role, for many years, it remained one of the few institutions respected by both Democrats and Republicans alike. But the Court's dramatic shift to the right in recent years-highlighted by its Dobbs decision in 2022-potentially upends that logic. Using both eight waves of panel data and 18 nationally representative surveys spanning two decades, we show that while there was little evidence of partisan polarization in earlier years, in 2022 and 2023, such patterns are clear in favorability, trust, legitimacy, and support for reform. Factors that used to protect the Court-like knowledge about it and support for key democratic values-no longer do so. The Court has also become more important to voters, and will likely remain a political flashpoint, with disquieting implications for the Court's place in our polity.

Alabama IVF ruling may halt uterus transplants

Scientists fear wider research impacts if other states label frozen embryos "children".

Abortion Trigger Laws Compared With the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act

In 2022, the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization reneged the Constitutional right to an abortion. Many states now enforce laws that ban abortions. There are significant conflicts between state abortion laws and federal regulations that mandate proper assessment, treatment, and stabilization of patients who present for emergency care. This conflict places physicians in an untenable position when treating patients who have a pregnancy that endangers their life. In states that deem abortion a felony, transfer of these patients can extricate the physician, who is in a difficult position. Currently, it is the only reasonable option for hospitals and physicians who are trapped between conflicting state laws and Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act rules and regulations.

Abortion Care in the Dobbs Era

Nurses are at the front line.

The impact of abortion bans on short-term housing needs

OBJECTIVES

State-level abortion bans in the United States have created a complex legal landscape that forces many prospective patients to travel long distances to access abortion care. The financial strain and logistical difficulties associated with travelling out of state for abortion care may present an insurmountable barrier to some individuals, especially to those with limited resources. Tracking the impact of these abortion bans on travel and housing is crucial for understanding abortion access and economic changes following the Dobbs U.S. Supreme Court decision.

STUDY DESIGN

This study used occupancy data from an average of 2,349,635 (standard deviation = 111,578) U.S. Airbnb listings each month from October 1st, 2020, through April 30th, 2023, to measure the impact of abortion bans on travel for abortion care and the resulting economic effects on regional economies.

METHODS

The study used a synthetic difference-in-differences design to compare monthly-level occupancy rate data from 1-bedroom entire-place Airbnb rentals within a 30-min driving distance of abortion clinics in states with and without abortion bans.

RESULTS

The study found a 1.4 percentage point decrease in occupancy rates of Airbnbs around abortion clinics in states where abortion bans were in effect, demonstrating reductions in Airbnb use in states with bans. In the 6-month period post Dobbs, this decrease translates to 16,548 fewer renters and a $1.87 million loss in revenue for 1-bedroom entire-place Airbnbs within a 30-min catchment area of abortion facilities in states with abortion restrictions.

CONCLUSION

This novel use of Airbnb data provides a unique perspective on measuring demand for abortion and healthcare services and demonstrates the value of this data stream as a tool for understanding economic impacts of health policies.

Potential consequences of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision

OBJECTIVE

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court released a landmark decision in which they held that the right to abortion is not protected by the U.S. Constitution, ending almost 50 years of federally legal abortion in the United States. Because prior research demonstrates linkages between reproductive health and substance use at multiple socioecological levels, in this special section, we present studies that take a broad scope to understanding how addictive behaviors and reproduction-related behaviors, options, and access to care interrelate across a variety of contexts.

METHOD

In this introduction, the guest editors detail the impetus for this special section, provide a brief overview of the present studies, discuss policy and intervention implications, and suggest future research directions.

RESULTS

The five studies presented in this special section span a wide range of populations, methods, and substance use and reproduction-related issues, including reasons for past abortions among women with opioid use disorder, alcohol effects on men's condom use resistance, considerations regarding alcohol-involved rape on implementation of "rape exceptions" to abortion bans, the role of early exposure to substance use and sexual abuse on reproductive health outcomes, and the effects of exposure to abortion-related media coverage on alcohol use intentions following the Supreme Court decision.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies in this special section highlight the ways in which substance use and reproductive health are inextricably intertwined. Recent and future changes in reproductive health legislation and policy underscore the critical need for continued empirical inquiry into these intersecting public health concerns. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

What's at stake for science in 'abortion pill' case

Supreme Court decision this summer could gut FDA's authority over drugs.

Strategies for obstetricians and gynecologists to advance reproductive autonomy in a post-Roe landscape

The monumental reversal of Roe vs Wade dramatically impacted the landscape of reproductive healthcare access in the United States. The decision most significantly affects communities that historically have been and continue to be marginalized by systemic racism, classism, and ableism within the medical system. To minimize the harm of restrictive policies that have proliferated since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, it is incumbent on obstetrician-gynecologists to modify practice patterns to meet the pressing reproductive health needs of their patients and communities. Change will require cross-discipline advocacy focused on advancing equity and supporting the framework of reproductive justice. Now, more than ever, obstetrician-gynecologists have a critical responsibility to implement new approaches to service delivery and education that will expand access to evidence-based, respectful, and person-centered family planning and early pregnancy care regardless of their practice location or subspecialty.

The Two Front War on Reproductive Rights-When the Right to Abortion is Banned, Can the Right to Refuse Obstetrical Interventions Be Far behind?

The loss of the federally protected constitutional right to an abortion is a threat to the already tenuous autonomy of pregnant people, and may augur future challenges to their right to refuse unwanted obstetric interventions. Even before Roe's demise, pregnancy led to constraints on autonomy evidenced by clinician-led legal incursions against patients who refused obstetric interventions. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court found that the right to liberty espoused in the Constitution does not extend to a pregnant person's right to an abortion. With Roe's demise, the right to request specific types of care has been vitiated. The same argument underpinning that holding may now become ballast for attacks on the traditionally more robust right, the right to refuse. Here we discuss how the elevation of fetal and embryonic rights may lead to a cascade of medical intrusions and deprivations of liberty against pregnant persons, and offer an argument opposing these improprieties.

The US Supreme Court Dobbs decision's impact on the future plans of 2023 residency graduates at the University of Utah

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to understand how the Dobbs decision impacted graduating resident physicians in Utah and to understand residents' perspectives on abortion access.

STUDY DESIGN

We invited all 2023 graduating residents at the University of Utah, from all specialties, to participate in this survey. We analyzed univariate relationships between respondent demographics and change of career plans post-Dobbs. We also performed a thematic analysis of free text responses.

RESULTS

We received responses from 85 residents (55% of all graduating residents from the University of Utah) representing 19 specialties. Six (7%) residents changed their practice location due to the Dobbs decision. Most residents supported and wanted to advocate for legal abortion. In a thematic analysis, many graduating residents do not want to live in an abortion-restrictive state.

CONCLUSIONS

The Dobbs decision impacts physicians across all specialties, not just obstetrician/gynecologists.

IMPLICATIONS

Future research into the impact of the Dobbs decision should include physicians of all specialties.

Anxiety and Depression Symptoms After the Dobbs Abortion Decision

Importance

In 2022, the US Supreme Court abolished the federal right to abortion in the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. In 13 states, abortions were immediately banned via previously passed legislation, known as trigger laws.

Objective

To estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision among people residing in states with trigger laws compared with those without them.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Using the nationally representative repeated cross-sectional Household Pulse Survey (December 2021-January 2023), difference-in-differences models were estimated to examine the change in symptoms of depression and anxiety after Dobbs (either the June 24, 2022, Dobbs decision, or its May 2, 2022, leaked draft benchmarked to the baseline period, prior to May 2, 2022) by comparing the 13 trigger states with the 37 nontrigger states. Models were estimated for the full population (N = 718 753), and separately for 153 108 females and 102 581 males aged 18 through 45 years.

Exposure

Residing in states with trigger laws following the Dobbs decision or its leaked draft.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 ([PHQ-4]; range, 0-12; scores of more than 5 indicate elevated depression or anxiety symptoms; minimal important difference unknown).

Results

The survey response rate was 6.04% overall, and 87% of respondents completed the PHQ-4. The population-weighted mean age was 48 years (SD, 17 years), and 51% were female. In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 scores in the baseline period and after the Dobbs decision were 3.51 (95% CI, 3.44 to 3.59) and 3.81 (95% CI, 3.75 to 3.87), respectively, and in nontrigger states were 3.31 (95% CI, 3.27 to 3.34) and 3.49 (95% CI, 3.45 to 3.53), respectively. There was a significantly greater increase in the mean PHQ-4 score by 0.11 (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.16; P < .001) in trigger states vs nontrigger states. From baseline to after the draft was leaked, the change in PHQ-4 was not significantly different for those in trigger states vs nontrigger states (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.21; P = .15). From baseline to after the Dobbs opinion, there was a significantly greater increase in mean PHQ-4 scores for those in trigger states vs nontrigger states among females aged 18 through 45 years (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.37; P = .002). Among males aged 18 through 45 years, the difference-in-differences estimate was not statistically significant (0.14; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.36; P = .23). Differences in estimates for males and females aged 18 through 45 were statistically significant (P = .02).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study of US survey data from December 2021 to January 2023, residence in states with abortion trigger laws compared with residence in states without such laws was associated with a small but significantly greater increase in anxiety and depression symptoms after the Dobbs decision.

Perspectives on Privacy in the Post-Roe Era: A Mixed-Methods of Machine Learning and Qualitative Analyses of Tweets

Abortion is a controversial topic that has long been debated in the US. With the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, access to safe and legal reproductive care is once again in the national spotlight. A key issue central to this debate is patient privacy, as in the post-HITECH Act era it has become easier for medical records to be electronically accessed and shared. This study analyzed a large Twitter dataset from May to December 2022 to examine the public's reactions to Roe v. Wade's overruling and its implications for privacy. Using a mixed-methods approach consisting of computational and qualitative content analysis, we found a wide range of concerns voiced from the confidentiality of patient-physician information exchange to medical records being shared without patient consent. These findings may inform policy making and healthcare industry practices concerning medical privacy related to reproductive rights and women's health.

Travel Time and Costs for Abortion for Military Service Members After the Dobbs Decision

This study quantifies the change in travel times for military service personnel to abortion facilities following the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision and estimates the cost of an abortion-related travel reimbursement policy.

In Vitro Fertilization, State Wrongful Death Statutes and State Fetal Homicide Statutes: The Reaction to LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine

The Alabama Supreme Court recently held, in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, that the parents of human embryos that were negligently destroyed at a fertility clinic could bring an action for damages under the State's wrongful death statute. Although the Alabama legislature promptly enacted a law essentially overturning the state supreme court's decision, concerns have been raised that the court's decision might influence courts in other States to interpret their wrongful death statutes, or possibly even their fetal homicide statutes, to apply in similar circumstances, thereby threatening the availability of in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology. This article addresses those concerns.

With respect to wrongful death statutes, only fourteen States (excluding Alabama) have interpreted their statutes to apply to unborn children without regard to their stage of gestation or development. The majority of States impose a gestational requirement (typically, viability) which would preclude their application to the destruction of human embryos. Even with respect to the minority of States that impose no limitation on the cause of action, those statutes, either by their express language or by fair interpretation, would not apply to unimplanted human embryos.

With respect to the fetal homicide statutes in thirty-one States that do not have any gestational or developmental limitation, the statutes in twenty-six of those States apply only to acts causing the death of an unborn child in utero. As to the statutes in the other five States, the structure of the statute, considered in light of the applicable case law, strongly suggests that there would be no liability for causing the death of an unborn child before implantation. In sum, the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in LePage is not likely to be followed as a precedent in interpreting either the wrongful death statutes or the fetal homicide statutes of any other State.

The over-citation of Daubert in forensic anthropology

The 1993 US Supreme Court decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. presented new guidance for the judicial assessment of expert witness evidence and testimony in the determination of admissibility. Despite the rarity of admissibility challenges to forensic anthropology evidence, Daubert is frequently cited in published forensic anthropology research. This study undertook a qualitative thematic analysis of forensic anthropology articles published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences to assess why authors continue to cite Daubert and express concerns over potential exclusion. The results show a significant increase in the number of articles that cite legal admissibility standards over time (p < 0.001). Authors frequently cite these standards to contextualize their results within the Daubert framework or to justify the need for their research. Notably, many articles present Daubert as a constraining force, misinterpreting the guidelines as rigid criteria or that they require methods to be strictly quantitative. However, Daubert was intended to be a flexible tool for judges-not a standard or instruction for scientists. While it was reasonable to reflect on the scientific rigor of methods in the wake of the Daubert decision, a new perspective is warranted in which forensic anthropologists shift their focus from trying to "satisfy" admissibility guidelines to adopting quality assurance measures that minimize error and ensure confidence in analytical results, and developing and using methods that are grounded in good science-which is important regardless of whether or not the results are ever the subject of a trial.

Addressing Moral Distress After Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization : A Professional Virtues-Based Approach

ABSTRACT

The June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization abolished federal protections for reproductive choice. In states where subsequent legislation has restricted or banned access to abortion services, physicians and trainees are prevented from providing ethically justified evidence-based care when patients with previable pregnancies are seeking an abortion. Pregnant patients' vulnerabilities, stress, and the undue burden that they experience when prevented from acting in accordance with their reproductive decision-making can evoke negative emotional consequences, including moral distress in clinicians. Moral distress occurs when clinicians feel a moral compulsion to act a certain way but cannot do so because of external constraints, including being hindered by state laws that curtail practicing in line with professional standards on reproductive health care. Moral distress has the potential to subvert prudent clinical judgment. The authors provide recommendations for managing moral distress in these circumstances based on the professional virtues. The fundamental professional virtues of integrity, compassion, self-effacement, self-sacrifice, and humility inform the management of moral distress and how to respond thoughtfully and compassionately, without over-identification or indifference to the plight of patients denied abortions. The authors also discuss the role of academic leaders and medical educators in cultivating a virtue-based professional culture at the forefront of clinical and educational processes in a post- Dobbs world.

Renewed calls for abortion-related research in the post-Roe era

Nearly 50 years after Roe versus Wade, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health Organization unraveled the constitutional right to abortion, allowing individual states to severely restrict or ban the procedure. In response, leading medical, public health, and community organizations have renewed calls for research to elucidate and address the burgeoning social and medical consequences of new abortion restrictions. Abortion research not only includes studies that establish the safety, quality, and efficacy of evidence-based abortion care protocols, but also encompasses studies on the availability of abortion care, the consequences of being denied an abortion, and the legal and social burdens surrounding abortion. The urgency of these calls for new evidence underscores the importance of ensuring that research in this area is conducted in an ethical and respectful manner, cognizant of the social, political, and structural conditions that shape reproductive health inequities and impact each stage of research-from protocol design to dissemination of findings. Research ethics relates to the moral principles undergirding the design and execution of research projects, and concerns itself with the technicalities of ethical questions related to the research process, such as informed consent, power relations, and confidentiality. Critical insights and reflections from reproductive justice, community engagement, and applied ethics frameworks have bolstered existing research ethics scholarship and discourse by underscoring the importance of meaningful engagement with community stakeholders-bringing attention to overlapping structures of oppression, including racism, sexism, and ways that these structures are perpetuated in the research process.

(Re)criminalizing Abortion: Returning to the Political with Stories

Abortion stories have always played a powerful role in advancing women's rights. In the abortion sphere particularly, the personal is political. Following the Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade, abortion politics, and abortion storytelling, take on an even deeper political role in challenging the bloodless judicial language of Dobbs with the lived experience of women.

"A Vigorous Campaign against Abortion": Views of American Leaders of Eugenics v. Supreme Court Distortions

The Supreme Court decided Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky in 2019. Justice Clarence Thomas's opinion in the case claimed there was a direct connection between the legalization of abortion, in the late 20th Century, and the beginnings of the birth control movement a full three quarters of a century earlier. "Many eugenicists," Thomas argued, "supported legalizing abortion."Justice Samuel Alito highlighted similar claims in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, citing a brief entitled "The Eugenic Era Lives on through the Abortion Movement." That brief was an echo of Justice Thomas' misguided attempt at history in the Box opinion. Similar claims reoccur in Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's opinion in the Texas mifepristone case, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.These false claims are the focus of this article. There is no evidence that early leaders of the eugenics movement supported abortion as part of the movement for birth control. It is accurate to describe those leaders as anti-abortion, and their followers as people who condemned abortion for moral, legal, and medical reasons.

Supreme Court Impacts in Public Health Law: 2022-2023

In another tumultuous term of the United States Supreme Court in 2022-2023 a series of critical cases implicate instant and forthcoming changes in multiple fronts that collectively shift the national public health law and policy environment.

INTRODUCTION: Securing Reproductive Justice After Dobbs

When we conceptualized this symposium, Roe v. Wade1 was still the law of the land, albeit precariously. We aimed to commemorate its fiftieth anniversary by exploring historical, legal, medical, and related dimensions of access to abortion as well as the challenges ahead to secure reproductive justice. With the leak of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on May 2, 2022, we shifted to mark the dawn of a new era. In the nearly identical official opinion announced on June 24, 2022,2 Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority (6-3), overturned Roe and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.3.

Ethical and Legal Obligations for Research Involving Pregnant Persons in a Post-Dobbs Context

In light of a history of categorical exclusion, it is critical that pregnant people are included in research to help improve the knowledge base and interventions needed to address public health. Yet the volatile legal landscape around reproductive rights in the United States threatens to undue recent progress made toward the greater inclusion of pregnant people in research. We offer ethical and practical guidance for researchers, sponsors, and institutional review boards to take specific steps to minimize legal risks and ensure the ethical conduct of research with pregnant people in an evolving legal environment.

From Constitutional Protections to Medical Ethics: The Future of Pregnant Patients' Medical Self-Determination Rights After Dobbs

This article argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs is likely to impact medical decision-making by pregnant patients in a variety of contexts. Of particular concern are situations where a patient declines treatment recommended for its potential benefit to the fetus and situations where treatment is withheld due to potential risk to the fetus. The Court's elevation of fetal interests, combined with a history of courts using abortion jurisprudence to guide their reasoning in compelled treatment cases, means that Dobbs has the potential to limit patient autonomy in a wide array of clinical settings. The article calls on professional medical associations to issue ethical guidance affirming the duty to respect the medical self-determination of pregnant patients.

Leveraging the Tools Available: Using the Hyde Amendment to Preserve Minimum Abortion Access and Mitigate Harms in Restrictive States

The overturn of Roe v. Wade has resulted in fewer rights and resources for people seeking abortion care, particularly in the South. The Hyde Amendment has historically restricted abortion access for those enrolled in Medicaid. We argue here that its guarantees of minimum abortion coverage should be leveraged to offset harms where possible.

Reproductive Justice Beyond Borders: Global Feminist Solidarity in the Post-Roe Era

The global impact of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and the backlash towards reproductive justice that it represents warrant a global feminist response informed by broad theoretical and geopolitical lenses. We consider how a solidaristic, transnational feminist movement might learn from Latin American feminist movements that have been successful in uniting broad coalitions in the fight for reproductive justice as situated within far-reaching political goals. The success of such a global movement must be decolonial and must contend with the fact that overlapping realities of global inequality, severe poverty, extractivism, and western-backed violence are fundamentally implicated in reproductive justice.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health: Undermining Public Health, Facilitating Reproductive Coercion

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health continues a trajectory of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence that undermines the normative foundation of public health - the idea that the state is obligated to provide a robust set of supports for healthcare services and the underlying social determinants of health. Dobbs furthers a longstanding ideology of individual responsibility in public health, neglecting collective responsibility for better health outcomes. Such an ideology on individual responsibility not only enables a shrinking of public health infrastructure for reproductive health, it facilitates the rise of reproductive coercion and a criminal legal response to pregnancy and abortion. This commentary situates Dobbs in the context of a long historical shift in public health that increasingly places burdens on individuals for their own reproductive health care, moving away from the possibility of a robust state public health infrastructure.