Post-Dobbs Abortion Restrictions and the Families They Leave Behind.

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH American journal of public health Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2024.307792
Nigel Madden, Emma Trawick, Katie Watson, Lynn M Yee
{"title":"Post-<i>Dobbs</i> Abortion Restrictions and the Families They Leave Behind.","authors":"Nigel Madden, Emma Trawick, Katie Watson, Lynn M Yee","doi":"10.2105/AJPH.2024.307792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The June 24, 2022 US Supreme Court decision in <i>Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization</i> resulted in an expansive restriction on abortion access that had been constitutionally guaranteed for nearly half a century. Currently, 14 states have implemented complete bans on abortion with very limited exceptions, and an additional 7 states have implemented abortion bans at 6 to 18 weeks' gestation. It has been well demonstrated that restrictive policies disproportionately limit abortion access for minoritized people and people of low socioeconomic status; the financial and geographic barriers of these post-<i>Dobbs</i> restrictions will only exacerbate this disparity. Proponents of abortion restrictions, who identify as pro-life, assert that these policies are essential to protect children, women, and families. We examine whether the protection of these groups extends past conception by evaluating the association between state abortion legislation and state-based policies and programs designed to provide medical and social support for children, women, and families. We found that states with the most restrictive post-<i>Dobbs</i> abortion policies in fact have the least comprehensive and inclusive public infrastructure to support these groups. We suggest further opportunities for advocacy. (<i>Am J Public Health</i>. 2024;114(10):1043-1050. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307792).</p>","PeriodicalId":7647,"journal":{"name":"American journal of public health","volume":"114 10","pages":"1043-1050"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11375356/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of public health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307792","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The June 24, 2022 US Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization resulted in an expansive restriction on abortion access that had been constitutionally guaranteed for nearly half a century. Currently, 14 states have implemented complete bans on abortion with very limited exceptions, and an additional 7 states have implemented abortion bans at 6 to 18 weeks' gestation. It has been well demonstrated that restrictive policies disproportionately limit abortion access for minoritized people and people of low socioeconomic status; the financial and geographic barriers of these post-Dobbs restrictions will only exacerbate this disparity. Proponents of abortion restrictions, who identify as pro-life, assert that these policies are essential to protect children, women, and families. We examine whether the protection of these groups extends past conception by evaluating the association between state abortion legislation and state-based policies and programs designed to provide medical and social support for children, women, and families. We found that states with the most restrictive post-Dobbs abortion policies in fact have the least comprehensive and inclusive public infrastructure to support these groups. We suggest further opportunities for advocacy. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(10):1043-1050. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307792).

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
后多布斯堕胎限制及其留下的家庭。
2022 年 6 月 24 日,美国最高法院在多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织一案中做出判决,对近半个世纪以来一直受到宪法保障的堕胎机会施加了广泛的限制。目前,14 个州已完全禁止堕胎,只有非常有限的例外情况,另有 7 个州已禁止妊娠 6 至 18 周的堕胎。事实证明,限制性政策极大地限制了少数群体和社会经济地位低下的人获得堕胎的机会;这些后多布斯限制政策所带来的经济和地理障碍只会加剧这种差距。堕胎限制的支持者以支持生命为己任,声称这些政策对于保护儿童、妇女和家庭至关重要。我们通过评估各州堕胎立法与各州旨在为儿童、妇女和家庭提供医疗和社会支持的政策和项目之间的关联,来研究对这些群体的保护是否会延伸到受孕之后。我们发现,多布斯法案后堕胎政策限制最严格的州事实上拥有最不全面、最不包容的公共基础设施来支持这些群体。我们建议为宣传提供更多机会。(Am J Public Health.2024;114(10):1043-1050. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307792).
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
American journal of public health
American journal of public health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
3.90%
发文量
1109
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) is dedicated to publishing original work in research, research methods, and program evaluation within the field of public health. The journal's mission is to advance public health research, policy, practice, and education.
期刊最新文献
Assessment of Health Disparities and Sexual Orientation Response Choices Used in Two US National Population-Based Health Surveys, 2020‒2021. Bridging the Gap: Aligning Education for Public Health With Emerging Workforce Demands. Mastheads. Subscription Form. Table of Contents.
×
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