Medical students' reproductive health perspectives: Pre- and post-Roe v Wade reversal

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-06-28 DOI:10.1002/ajmg.a.63787
Morgan Jenkins, Margaret Hayslip, Channing Freeman Bruce, Nathaniel H. Robin
{"title":"Medical students' reproductive health perspectives: Pre- and post-Roe v Wade reversal","authors":"Morgan Jenkins,&nbsp;Margaret Hayslip,&nbsp;Channing Freeman Bruce,&nbsp;Nathaniel H. Robin","doi":"10.1002/ajmg.a.63787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The ability to make informed decisions about reproductive health is a cornerstone principle of the practice of prenatal medical genetics. Unfortunately, these reproductive health decisions have become entangled in the current, contentious political climate. This debate reached an inflection point in 2022 with <i>Dobbs v. Jackson</i> when the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overturned the national right to abortion previously established in <i>Roe v. Wade</i>. This decision prompted a reassessment of the opinions of medical students on reproductive health and abortion. Our study focused on a medical school in Alabama, a conservative state that enacted a restrictive abortion ban following the <i>Dobbs</i> ruling. Two surveys, conducted in 2015 and 2022, explored students' viewpoints on reproductive health topics, including abortion. The comparison revealed a significant shift toward more pro-choice perspectives among medical students. Notably, religious affiliation did not consistently align with opinions, as many Christian students supported pro-choice views. Our results suggest that medical students' reproductive health opinions at our institution have shifted to a more pro-choice position over the last decade.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajmg.a.63787","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajmg.a.63787","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ability to make informed decisions about reproductive health is a cornerstone principle of the practice of prenatal medical genetics. Unfortunately, these reproductive health decisions have become entangled in the current, contentious political climate. This debate reached an inflection point in 2022 with Dobbs v. Jackson when the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overturned the national right to abortion previously established in Roe v. Wade. This decision prompted a reassessment of the opinions of medical students on reproductive health and abortion. Our study focused on a medical school in Alabama, a conservative state that enacted a restrictive abortion ban following the Dobbs ruling. Two surveys, conducted in 2015 and 2022, explored students' viewpoints on reproductive health topics, including abortion. The comparison revealed a significant shift toward more pro-choice perspectives among medical students. Notably, religious affiliation did not consistently align with opinions, as many Christian students supported pro-choice views. Our results suggest that medical students' reproductive health opinions at our institution have shifted to a more pro-choice position over the last decade.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医学生的生殖健康观点:罗氏诉韦德案翻案前后。
对生殖健康做出明智决定的能力是产前医学遗传学实践的基石原则。不幸的是,这些生殖健康决定与当前充满争议的政治气候纠缠在一起。这场争论在 2022 年的 "多布斯诉杰克逊案"(Dobbs v. Jackson)中达到了转折点,当时美国最高法院(SCOTUS)推翻了之前在 "罗伊诉韦德案"(Roe v. Wade)中确立的国家堕胎权。这一判决促使我们重新评估医学生对生殖健康和堕胎的看法。我们的研究侧重于阿拉巴马州的一所医学院,该州是一个保守的州,在多布斯案判决后颁布了限制性堕胎禁令。分别于 2015 年和 2022 年进行的两次调查探讨了学生对包括堕胎在内的生殖健康话题的观点。对比结果显示,医学生的观点明显转向更支持堕胎。值得注意的是,宗教信仰与观点并不一致,许多基督徒学生支持支持堕胎的观点。我们的研究结果表明,在过去的十年中,我校医学生的生殖健康观点已转向更支持堕胎的立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Intentions to move abroad among medical students: a cross-sectional study to investigate determinants and opinions. Analysis of Medical Rehabilitation Needs of 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake Victims: Adıyaman Example. Efficacy of whole body vibration on fascicle length and joint angle in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. The change process questionnaire (CPQ): A psychometric validation. Clinical Practice Guidelines on Palliative Sedation Around the World: A Systematic Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1