Reproductive Justice

“People Traveling to Illinois for Abortion Care after Roe v. Wade was Overturned”

A study by the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at UCLA School of Law noted that after Roe v. Wade was overturned, it was estimated that “between 9,277 and 18,554 more people [would] travel to Illinois each year for abortion care compared to before the Dobbs decision” (1).

Cohen, Cathren, Brad Sears, and Sapna Khatri. 2022. “People Traveling to Illinois for Abortion Care after Roe v. Wade was Overturned.” Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy, UCLA School of Law, November 2022. https://law.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/PDFs/Center_on_Reproductive_Health/2211_Illinois_Abortion_Travel_FINAL.pdf

“Willingness of Pharmacists to Prescribe Medication Abortion in California”

A recent UCLA study of licensed pharmacists working at community pharmacies in California showed that 68.8 percent “indicated their willingness to prescribe medication abortion if it were allowed by law” (1). Identified barriers included “moderate levels of confidence in, knowledge of, and ability to prescribe medication abortion” by the participating pharmacists, “insufficient staff to add new services, and lack of insurance coverage for service provision” (1). The authors noted that these barriers “can be addressed through the development of sexual and reproductive health service training plans and expanded insurance payment for pharmacist-provided services” (10), and suggested “that pharmacies may be a feasible channel for the provision of medication abortion” (8).

Cohen, Cathren, Lauren A. Hunter, Raiza M. Beltran, et al. “Willingness of Pharmacists to Prescribe Medication Abortion in California.” JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(4):e246018. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.6018. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2817351?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=041024

“Evaluating the Frequency of Crisis Pregnancy Center Visits Among a Population of Patients Seeking Abortions in Los Angeles”

A 2023 study on crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) and patients seeking abortion in Los Angeles found that, although fewer than one percent of patients sought out a CPC prior to their abortion, eight percent of individuals surveyed had to visit three or more clinics (not CPCs) before obtaining their abortion (2). Reasons may include medical conditions, “financial cost, time off from work, and travel,” as well as “insurance difficulties, inadequate screening, and problems obtaining expeditious referrals” (2). The study’s authors stated that, “…it is noteworthy that delays in care also exist in a state with supportive, progressive abortion policies, and state funding for the procedure” (2).

Korotkaya, Yelena, Angela Y. Chen, Rachel Steward, Elaine Y. Chan, Elizabeth O. Schmidt, and Jessica D. Gipson. “Evaluating the frequency of crisis pregnancy center visits among a population of patients seeking abortions in Los Angeles.” Contraception 123 (2023): 110024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782423000860

“Telehealth vs In-Clinic Medication Abortion Services”

A recent study on telehealth medication abortion services (tele-MAB) (from one clinic with a medical provider to another clinic where the patient is located) notes that, “Tele-MAB services reach some communities traditionally underserved by clinic-based services, addressing some disparities in receipt of care. As access to abortion care continues to be restricted in the US, innovative models of care delivery are needed to accommodate the sustained demand for services and to meet the needs of diverse patient populations” (4).

Fiastro, Anna E., Zihan Zheng, Molly R. Ruben, Jessica Gipson, and Emily M. Godfrey. “Telehealth vs In-Clinic Medication Abortion Services.” JAMA Network Open 6, no. 9 (September 1, 2023): e2331900. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.31900

“Universal Access to Contraception: Women, Families, and Communities Benefit”

“Women should have free choice about whether and when to use contraceptives as well as the choice of contraception. Nondirective, noncoercive counseling is key to honoring women’s choices about their contraceptive method use or nonuse” (150).

Rice, Laurel W., Eve Espey, Dee E. Fenner, Kimberly D. Gregory, Jacquelyn Askins, and Charles J. Lockwood. “Universal Access to Contraception: Women, Families, and Communities Benefit.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 222, no. 2 (February 2020): 150.e1-150.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.014

“Universal Access to Contraception: Women, Families, and Communities Benefit”

“Access to contraception should not be restricted by the government, and should be universally covered by private and public [insurance] payers. Increased access to affordable contraception reduces unintended pregnancies, maternal mortality, preterm birth, abortions, and obesity, and improves the health of women, families and communities” (150).

Rice, Laurel W., Eve Espey, Dee E. Fenner, Kimberly D. Gregory, Jacquelyn Askins, and Charles J. Lockwood. “Universal Access to Contraception: Women, Families, and Communities Benefit.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 222, no. 2 (February 2020): 150.e1-150.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.014

“Abortion Training in US Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs in a Post-Dobbs Era”

The overturning of Roe v. Wade does not only impact people in the US in terms of their reproductive choices, it also limits and shapes the training available to obstetrics and gynecology residents in states with abortion bans. A recent study shows that “almost one in six US obstetrics and gynecology residents who had routine training prior to June 2022 had lost routine in-state training” (4). The authors noted that, “This highlights a need for programs in restricted states that outsource their abortion and family planning training, while acknowledging that sending residents out of state for training inherently increases barriers to residents—whether it be ability to travel without family, the cost of travel, or licensing and other logistical burdens” (4).

A recent study shows that “residents in states with abortion bans are more likely to go into general practice and less likely to pursue subspecialty training compared to residents in states with legal abortion. This finding is particularly critical as general obstetrician-gynecologists are likely to encounter pregnant patients needing emergent, life-saving abortion care” (4). The authors also noted that of the programs surveyed, “nearly half of residency programs in states with legal abortion lacked routine abortion training, despite preserved abortion legality in the state—highlighting an opportunity for improved abortion training within states where abortion remains legal” (5–6).

Vinekar, Kavita, Aishwarya Karlapudi, Callie Cox Bauer, Jody Steinauer, Radhika Rible, Katherine Brown, and Jema K. Turk. “Abortion Training in U.S. Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs in a Post-Dobbs Era.” Contraception 130 (February 1, 2024): 110291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2023.110291.

“Racialization and Reproduction: Asian Immigrants and California’s Twentieth-Century Eugenic Sterilization Program”

A 2023 study on racialization and reproduction revealed “quantitative evidence of disproportionate eugenic sterilization of Asian immigrants in twentieth-century California” (725). The authors also noted that, “More recent reports of forced or coercive sterilization, such as California’s prison system sterilizing an estimated 148 incarcerated women without consent (Chappell 2013) and sterilization abuse reports from a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility (Project South et al. 2020), exemplify the ongoing need to confront eugenic legacies to achieve reproductive justice” (725).

Kaniecki, Marie, Nicole L Novak, Sarah Gao, Natalie Lira, Toni Ann Treviño, Kate O’Connor, and Alexandra Minna Stern. “Racialization and Reproduction: Asian Immigrants and California’s Twentieth-Century Eugenic Sterilization Program.” Social Forces 102, no. 2 (December 1, 2023): 706–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soad060.

In-text citations:

Chappell, Bill. “California’s prison sterilizations reportedly echo eugenics era.” National Public Radio. July 9 (2013).

South, P. “Lack of medical care unsafe work practices and absence of adequate protection against COVID-19 for detained immigrants and employees alike at the Irwin County Detention Center.” (2020).

“California recently passed legislation to compensate sterilization survivors, which include those sterilized under its eugenics law and in prisons after 1979. A 2016 study estimated up to 831 survivors of coercive eugenic sterilizations in California may still be alive, and their experiences and the racial injustices wrought by these institutions deserve acknowledgment (Stern et al. 2017)” (725).

Kaniecki, Marie, Nicole L Novak, Sarah Gao, Natalie Lira, Toni Ann Treviño, Kate O’Connor, and Alexandra Minna Stern. “Racialization and Reproduction: Asian Immigrants and California’s Twentieth-Century Eugenic Sterilization Program.” Social Forces 102, no. 2 (December 1, 2023): 706–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soad060.

“Maternity Care at the Intersections of Language, Ethnicity, and Immigration Status”

“Reproductive autonomy cannot be achieved without access to culturally and linguistically appropriate health care. Health care systems should ensure that comprehensive information is given to women, in a language and manner they can understand, with particular attention toward providing in-language services across multiple ethnicities” (618).

Sudhinaraset, May, Rebecca A. Kolodner, and Michelle Kao Nakphong. “Maternity Care at the Intersections of Language, Ethnicity, and Immigration Status: A Qualitative Study.” Women’s Health Issues 33, no. 6 (November 1, 2023): 618–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2023.04.004

“Differential Rights: How Abortion Bans Impact Latinas in Their Reproductive Years”

A UCLA policy report shows that the overturning of Roe v. Wade “has the potential to disproportionately impact Latinas more than non-Hispanic white women,” in part because “almost half of all Latinas of childbearing age live in abortion-restrictive states that threaten the reproductive rights of women.”

Morales, Jose phina Flores, and Julia Hernandez Nierenberg. 2022. “Differential Rights: How Abortion Bans Impact Latinas in Their Reproductive Years.” UCLA Latino Policy & Politics Institute, December 13, 2022. https://latino.ucla.edu/research/abortion-bans-latinas/.

“Infant Deaths After Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy”

A 2024 study found that “Texas’ 2021 ban on abortion in early pregnancy was associated with unexpected increases in infant and neonatal deaths in Texas between 2021 and 2022” (784). Further, “The results suggest that restrictive abortion policies may have important unintended consequences in terms of trauma to families and medical cost as a result of increases in infant mortality” (784).

Gemmill, Alison, Claire E. Margerison, Elizabeth A. Stuart, and Suzanne O. Bell. “Infant Deaths After Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy.” JAMA Pediatrics, June 24, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0885