Difference between revisions of "Abortion/counterlaw"
< Abortion
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "{{fmt/title|laws intended to curtail abortion|not including outright {{l/same|ban}}s}} {{nav/abortion}} ==United States== * '''Ohio''' enacted a law in February 2011 mandating...") |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==Footnote== | ==Footnote== | ||
<references> | <references> | ||
| − | <ref name=CNN1>via '''2018-03-21''' CNN: [https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/21/health/abortion-restriction-laws/index.html Abortion restrictions don’t lower rates, report says]</ref> | + | <ref name=CNN1>via '''2018-03-21''' CNN: [https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/21/health/abortion-restriction-laws/index.html Abortion restrictions don’t lower rates, report says] ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/3415/ via])</ref> |
</references> | </references> | ||
Latest revision as of 12:53, 14 August 2022
|
laws intended to curtail abortion not including outright bans
|
| abortion |
|---|
|
bans: |
United States
- Ohio enacted a law in February 2011 mandating use of FDA-approved protocol for mifepristone, which is used with misoprostol for medication abortion, requiring its use for abortion to run counter to the best medical practices. In March 2016, the FDA-protocol was updated to include proper administration for use in abortions, effectively lifting the Ohio restrictions for now.
- 2016-08-30 PLOS One: Comparison of Outcomes before and after Ohio's Law Mandating Use of the FDA-Approved Protocol for Medication Abortion: A Retrospective Cohort Study[1] «There is no evidence that the change in law led to improved abortion outcomes. Indeed, our findings suggest the opposite.»
- Texas passed a law in 2013 that restricted abortion services, resulting in a 13% decline in abortions in Texas in the 6 months after the first portions of the law went into effect. Almost half of the state's clinics had closed by April 2014.
- 2016-01-06 NIH/PubMed: Women's experiences seeking abortion care shortly after the closure of clinics due to a restrictive law in Texas[1] «The clinic closures resulted in multiple barriers to care, leading to delayed abortion care for some and preventing others from having the abortion they wanted» as well as possibly «moving women who would have had abortions in the first trimester to having second-trimester procedures», with adverse effects on public health and possibly skewing the statistics.
- Utah: In May 2012, Utah implemented a waiting period of 72 business hours between the initial clinic visit, where they receive mandated information, and a second visit where they actually obtain their abortion. This makes abortion especially difficult for poor women, who may struggle to get the necessary time off from work for even one visit, especially if travel is required.
- 2016-03 ANSIRH: Utah’s 72-Hour Waiting Period[1] (highlights PDF)
- Wisconsin: Since mid-2013, Wisconsin abortion providers have been legally required to display and describe pre-abortion ultrasound images. This has caused a statistically significant but small increase in decisions not to abort after initially seeking an abortion.
- 2017-07-26 PLOS One: Evaluating the impact of a mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound viewing law: A mixed methods study[1] «This law caused an increase in viewing rates and a statistically significant but small increase in continuing pregnancy rates. However, the majority of women were certain of their abortion decision and the law did not change their decision. Other factors were more significant in women’s decision-making, suggesting evaluations of restrictive laws should take account of the broader social environment.»