Reversal of Roe v. Wade and implications of legal restrictions for neonatal care.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS Current opinion in pediatrics Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1097/MOP.0000000000001445
Christine E Bishop, Maya Manian
{"title":"Reversal of Roe v. Wade and implications of legal restrictions for neonatal care.","authors":"Christine E Bishop, Maya Manian","doi":"10.1097/MOP.0000000000001445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This review examines the implications of the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision on neonatal care and explores how legal restrictions on abortion are influencing medical practices for neonates and the broader healthcare landscape for neonates.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The Dobbs decision has led to increased uncertainty and challenges in both maternal and neonatal healthcare. Restrictive abortion laws are associated with higher infant mortality rates, increased health disparity, and increased care provider ethical dilemmas and moral distress due to legal uncertainty surrounding the care of infants. However, current changes in federal and state law regarding abortion do not change the previously established standard of care for neonates. Other federal legal statutes potentially addressing the care of neonates have existed for over 20 years and have had minimal effect on the practice of neonatology, because there is no record of federal enforcement actions or federal case law to clarify how the law should be interpreted.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>While restrictive abortion laws primarily affect women and pregnant people's health care, indirect effects on neonatal care are becoming more common. There are other laws and policies with greater potential to regulate care for infants at the federal and state level. Professional medical standards remain the guiding framework in neonatal care. Clinicians can mitigate legal concerns through knowledge and advocacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":10985,"journal":{"name":"Current opinion in pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current opinion in pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0000000000001445","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: This review examines the implications of the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision on neonatal care and explores how legal restrictions on abortion are influencing medical practices for neonates and the broader healthcare landscape for neonates.

Recent findings: The Dobbs decision has led to increased uncertainty and challenges in both maternal and neonatal healthcare. Restrictive abortion laws are associated with higher infant mortality rates, increased health disparity, and increased care provider ethical dilemmas and moral distress due to legal uncertainty surrounding the care of infants. However, current changes in federal and state law regarding abortion do not change the previously established standard of care for neonates. Other federal legal statutes potentially addressing the care of neonates have existed for over 20 years and have had minimal effect on the practice of neonatology, because there is no record of federal enforcement actions or federal case law to clarify how the law should be interpreted.

Summary: While restrictive abortion laws primarily affect women and pregnant people's health care, indirect effects on neonatal care are becoming more common. There are other laws and policies with greater potential to regulate care for infants at the federal and state level. Professional medical standards remain the guiding framework in neonatal care. Clinicians can mitigate legal concerns through knowledge and advocacy.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
184
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​Current Opinion in Pediatrics is a reader-friendly resource which allows the reader to keep up-to-date with the most important advances in the pediatric field. Each issue of Current Opinion in Pediatrics contains three main sections delivering a diverse and comprehensive cover of all key issues related to pediatrics; including genetics, therapeutics and toxicology, adolescent medicine, neonatology and perinatology, and orthopedics. Unique to Current Opinion in Pediatrics is the office pediatrics section which appears in every issue and covers popular topics such as fever, immunization and ADHD. Current Opinion in Pediatrics is an indispensable journal for the busy clinician, researcher or student.
期刊最新文献
Reversal of Roe v. Wade and implications of legal restrictions for neonatal care. The impact of environmental changes on infectious diseases among children in North America. Overview of mucosal immunity and respiratory infections in children: a focus on Africa. The challenge of antimicrobial resistance in the Asia-Pacific: a pediatric perspective. Do new quality measures for social risk screening 'measure up'?
×
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