Banning abortion prevents us from providing safe care to all pregnant women

The BMJ Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1136/bmj.q2459
Maryl Sackeim
{"title":"Banning abortion prevents us from providing safe care to all pregnant women","authors":"Maryl Sackeim","doi":"10.1136/bmj.q2459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abortion bans or restrictions in US states are endangering all women, including those with pregnancies that are not viable or are actively harming their health, writes Maryl Sackeim On 24 June 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v Wade and revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Following the Dobbs decision, control of abortion policies was returned to individual states. The election on 5 November further degrades hope for progress in women’s health. With Donald Trump now the president-elect, a federal abortion ban is likely, and even access to in vitro fertilisation and contraception may be at risk.1 Many political and moral problems exist with a male dominated court and political party deciding who can make decisions about women’s reproductive autonomy. But as a healthcare professional in obstetrics and gynaecology, what concerns me most is the court’s limited view of what is at stake here: the ability to keep pregnant women healthy. Abortion is completely banned in 13 states and heavily restricted in others. This removes far more than access to the narrow definition of abortion these lawmakers used: ending an unwanted pregnancy. Banning abortion takes away the ability of healthcare professionals in obstetrics and gynaecology to do …","PeriodicalId":22388,"journal":{"name":"The BMJ","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The BMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abortion bans or restrictions in US states are endangering all women, including those with pregnancies that are not viable or are actively harming their health, writes Maryl Sackeim On 24 June 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v Wade and revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Following the Dobbs decision, control of abortion policies was returned to individual states. The election on 5 November further degrades hope for progress in women’s health. With Donald Trump now the president-elect, a federal abortion ban is likely, and even access to in vitro fertilisation and contraception may be at risk.1 Many political and moral problems exist with a male dominated court and political party deciding who can make decisions about women’s reproductive autonomy. But as a healthcare professional in obstetrics and gynaecology, what concerns me most is the court’s limited view of what is at stake here: the ability to keep pregnant women healthy. Abortion is completely banned in 13 states and heavily restricted in others. This removes far more than access to the narrow definition of abortion these lawmakers used: ending an unwanted pregnancy. Banning abortion takes away the ability of healthcare professionals in obstetrics and gynaecology to do …
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
禁止堕胎使我们无法为所有孕妇提供安全护理
2022 年 6 月 24 日,美国最高法院推翻了 "罗诉韦德案",废除了宪法规定的堕胎权。多布斯案判决后,堕胎政策的控制权又回到了各州手中。11 月 5 日的选举进一步削弱了妇女健康方面取得进展的希望。唐纳德-特朗普(Donald Trump)现在是当选总统,很可能会颁布联邦堕胎禁令,甚至体外受精和避孕也可能面临风险。但是,作为一名妇产科专业医护人员,我最担心的是法院对此处利害关系的有限认识:保持孕妇健康的能力。13 个州完全禁止堕胎,其他州则严格限制堕胎。这剥夺的远不止这些立法者对堕胎的狭义定义:结束意外怀孕。禁止人工流产剥夺了妇产科专业医护人员的工作能力。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Tranexamic acid for postpartum bleeding … and other research We need a gender just transition for health systems and climate action Isolated femoral head destruction One hundred years of electroencephalography . . . and other stories Should GPs be allowed to offer private services to their patients?
×
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