Navigating “regulatory fog”: Challenges to rigorous abortion research after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision

Abstract

In 2022, the United States Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade and federal protections for abortion. Two years later, 22 states now ban or severely restrict abortion. Sexual and reproductive health scholars aim to document the impacts of these restrictions and bans on individuals, communities, and populations. In this context, human subjects’ protections are more important than ever, as legal risks to abortion providers, seekers, and supporters have increased. However, in this commentary, we discuss how regulatory systems designed to protect human subjects, including Institutional Review Boards and the National Institutes of Health’s Certificates of Confidentiality program, present challenges that create a “regulatory fog,” which stymies abortion scholarship. Research studies have always required a balance of scientific rigor with human subjects’ protections. We argue that, in the current environment, new regulatory constraints make it impossible for some researchers to conduct rigorous abortion research and protect participant confidentiality to the extent that they could before. We offer lessons learned for working in this environment and call for clear guidance and specific protections from federal and institutional leaders to improve research quality and participant safety.