Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law最新文献

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, 12 states banned or restricted abortion access under elective-procedure restrictions. The rationale was preserving hospital capacity and personal protective equipment (PPE); however, abortions commonly take place in clinics and use less PPE than childbirth. This paper investigates the discursive construction of abortions, the people who get them, and the fetuses in this legislation. The authors analyzed 13 antiabortion documents using an iterative process of thematic coding and memo writing. Twenty-three percent of the legislation listed abortion as banned, whereas the remaining laws implied abortion within the terms "elective" or "nonessential." Legislation used common antiabortion tactics, such as the trivialization of abortion, risk discourses, and constructions of motherhood and fetal personhood. Discourses delegitimized abortion providers and used quasi-medical justifications for banning abortion. Finally, legislation constructed abortion clinics as sites of contagion and waste and consequently as risks to public health. The results highlight the vulnerability of abortion and the connection between abortion policy and other conservative policies, and they gesture toward a strategic attempt to ban abortion federally. These findings have several implications for a post-Roe United States and for stakeholders wishing to increase abortion access.

The growing acknowledgment of the phenomenon of individuals terminating their pregnancies by obtaining the medications necessary for an abortion-which this article refers to as "self-sourced medication abortion" (SSMA)-has shed light on the current contradictions in the world of abortion provision. This article offers a brief historical overview of the relationship between abortion provision and mainstream medicine, pointing to the factors that have led to the marginalization of abortion care. It then discusses interviews with 40 physicians who provide abortions about their perspectives on SSMA, and it explores how this group responds to the contradictions presented by SSMA. In doing so, it interrogates the changing meaning of "physician authority" among this subset of physicians. The authors suggest that these interviewees represent an emergent sensibility among this generation of abortion physicians, a sensibility strongly tied to a commitment to social justice.

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization (597 U.S. (2022)) to overturn the constitutional right to abortion, a seismic shift in abortion policy that makes the states key battlegrounds in fights over abortion and broader reproductive rights. This article focuses on the role of state supreme courts in setting state abortion policies. Using an original data set of state court decisions surrounding abortion from the past 20 years, the authors investigate how two overarching factors affect state supreme court decision-making on abortion. First, they track how states' political environments affect the decisions courts make about access to abortion. Second, the authors consider the scope of the abortion policy considered by the courts. The authors find that the partisan makeup of state legislatures does not influence the direction of state supreme courts' rulings on abortion issues, but it does affect the scope of abortion regulation being considered by the courts. Additionally, they find that elected judges tend to be more responsive to constituent preferences when ruling on abortion policies. Overall, these findings illustrate the multifaceted dynamics involved in state supreme courts' rulings on abortion.

The relationship between people's attitudes about abortion acceptability and the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade-two distinct but related issues-has not been rigorously explored. The authors used a mixed-methods approach for analyzing in-depth interviews to better understand how participants' feelings toward abortion acceptability are related to perceptions of whether abortion should be legal. The authors then assessed (1) correlations between abortion acceptability and different measures of support for Roe v. Wade, and (2) how the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade may evoke different responses via an online survey fielded in 2018. The study's qualitative results highlight that there is a disjuncture between people's moral feelings toward abortion and their attitudes toward abortion legality. The study's quantitative results further demonstrate that correlations between abortion acceptability and support for Roe v. Wade are moderate, and the differences in responses to the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade are moderated by knowledge. The authors recommend that when researchers develop survey items, they avoid ambiguities of abortion as a general construct, especially when public opinion measures on abortion are employed for research and the design of social and health policy and practice.

State laws have influenced access to abortion in the 50 years since Roe v. Wade. The 2022 Dobbs decision returned questions about the legality of abortion to the states, which increased the importance of state laws for abortion access. The objective of this study is to illustrate trends in abortion-restrictive and abortion-supportive state laws using a unique longitudinal database of reproductive health laws across the United States from 1994 to 2022. This study offers a descriptive analysis of historical trends in state-level pre-viability abortion bans, abortion method bans, efforts to dissuade abortion, TRAP (targeted regulation of abortion providers) laws, other laws that restrict reproductive choice, and laws that expand abortion access and support reproductive health. Data sources include state statutes (from Nexis Uni) and secondary sources. The data reveal that pre-viability bans, including gestation-based bans and total bans, became significantly more prevalent over time. Other abortion-restrictive laws increased from 1994 to 2022, but states also passed a growing number of laws that support reproductive health. Increasing polarization into abortion-restrictive and abortion-supportive states characterized the 1994-2022 period. These trends have implications for maternal and infant health and for racial/ethnic and income disparities.

Previous research has assessed the impact of state regulations on abortion clinics and patients, but how bureaucrats implement them is less understood and is increasingly important as states arbitrate abortion regulation. The authors conducted a case study of how bureaucrats use discretion to implement state regulations on abortion, focusing on two abortion facilities in southwest Ohio from 2010 to 2022. Ohio abortion facilities are required to obtain a written transfer agreement, despite it offering no demonstrable health or safety benefits. The authors find that state requirements for obtaining variances-a process that allows abortion facilities to operate without a written transfer agreement-have become exceedingly difficult to comply with. The authors show how state statutes and administrative law have enabled bureaucrats to wield unlimited discretion and enforce arbitrary requirements. This unlimited bureaucratic discretion and accompanying administrative burden exacerbated clinic instability and threatened abortion availability in southwest Ohio for almost a decade. As implementation and interpretation of abortion policy is increasingly left to state bureaucrats and civil servants following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, how bureaucrats use discretion will influence clinic stability and abortion availability. The authors posit that unlimited bureaucratic discretion may exert greater influence on abortion availability across the nation as states scramble to clarify and implement policies after Dobbs.

This article examines the decades-long campaign to increase access to abortion pills in the United States, including advocates' work to win US Food and Drug Administration approval of mifepristone and misoprostol for abortion, the continuing restrictions on mifepristone, and the multiple strategies advocates have pursued to challenge these restrictions, including lobbying the FDA to remove the restrictions, obtaining a limited research exemption from FDA restrictions, and suing the FDA during the COVID-19 pandemic. The article pays particular attention to the influence of research conducted on the safety and efficacy of medication abortion as well as research on the impact of increased availability of abortion pills through telemedicine during the pandemic. The article also addresses self-managed abortion, wherein people obtain and use mifepristone and/or misoprostol outside the formal health care system, and it documents the growing network of organizations providing logistical, medical, and legal support to people self-managing abortion. The article concludes with reflections on the role abortion pills might play in the post-Roe era amid increasingly divergent abortion access trends across different regions of the United States.

While the US Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade guaranteed a legal right to abortion, universal access to legal abortion has never been achieved in the United States. At the same time, the Helms Amendment, a US foreign-assistance policy, is keeping millions of people around the world, particularly Black and Brown people, from receiving abortion-related information and services. As abortion-rights advocates in the United States look for ways to move forward in the post-Roe era, two sources can offer insights and inspiration: the inclusive, human rights-based reproductive justice framework, and some of the strategies and approaches being used to expand access in countries around the world with restrictive abortion laws.

Abortion is central to the American political landscape and a common pregnancy outcome, yet research on abortion has been siloed and marginalized in the social sciences. In an empirical analysis, the authors found only 22 articles published in this century in the top economics, political science, and sociology journals. This special issue aims to bring abortion research into a more generalist space, challenging what the authors term "the abortion research paradox," wherein abortion research is largely absent from prominent disciplinary social science journals but flourishes in interdisciplinary and specialized journals. After discussing the misconceptions that likely contribute to abortion research siloization and the implications of this siloization for abortion research as well as social science knowledge more generally, the authors introduce the articles in this special issue. Then, in a call for continued and expanded research on abortion, the introduction to this special issue closes by offering three guiding practices for abortion scholars-both those new to the topic and those deeply familiar with it-in the hopes of building an ever-richer body of literature on abortion politics, policy, and law. The need for such a robust literature is especially acute following the US Supreme Court's June 2022 overturning of the constitutional right to abortion.